 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »
|
Bitcoin will be too expensive to use as a daily currency, too slow and can not scale fast enough.
LOL |
|
|
|
If I understand it correctly, this paper: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdfon page 8 argues that the probability of an attacker generating an alternate chain depends on the number of confirmations (z), not on the time between confirmations. Is the analysis wrong? I believe that paper is referring to the likelihood per attack. If the attacker has 10% hashrate and confirmation time is 4 blocks, they have a 1% chance of a successful brute force attack. If there are ~10,000 blocks per hour, they could have thousands of tries. The first results at the top of page 8 would be the case of an attacker having 10% of the total hashrate. The calculated result is that if you have four confirmations (z=4) then P=0.0035, i.e., the probability of a successful attack is 0.35%. With six confirmations the probability of a successful attack drops to 0.02%. With ten confirmations the probability of a successful attack is 0.0000012 or about one in a million. Note that this is independent of the confirmation rate. You can make the confirmation time as short as you want, and the analysis is the same. You may be right banana, I had never really looked at that equation. If I was wrong, I can own that. Still, this idea that a confirmation of a minute vs 10 minutes. The block size is about to go to 20MB, can you imagine a 1 minute block time with 20MB block? It would cause so many forks. By the time there are actually enough transactions to make a block 20MB, bandwidth and related things will be much higher. You want to do your own analysis of how a larger block size affects forking rate? I agree. In terms of 0 confirmation spends, 1 minute might as well be 10 minutes might as well be 100 minutes. Your average credit card transaction is on the order of seconds. NO store is going to be willing to wait for a confirmation in either case. This is why coinbase exists, they don't need to wait, the store gets the green light immediately and coinbase takes the risk. As the volume goes up, that fee will go down no doubt. This is also totally separate from sidechain solutions. |
|
|
|
If I understand it correctly, this paper: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdfon page 8 argues that the probability of an attacker generating an alternate chain depends on the number of confirmations (z), not on the time between confirmations. Is the analysis wrong? I believe that paper is referring to the likelihood per attack. If the attacker has 10% hashrate and confirmation time is 4 blocks, they have a 1% chance of a successful brute force attack. If there are ~10,000 blocks per hour, they could have thousands of tries. The first results at the top of page 8 would be the case of an attacker having 10% of the total hashrate. The calculated result is that if you have four confirmations (z=4) then P=0.0035, i.e., the probability of a successful attack is 0.35%. With six confirmations the probability of a successful attack drops to 0.02%. With ten confirmations the probability of a successful attack is 0.0000012 or about one in a million. Note that this is independent of the confirmation rate. You can make the confirmation time as short as you want, and the analysis is the same. You may be right banana, I had never really looked at that equation. If I was wrong, I can own that. Still, this idea that a confirmation of a minute vs 10 minutes. The block size is about to go to 20MB, can you imagine a 1 minute block time with 20MB block? It would cause so many forks. |
|
|
|
You don't know what you are talking about. Faster blocks doesn't mean anything. If bitcoin forked to 1 minute block times, then a transaction with 10 confirmations would be just as secure as one with one confirmation how it is now. It's not the number of confirmations, its TIME.
That's not true. Each block race is a discrete event, so the chance of a specific miner beating the world to a set of, say, six blocks in a row should be roughly the same regardless of the time between blocks. Difficulty might change the curve a little, but, for the most part, it's the chance of winning a set of races cumulatively that matters. Given X amount of hashpower and Y difficulty, the time to find a block on average is 10 minutes. The block time is manipulated by adjusting the difficulty, so your statement is incorrect. If you want 1 minute bitcoin blocktimes with the same amount of hashpower that exists today, you must decrease the difficulty by a factor of 10, you can't get around that. So you see, decreasing the time between blocks does nothing, it just decreases the difficulty and thus the security. So I say again..security of the blockchain given X amount of hashpower is proportional to time, not blocks. Your belief is a common misconception. |
|
|
|
You don't know what you are talking about. Faster blocks doesn't mean anything. If bitcoin forked to 1 minute block times, then a transaction with 10 confirmations would be just as secure as one with one confirmation how it is now. It's not the number of confirmations, its TIME.
That's not true. Each block race is a discrete event, so the chance of a specific miner beating the world to a set of, say, six blocks in a row should be roughly the same regardless of the time between blocks. Difficulty might change the curve a little, but, for the most part, it's the chance of winning a set of races cumulatively that matters. This is wrong 100%. The hash power needed to race the network is the same in both cases. The thing that secures the network is TIME, the block time is merely chosen as a number that minimizes forks and allows for propogation, that's it. |
|
|
|
There are already hundreds if not thousands of things you can do with bitcoins and practically nothing an altcoin can do that bitcoin can't.
