If you wanna understand the basics of how bitcoin works, i suggest you start with the whitepaper: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf. About price formation here are some academical papers related to bitcoin: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=price+formation+bitcoin&btnG=What i would personally look into as factors: - The cost of mining - Supply shocks like halving events - On Chain activity - Monetary policy - Competing currencies - Degree of adoption - Exchange capabilities - Scarcity - Security - Speculation - Market sentiment (there’s indicators like the fear & greed index, might be worth looking into what factors they take into account) - Market manipulation And here an interesting thought: As a thought experiment, imagine there was a base metal as scarce as gold but with the following properties:
- boring grey in colour
- not a good conductor of electricity
- not particularly strong, but not ductile or easily malleable either
- not useful for any practical or ornamental purpose
and one special, magical property:
- can be transported over a communications channel
If it somehow acquired any value at all for whatever reason, then anyone wanting to transfer wealth over a long distance could buy some, transmit it, and have the recipient sell it.
Maybe it could get an initial value circularly as you've suggested, by people foreseeing its potential usefulness for exchange. (I would definitely want some) Maybe collectors, any random reason could spark it.
I think the traditional qualifications for money were written with the assumption that there are so many competing objects in the world that are scarce, an object with the automatic bootstrap of intrinsic value will surely win out over those without intrinsic value. But if there were nothing in the world with intrinsic value that could be used as money, only scarce but no intrinsic value, I think people would still take up something.
(I'm using the word scarce here to only mean limited potential supply)
|
|
|
|
In my opinion, CBDCs are designed to be the only money in the world. It will be a financial monopoly. All other money will be prohibited. In my opinion, this is exactly the idea of CBDC....
If you understand economics then you will understand this can only work in theory, because everything can be used as money. Example: Cigarettes are used as money in prison. The only thing they will achieve is creating a huge shadow economy. If they really make a cbdc this restrictive and prohibit everything else, then people will just settle in other forms of money when needed. People can settle their daily needs in a cbdc and then circumvent the system for everything else, there’s nothing that can stop this in practice. cash is used by criminals and terrorists
It’s not about which tool they use, if they kill cash then criminals and terrorists can use gold or anything else. Cash should be a human right, because in 99% of cases it’s used by regular citizens and it will only kill privacy and freedom for them. And if just 1 other country doesn’t ban cash, then they can settle in this currency, so it’s really just regular people that are affected by this. |
|
|
|
This is really environmental concern
Look at how the same people trying to ban this travel around and then think about this again. However, I think that all Bitcoin users and miners shout be more aware of their impact om environment and try to find the way how to contribute to its protection.
Mining is already economically incentivized to use the cheapest energy available, which is energy that wouldve went to waste. The block reward already subsidizes the building of renewable energy sources, that wouldnt have been possible otherwise, because of how the energy market works(power spikes). Its more than any of these politcians ever did. I think its a stretch to even buy 1% into this hysteria and say BTC should do more, because its already greener relative to how countries generate their energy and just ignores real environmental concerns(where theyre silent about). |
|
|
|
Do you think countries worldwide will ban Bitcoin mining due to environmental concerns?
The better question to this is, can they and will it have lasting effects and will enough countries do it? And the answer to this is no. If mining is banned, do you think Bitcoin will switch to PoS?
Maybe some altcoin will, but not BTCWill it still survive being a PoW cryptocurrency?
1000% then cryptocurrencies with PoW algorithms will be forced to switch to PoS altogether.
Also this isnt possible if you look at how nodes work. Growth for the pioneer cryptocurrency will stifle, forcing miners to close down their business for good.
This FUD, bans and so on exist since years, yet bitcoin has more hashpower than ever and is the most successfull asset of all since its beginning and is still here doing fine. If not, why?
You can check out the technical development section, there was many great answers to this. Dont buy into the FUD guys. |
|
|
|
Shower thought. What if Bitcoin switched from POW to POS, and all of the world Central Banks' in the world printed enough fiat currency to buy 51% of the coins, then controlled the network.
