Permanente Sicherheit = kostet permanent Energie.
Nur weil du das so sagst bedeutet es noch lange nicht das es richtig ist. Eine Attacke kostet Geld, egal ob PoS oder PoW. Die Frage ist sehr einfach. Bei welchem Konsens ist es teurer die Attacke durchzuführen? Wenn du ca. 30% aller nodes beherrschen musst um die Attacke durchzuführen, musst du auch die entsprechende coins kaufen, dasselbe gilt für PoW und das Hashing Power. Welches teurer ist kommt auf die Mining Schwierigkeit und auf den Kurs an. Es geht nicht um die Einmal-Attacke. Das wäre zu kurz gedacht. Es ist eine Langfristsicherheit die eben nur PoW leistet. Alles andere hat bei weitem zu geringe OP-Risks und value at risks die völlige PERMANENTE Zentralisierung zur Folge haben. Danm ist das PoS das wir von unseren Zentralbanken besser als ein Vitalik PoS oder vergleichbares. Rechne es durch Nur PoW war der Durchbruch. PoS gab es immer schon Nur PoW erlaubt es jedem jederzeit Monopole / Oligarchien zu sprengen durch offenen Wettbewerb / echte Innovationen. Ich denke wir werden dadurch extrem effiziente Rechner überhaupt bekommen. PoS is kommunistischer Stillstand
|
|
|
I fear we re running (again) into the age of User Activated Satoshi Fakes Craig started a trend. You see how hard it is to go against first mover advantage He must be true Satoshi
|
|
|
Hmmm Google failed to update the WO's progress.Now it got more that 500K posts and not sure how many authors.But it will be atleast over 1000 members. Lol. Google needs to be replaced by BitCoin powered internet.
|
|
|
ETH ist ein zentral gesteuerter ICO shitcoin, der nun durch zentrale Steuerung auch noch mehr zentralisierter werden soll, denn PoS ist nichts anderes (Proof of Shit), wer sowas promotet, der hat BitCoin nicht verstanden. ...
Zentralisierung³ durch PoS sozusagen??? oder aber muß man auch nicht verstehen. Denk ich aber auch, ich denk mal, dass man das differenzieren muss. Zur Distribution war PoW perfekt. Aber wenn alles verteilt ist, müsste eigentlich selbst BTC einsehen, dass ein sauberes PoS besser ist. Oder wollen wir tatsächlich dann nur noch wegen der Transaktionsgebüren, die ja eigentlich so klein möglich sein sollten zig Megatonnen in die Atmosphäre blasen? PoW ist absolut nötig. Es ist die einzig sichere Firewall für eine offene BlockChain und klar man muss ständig Arbeit in Systeme reinstecken, insbes in eine Firewall!. Bei PoS ist das zuende und fix nachdem man die Stakes / DB Rechte gekauft hat. Mit PoS ist das System nicht mehr genügend offen / dezentralisierbar und damit eine geschlossene Oligarchie. Bitte dies nicht darstellen, als wäre PoS Sicher für Bitcoin. Es ist ein Schritt zurück in herkömmliche 'verteilte' Datenbankdesign. Stakeing ist Authority . Nix anneres. Es gibt genügend Material dazu. Bitte das durcharbeiten bevor Blödsinn gepostet wird. Einfache Regel Permanente Sicherheit = kostet permanent Energie. So isses halt. Nix zu machen
|
|
|
I fear we re running (again) into the age of User Activated Satoshi Fakes
|
|
|
Hodling -> selling to greater fools is not (healthy) adoption.
Use is.