Can the bitcoin network provide 6 confirmations of a transaction in 6 minutes? Nope, Dogecoin can. Can Bitcoin process 270 transactions per second? Nope, Litecoin can. In fact with the greedy bitcoin miners racing to find each block by adding as few transactions as possible it is not uncommon to wait more than 24 hours for a bitcoin transaction (without a hefty fee) to confirm. The effect of this is the total reliance on centralized companies such as coinbase, circle, changetip amongst others. This totally defeats satoshi's vision of crypto. Like I said, bitcoin will have to hardfork to reach the performance levels of even the slowest altcoins that came after it. The 3 year head start gave bitcoin the massive network effect, and this will be virtually impossible to surpass by another coin. But don't try to tell me that bitcoin is where it is because it is a superior performng coin. It is very slow. You guys are lucky Charles Lee didn't create litecoin within 12 months of the bitcoin genesis block because things would be a lot different now. You don't know what you are talking about. Faster blocks doesn't mean anything. If bitcoin forked to 1 minute block times, then a transaction with 10 confirmations would be just as secure as one with one confirmation how it is now. It's not the number of confirmations, its TIME. |
|
|
|
Whatever the terms of the buyback are, it seems abundantly clear that there will be no preferential treatment. The ONLY way I can see to accomplish that is to spread the monthly payout amongst every single coin in escrow. Otherwise it would create a situation where certain people are paid before others. I had seen posters speculating back when he first announced the buy back that Josh would likely pay off big investors or even put his own coins in escrow & pay those off first. But I guess he realizes or his lawyers explained to him that he can't get away with that.
People over at HashTalk keep posting, asking who will be paid first, how long it will take & if early adopters will get preferential payouts. Really? Are they that braindead that they have not put it together that the monthly payout will be spread evenly across all coins in escrow?
I can see this happening, 500,000 coins are put in escrow by users, then Josh comes along and puts 5 Million coins from the premine in escrow. Then Josh will pay out $500,000 per month, well above the $100,000 minimum he stated during the initial buyback program announcement. He'll get to say "Look! I am paying 5x what I promised!" & true participants who put coins in escrow can look forward to a .002¢ per coin payout per month for the rest of their lives.
I am in shock people are actually buying this crap! Sure there are stupid people out there, but how did they get money to buy XPY after they fell for the African Ambassador who needs help getting his money out of the bank emails? Because that's the kind of people Josh is dealing with.
You are spot on, he will flood the escrow to dilute the payout to real xpy holders. It's actually kind of genius, he gets to stave off the $20 per paycoin disaster while at the same time laundering the money into his own personal coffer. Notice how the escrow is paid in BTC? :| Yep, and I seen someone asking last night how much he was going to put into escrow. If it was just the month to month installments or the entire amount of BTC. I am willing to bet it will just be the month-to-month amount. This went unanswered of course. I really hope law enforcement steps in soon...this is insane |
|
|
|
Whatever the terms of the buyback are, it seems abundantly clear that there will be no preferential treatment. The ONLY way I can see to accomplish that is to spread the monthly payout amongst every single coin in escrow. Otherwise it would create a situation where certain people are paid before others. I had seen posters speculating back when he first announced the buy back that Josh would likely pay off big investors or even put his own coins in escrow & pay those off first. But I guess he realizes or his lawyers explained to him that he can't get away with that.
People over at HashTalk keep posting, asking who will be paid first, how long it will take & if early adopters will get preferential payouts. Really? Are they that braindead that they have not put it together that the monthly payout will be spread evenly across all coins in escrow?
I can see this happening, 500,000 coins are put in escrow by users, then Josh comes along and puts 5 Million coins from the premine in escrow. Then Josh will pay out $500,000 per month, well above the $100,000 minimum he stated during the initial buyback program announcement. He'll get to say "Look! I am paying 5x what I promised!" & true participants who put coins in escrow can look forward to a .002¢ per coin payout per month for the rest of their lives.
I am in shock people are actually buying this crap! Sure there are stupid people out there, but how did they get money to buy XPY after they fell for the African Ambassador who needs help getting his money out of the bank emails? Because that's the kind of people Josh is dealing with.
You are spot on, he will flood the escrow to dilute the payout to real xpy holders. It's actually kind of genius, he gets to stave off the $20 per paycoin disaster while at the same time laundering the money into his own personal coffer. Notice how the escrow is paid in BTC? :| |
|
|
|
Go back to your troll hole ya piece of trash.
I just crawled into the troll hole they call it BCtalk You must feel good about yourself, helping lead all these lemmings off the cliff, banning any questioning of the great leader like it's North fucking Korea. |
|
|
|
|
There is no way out for this fucker, I'm willing to bet he thought his honor program would prop up the price near $20 due to arbitrage so his actual price to maintain the program would be way less than 100k, but it's not going to work. You can't discount his sheep though, they will pump every last dime they have into this. I love how he somehow expects people to just give away their coins with no actual terms tied, but i suppose its not a stretch for his sheople. It's no matter i guess, he will just flood his own escrow essentially paying himself or use it as a way to launder money away from paybase to his own coffers while the sheep get a satoshi per month.
|
|
|
|
|
Hilarious! You can tell his motivation. He is following through on his earlier "reveal"TM that they have gotten to the bottom of things. Man this guy is unreal. He is always attempting to plant a seed. His insinuation flew over the heads of his GAWsheep.