What would "cost" more, the cost of printing enough fiat currency to buy > 51% of "POS Bitcoin" coins, or the cost of printing enough currency to have > 51% hashing power in the Bitcoin network?
So first i would start looking at the costs to produce more fiat. -> it’s basically 0 and there’s no limit on how much can be created, but it doesn’t mean an attack like this is easy. So i think the difference in terms of an attack comes down to: - In PoS: 1. If they buy half of all coins in a short amount of time, then the chain would likely just be reset to before the attack and it was printed for nothing, also the price of the coins would increase dramatically because of the huge demand(but they have unlimited money to buy more so it wouldn’t stop it), basically the sellers would keep their coins and the fiat. 2. I think a smarter and more likely scenario would be the central banks accumulating coins in secret and over a long period of time. They could spread everything over many staking pools or just keep their coins in secret till then. Like this they could gain control over the network without anyone noticing. It would be hard to reset the chain, because it could affect years worth of transactions. And this attack is basically free or could even make the central banks money, depending on what their goal is. - In PoW: The limit here is on how much hardware can be produced and the energy, organization, time and expertise required to run them. It doesn’t matter how much money they have, because the supply of miners is limited by real world resources and production, money cant overcome this limit directly. Also there’s real world supply chain management going on, so it would be hard to buy them in complete secret over the years and to get more than everyone else at the same time. Also it will take real energy to run the miners, which is a limited resource again, they can’t just take the population’s energy for this, without getting into serious trouble, imagine millions of people energy bill exploding or being shut off. So they would need to build new facilities just for this and again it’s hard to hide this and the network could already notice. It will also take a lot of coordination, hiring and innovation to build all this and keep it functional(which the government is terrible at). In the theoretical case they can overcome the resources, energy, organizational and time constraints(which comes at a huge cost): The network could just switch to a different mining algorithm and all this effort was for nothing and would render everything they did useless. So i think it’s obvious which attack is cheaper and more effective. |
|
|
|
|
1. Love the design, i think they can make for great collectibles and you could release different versions later down the road.
2. Amazing concept, i think this makes for great UX. Will definitely use this to spice gifts up. Is there an easy way for non key holders to verify what’s on the bill and that it’s genuine?
3. I would add some place in the app that will explain the expiration date, just in case there’s misconceptions and people think their Bitcoin will expire.
|
|
|
|
How will BTC PoW survive as the governments ban it's mining?
Look at china. Energy that wouldnt have been used in the grid is hard to trace or „shut off“. Also how will the btc network function, when the power is off from 9am-12noon, and 7pm-10pm, everyday?
Omg this made me laugh. Bitcoin exists worldwide in different time zones, your 9am in the UK, is a completely different time somewhere else, so they couldnt even launch universal shutdowns worldwide at the same time. Will they also shut down the sun, wind, volcanoes, hydro and other renewables? Use your head before buying into media hysteria. It just shows how resilient PoW in a worldwide network can be. Also how will the miners survive once a carbon tax is enacted and it makes mining a pure financial negative?
Mine with renewables, like the majority already does(to my knowledge). Then you call other people boring. //Edit: Most energy from renewables actually goes to waste, because it’s hard to store and most demand for energy occurs during certain peak times. This actually makes it perfect for PoW, because you will always have a buyer for your renewable energy 24/7. So PoW actually subsidizes renewables, that would struggle to even find a buyer for their energy during certain times of the day, at the same time. Then during peak demand, the energy can just be sent to the grid for everyone to use. So PoW mining actually tackles a problem in the real world with a sound and practical solution. It’s nice that PoS chains spend more time playing with jpgs and tokens than to solve actual problems, but don’t worry PoW is here to to do actual sound work for everyone to use. |
|
|
|
Yes you can return your investments from Bitcoin without new investors, if you’re financially literate. Example: You could set up a trust fund with Bitcoin and Dollars in it and pull out your profits from time to time, and the trust’s value wouldn’t be lower than when you started it.