Scarcity is not enough, it is needed, but not everything
Gold has lots of different use cases, so it got to the 4000y old 'store of value'.
|
|
|
Gut, um vll mal wieder ne Diskussion hier anzustoßen, behaupte ich folgendes: Sollte die Implementierung von ETH 2.0 problemlos ablaufen, wird das Flippening spätestens 2021 passieren. Gründe: - Zahl der Developer bei ETH, rasante Entwicklung einer Industrie rund um Ethereum
- Staking
- DeFi
ETH ist ein zentral gesteuerter ICO shitcoin, der nun durch zentrale Steuerung auch noch mehr zentralisierter werden soll, denn PoS ist nichts anderes (Proof of Shit), wer sowas promotet, der hat BitCoin nicht verstanden. Ein PoS Consortium is reine Oligarchie, die nicht mehr wie offenes PoW durch offenen Wettbewerb gechallenged / zerschlagen/ dezentralisiert werden kann. Ich kann nicht verstehen wer das zu Ende gedacht hat und dennoch will. Wer 'Stake' voting will, der kaufe sich Oracle / Corda DB Lizenzen und baue ein DLT mit anderen, nichts anderes ist PoS
|
|
|
[edited out]
Hey, don't dodge the question. How much did "hypothetical" little you buy around $1163 in 2013? If we are going to deal with reality rather than hypothetical, my first BTC purchase was 1.24 BTC on local bitcoins in the end of November 2013 for $1,200 per bitcoin, which would have been $1,500 for that transaction. blablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablab lablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablabl ablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablabla blablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablab lablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablabl ablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablabla blablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablab lablab my average price per BTC went up to around $750 per BTC blablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablab lablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablabl ablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablabla blablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablab lablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablabl ablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablabla blablablablablablablablablabla
blablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablab lablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablabl ablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablabla blablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablabla
Lol, its a small blockers jjg and co filling the blocks here, cause he cannot on btc
|
|
|
I just read a news about German government adopting blockchain strategy, Will this have a huge impact on bitcoin and do you think other countries will follow
Germany can be called the leading European state in the field of cryptocurrency and blockchain in general. In general, this state has always been friendly to the use of cryptocurrency. True, now I am a little worried by the statement of the German Finance Minister that since the currency is a key moment in the sovereignty of the state, they will not leave the cryptocurrency in private hands. Apparently, this means the release of cryptocurrency by private individuals. Perhaps it is in this connection that Germany and other countries of the European Union so categorically negatively oppose the circulation of Libra coins on its territory. Of course, private cryptocurrency carries a lot more risk to users than cryptocurrency issued by the state. However, states create only a centralized cryptocurrency and in this regard there will always be a difference between them. I d rather vote for Switzerland to be the leading state in Europe in terms of blockchain and crypto dev and adoption. Have a look how far FINMA is compared to BAFIN
|
|
|
As Bitcoin is declared legal in Germany it is right that they should adopt the blockchain technology too for their system. The blockchain is proven fast and secure it could be applicable in any system specially if the security is concern. Like in US Pentagon that they have already applied the blockchain technology to their defense system.
Yes - they looking for a very efficient transparent scalable BLOCKCHAIN tech - I cannot see segwit / LN / cripplechain in it ...
|
|
|
Im Übrigen finde ich es auffällig, dass der aktuell wieder leicht schwächelnden BTC-Kurs zum ersten Mal seit langem wieder einher geht mit einem leichten Erstarken der Shitcoins. Das könnte auf eine veränderte Dynamik hinweisen, nach der wieder zwischen Coins "umgeschichtet" wird, wie wir das auch in früheren Blasen erlebt haben. Wenn mich meine Erinnerung nicht trügt, waren solche Umschichtungen im letzten Hype-Cycle typisch für die Anfangsphase der Big Bubble. Neues ATH noch in diesem Jahr? Mein Bauch sagt 50/50. Hmm... Würde man das so weiterspinnen und die vergangenen Zyklen einbeziehen, dann gehen sowohl BTC als auch die Top Altcoins steil, der Tod der Shitcoins wird erneut verschoben. Ob das noch in diesem Jahr passiert... ja gut, weiß ich nicht. Mein Bauch sagt: keine Ahnung. Ohne hartes Durchgreifen vom Regulator wird es kaum ein ShitcoinSterben geben. Aber es kommt... https://www.coindesk.com/doj-brings-extortion-charges-against-early-advisor-to-ethereum-tzero
|
|
|
"People are not relevant too much?" Looks like you guys are trying to distance yourselves from Calvin and Craig. Looks like the tech has issues chief......might want to speak to the "devs". Nice scam, make a wallet that doesn't allow withdrawals thats one way to burn coins out of the exchanges. There is always the option of boycott, other wallets exist, like https://simply.cash/If major issues WeiBlock.app would be full of complaints . aaand it s very easy to distinguish trolls from constructive critics
|
|
|
Come on guys, right from the start Craig Wright was Wrong when he said he is Satoshi because he can't prove what Vitalik wants him to do which is put a signature using the private key using bitcoin block #1. Well, there are many things we can add up to prove he is just another conman. But we still give him props because he was one of the Faketoshi who made it big and have his own cult.