|
|
|
|
 It's fairly obvious what Josh™ is planning here. This is a major CYA for Josh for what is about to come. Namely a bankruptcy which will wipe out all liability for the honor program. At least I think this is his backup plan for now. Going forward he wants to see how many paycoins he can lock into this honor program, removing sell pressure so they can continue to sell to more sheeple at a propped up price. He refuses to answer questions on priority of payout, and constantly tries to reassure that 100,000 is the minimum but that doesn't mean it wont be higher! *wink wink*, won't give information on bonding the program to assure payout, there will be zero transparency of how many coins are in escrow, who got paid etc, and they will flood the shit out of the escrow with their own coins that cost them ZERO to acquire. The payouts will be ABSURDLY low for all the sheeple that put their coins into it, the lawsuits will start flying around, and that's when he executes the backup plan. My 2 cents |
|
|
|
Be careful, as we get closer to feb more people will realize that the "buyback" doesn't actually start till march, and that they will not get their actual 20 for a while.
It doesn't even start in March. The enrollment ends March 2, and buybacks are on the first of the month, so the earliest possible date for the first payment is April 1. The buyback as they've described it is a seriously stupid idea. It gives them a short-term boost at best, for a long-term liability that costs them real money. Plus, after it's started, if they make the payments month after month it's not news after a while, so they get little good PR out of it. But if they ever miss or reduce the payments it's bad PR. I fully expect that if this thing goes forward there won't be any actual payouts. Some sock puppet will pop up on crashtalk (or whatever the hell POS forum they have going at the time) saying "Thanks for buying all my XPY at $20 paybase! You're gawsome!" or some equally brown nosed comment and no actual real purchases will ever take place. It seems equally likely that the whole thing will get quietly pushed to a back burner, then disappeared and forgotten like so many other promises from josh. All they have to do is flood the escrow with their own coins, which will delay/minimize payments to 'real' people to effectively infinity. Pretty easy when you own the keys to kingdom, especially when you know you can just stake the shit out of your 3000% controllers to more than make up for the GAW coins 'In Escrow' which by the way they will give ZERO visibility into anyways so its really moot. |
|
|
|
I really do not see how GAW/Josh can be solvent as a business. With BTC so low now and XPY always floundering and falling atm. How can he possibly meet all his obligations to his community, let alone any investors and then the buy back that is planned. Some pages back I remember Suchmoon posted a list of dates that was supposed to take place (announcements, new features etc) I wonder how those are coming along? There is so much littered around pertaining to paycoin its hard to track it all lol. I suppose the new Op is a great record of all this...  what a gawsome mess though. Let's not underestimate the amount of money they have taken in, remember they reduced their mining payouts to basically zero and began selling a coin that essentially cost them ZERO. Without a doubt, there is no way in hell that GAW pays this 20 dollars per coin for all coins in that escrow. Most likely it goes to this "third party" in escrow as they stated, then that third party will get hacked. Not to mention that they could themselves flood the escrow account with their own coins essentially paying themselves this 20 per coin which costs them nothing, which effectively would delay their payments to real customers to infinity. The reason they can do this is they know they can just stake the shit out of their own coin because they own the rights to do so. |
|
|
|
The issue sounds like what was mentioned before: no holding tank. People were buying the gift cards with XPY, the system was selling those XPY for BTC in order to pay for the gift cards. Instead of the user's XPY being placed in a holding tank and then released gradually into the market after the fact, since Homero does not have BTC to cover the purchases himself, for every XPY gift card purchase, the system immediately sold off the received XPY into the market, cascading until it hit what zero cents? Pretty pathetic. Amusing watching some of the apologists fuming in particular that pilot who who used come around here declaring that "they just making mistakes give them time". Well, hit him not only directly in the pocket this time, but also flush in the gonads !  Yeah well, you can create a holding tank, but all you do is delay the inevitable. GAW doesn't have a plan for hedging the risk of a holding tank. There is absolutely nothing they can do to fix the buy side of their coin. They certainly won't buy it! The GAWkers want to use their coin, but the reality is that them using it crashes the price. |
|
|
|
|
This makes TNABC look so bad. I really feel for Moe, but he did it to himself. Josh™/GAW™/PayFlashCrash™/Payscam™/PayBase™/Payshit™™™ is the antithesis of bitcoin. It's clear they just took the money without realizing the consequences. Seeing that PayBase logo up on the wall next to bitcoin made me physically ill.
|
|
|
|
|
What a freaking debacle! When are these people going to wake up? You can't make this stuff up. If the reports of wrong cards/amounts are true then Payscam™ just lost alot of money. Gyft won't be cancelling those buys lol.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm merely curious. I was reading up on some PoW vs PoS information and I realized I didn't fully understand how PoS worked.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for that summary. So does this encourage people splitting their coins into a myriad of addresses for a higher likelyhood of an address being able to forge, or is this prevented somehow where forging is a percentage of the address balance that "wins" the block? I guess I'm not understanding how difficulty is calculated in PoS.
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin has this "governor", if you will, for the speed at which blocks come out by using difficulty. In POS land, how does this work? How do they prevent staking over and over with lightning speed?
|
|
|
|
|