In that case the entity behind the trust fund is a new investor. Try again. Let's me help you. In a banking system you hold units of debt and you benefit when the debt is paid. So, no new investor needed. In a product, you hold intrinsic value and you benefit by satisfying your needs with that value. Again, no new investor needed. In a company you hold shares in capital. Capital produces intrinsic value or is itself intrinsic value, which you also can use for satisfying your needs. So again, no new investor needed. In the bitcoin system you hold units of that system, and the only thing this system does is store record about its own units. Hence, a system that exists for its own sake. How do you benefit from this without new investors? Nice try, but one entity can be grantor and beneficiary at the same time. Yet no Bitcoin sold, no loss on the balance sheet and more fiat cashed out. That’s actually how El Salvador handles their Bitcoin and it’s a really smart design. You got proven wrong. |
|
|
|
Ok now i got it, thanks. I didnt even know the problem existed until now. I just checked out the GitHub and i think they’re trying out solutions for this already. I also read that this apperntly will get fixed by itself over time. Like basicly its not a big issue anymore. Just a recompile over time.
If you write C++ code using chrono::system_clock or chrono::steady_clock now and update ESP-IDF once the 2038 problem is solved, the code should keep working after 2038 with just a recompile against the newer libc & libstdc++.
But in the theoretical case a hard fork would be necessary for this, i cant imagine people in the year 2038 would be refusing to fork, if their wealth was on the line. But i also think it’s important to try to solve this earlier. It's about the initial chain download. It should be faster. A lot faster. For now, it can take many days, and that should be improved somehow.
I thought about this too and that it can be a problem in the future. I just think it’s more sound that Bitcoin grows gradually with the technology around it, to make sure it’s security is top notch. Extreme measures like this could go against the principle of what made Bitcoin what it is in the first place. And then again for many technical problems there could be non technical solutions, in case technology doesn’t catch up, like for example services that sync the chain locally(which already exist now). To me it’s just more likely that technology will actually catch up and the whole world won’t adopt bitcoin tomorrow, so we still have time. |
|
|
|
I don't know. It depends. It is true for now, but I am not sure it will be true in the future. For example, there are proposals like CoinPool. In general, there are proposals to put more people into a channel. Also, there are some ideas flying around, how to solve the problem with on-chain interaction. You know what does it mean? It means Bitcoin could end up in a scenario, where there would be no need to open or close channels, because it will be resolved by more deep layers. So, it could be possible to have some opened LN channel, and then create some coins on L3, without touching L1, everything inside L2. Then, it could be possible to extend "a coin in a coin" or "a layer based on a layer" to that extent, that it could require no interaction with on-chain coins.
We gotta see this in practice and the implications of it, it could definitely be a double edged sword. More advanced does not mean "better". Also, the current consensus has its limitations, and the whole chain will stop, unless there will be some hard fork. But as far as I know the Bitcoin community, they will use hard forks only if they will be forced to do so. And by "forced" I really mean "forced". Maybe 2038 year problem will be resolved by increasing timestamps in a soft-fork way? Maybe when the chain will stop, the last block will be endlessly replaced? Maybe people would start making the blockchain smaller, by completing "D" in the "CRUD" model, so that "Delete" operation will be executed by overwriting the chain, and adding the hash of the previous chain in the first block after the Genesis Block? Why not? We could start mining on top of the Genesis Block, and produce 2016 blocks so strong, that they will be stronger than ever (so that will trigger the biggest chain reorganization ever), and then we can pretend that the Genesis Block is not from 2009, but from "2009+offset"? And what then? Because there are a lot of ways, how soft-forks or no-forks can save the day, and be used to avoid hard-forks always and forever.
But the hardware will evolve, i think its false to assume, there wont be any more significant progress in a timeframe of the next 30-120 years. People in the year 2100 wont be running around with the same rpi4 with 1 tb ssd, its just unrealisitc. So then when people are actually running into limits and they see the hardware is capable to store bigger chains, it wouldnt be rational or economical to keep the chain unusable. Just like it isnt rational rn to increase the blocksize when we didnt run into limits and cheap hardware cant handle a huge chain yet. Why would the chain stop without a hard fork? And why should the bitcoin community do useless hard forks for no reason? Anyone is free to do their own hard fork at any time, but the majority won’t follow scams. Blockchains are supposed to be append only, if we’re going back to CRUD we can just go back to traditional databases. I don’t get the point, it’s already possible to run pruned nodes so no need to castrate the whole chain. I can see a different trend. People think that no block size increase is needed, so also no increase in the use of the mainchain is needed. I think it could be reduced, because a lot of soft-forks and no-forks can be used to make things happen, no matter what developers want, and without their permission.