If Vitalik commands u to prove - would u really? LoL - never Edit: Not to this scammy folks ever: https://twitter.com/notgrubles/status/1174408215674728449?s=19
|
|
|
Pls be serious - there is no reason why that should happen at all.
if we no longer have the right to dream, then where the world is going You decided to not go the path of a philosopher. U will not find the truth if u believe into dreams
|
|
|
The Fed is rushing 53 billion dollars of liquidity into the financial system.
Markets were caught in a "perfect storm" on Tuesday, forcing the U.S. Federal Reserve to intervene for the first time in ten years. This is the kind of emergency response that brings back bad memories, those of the 2008 financial crisis. The US Federal Reserve (Fed, central bank) was forced to inject $53 billion (€48 billion) of liquidity into the financial system on Tuesday morning to contain the level of interest rates on the repurchase market.
This market allows cash-strapped institutions to find the funds they need to spend the night, by temporarily selling securities in exchange, most often treasury bills. Repurchase operations are low-risk and are financed at rates that are expected to move in the same direction as those of the Fed, within a range of between 2% and 2.25%.
But these repo rates have tightened sharply, reaching 6% on Monday afternoon and 10% on Tuesday morning. Financial markets have been caught in what the Financial Times calls a "perfect storm", forcing the Fed to intervene for the first time in ten years. Clearly, there was no longer any money at a reasonable price and the Central Bank of New York had to make 75 billion dollars of liquidity available urgently (53 billion dollars were consumed). There are many explanations: first, American companies had to pay their taxes on September 15, which reduced the amount of dollars available. Then, the U.S. Treasury, whose deficits are soaring, held auctions that were supposed to be settled on Monday for $78 billion, and the banks, by subscribing to them, had to consume their reserves in dollars. Finally, the same Treasury had an extremely low level of reserves with the Fed ($184 billion on September 11, compared to an average of $400 billion since 2015) and it would have been tempted to increase the level of its bank account after the debt ceiling was raised by Congress.
This would explain the crisis. According to a source close to the central bankers, it is assured that this is a technical problem and that there are no hidden wolves. Rates had returned to their normal level on Tuesday afternoon. Nevertheless, the case raises concerns, as the Fed closes its two-day meetings on Wednesday, September 18. A debate is starting to take place as to whether there is enough liquidity in the financial system.
Since the 2008 crisis, the Monetary Institution had bought the banks' claims (the famous quantitative easing) to maintain liquidity in the markets, but it has since reversed its course and reduced the number of securities in its portfolio. As a result, banks have less cash reserves available from the Fed (USD 1,300 billion compared to USD 2,900 billion in 2014), making them more vulnerable to a sudden need for liquidity. Interventions of this type were frequent before the 2008 crisis," says French economist Thomas Philippon, a professor at New York University.
Finally, the Financial Times explores a final possibility, that of the recent ups and downs on the black gold market that could have created a market effect. In addition, there is the problem of Saudi Arabia, the kingdom being partially deprived of dollar revenues with the temporary paralysis of its oil installations. To meet its expenses, Riyadh could have drawn on its dollar reserves.
In any case, the case shows the nervousness of the financial markets despite the accommodating policy of the central banks.
Let us look at it positively, these 53 billion will most probably be squandered in the crypto world BSV - CLOAK - CROWN and others...
Pls be serious - there is no reason why that should happen at all.
|
|
|
I don't think it's that important, because if we find Satoshi, a lot of people might be disappointed in him.
Fully agree - he is a myth already and many ppl like to have their own idea about what Satoshi should be - and what not
|
|
|
|