It can be increased when necessary, it’s really that simple. What’s the rational argument behind increasing the hardware requirements now, when we didn’t ran into a limit yet and adoption isn’t big enough yet. Timing is important in this case, why trade decentralization for scalability now, when we didn’t even run into a scalability limit yet that made Bitcoin unusable. But at a later point in time, the decentralization compromise might be negligible with better hardware and then people can consider it again. I think that will be true in the future. Exactly that last sentence about "getting tyrannical". And I mean "really tyrannical", so not increasing the max block size is one thing, but I can also imagine making the whole chain smaller than it currently is, so for example going from the current ~450 GB to ~1 GB in the future. All that is needed is reaching consensus, and creating some Proof of Work that would overwrite the chain. I think it is possible, if miners could be rewarded directly in the Lightning Network. Another thing is that doing it once is more than enough. Some soft-fork or no-fork could make it permanent, and alter all rules.
I can see the tyrannical part happening, but then again if most users don’t get served anymore they have the power to fork into a non tyrannical network. But what point would deleting the chain serve and how would it work in practice? No one will agree to this, if you don’t believe me, try it and see how many nodes would follow. The point of Bitcoin is immutability. There are many reasons, feel free to pick anything, or even extend that list:
1) they don't have good and working solutions for some problems
2) they don't care, they hope that things will be fixed automatically, when we will get there
3) they don't want to implement it now, when something is too crazy to reach consensus right here and right now
Nah i dont think so it just doesn’t make sense psychologically, the playing field in a few decades will be completely different than now. I don't care about "legal reasons", because in many countries, the law is outdated, and it cannot catch the crypto world correctly. For example, imagine that Satoshi invented the simplest tax system that is possible: transaction fee. If you govern a country and use crypto, you can keep being just some user, even if you are a government, and it will work fine, it will just be a different scale. If you want to mint new coins, you don't have to reinvent the wheel, and create CBDC for your local currency, when you could just use existing crypto, right? Also, you don't have to force your citizens to fill some papers, to go through the whole system of "spaghetti law", you can just collect transaction fees, and not require any additional fees than that. If you want, you can require an explicit payment, you can show each user the explicit amount they have to pay, and you can make things very simple. So why governments don't want to go that way? I have no idea, maybe they are missing the bigger picture of what is possible, and the whole reason that such ideas can also be beneficial for them.
The problem is that individuals in the government don’t benefit from efficiency, it would mean less positions, lower budgets, less control and no one to blame. And laws will probably be completely different about crypto by the time Bitcoin reaches mass adoption. There will be use cases and demand for transactions on public ledgers in the business space for sure, it could just be deducted as a business expense. |
|
|
|
funny thing is..
"snowshow" has said the exact same silly argument about 4 times now on 4 different accounts. and each time people like Doomad dont realise its the same person as he was arguing with before.
oh well.
to doomad(you insulting naive little man)
(nice edit to add "and accounts" after reading my post.. seems it only took you a couple months of arguing with the same person to then suddenly want to edit a post TODAY.. shame you didnt realise a couple months ago)
lets just conclude the argument(scam test)
1. fiat bank notes.... people holding bank notes do not gain anything from holding bank notes. no interest.. infact the longer they hold bank notes the less value you have.
yep inflation.. kills value of bank notes slowly
bitcoin however gains value slowly(deflation) so without selling it. you are storing more potential value for later... test pass for bitcoin
it also has many uses without selling it.
i personally programmed a security mechanism to only unlock a door when i send myself some coin(not sell just move coin between addresses i own) (IoT project)
and just like a house that does nothing but sit on land. i can prove ownership of my value and watch it appreciate in value, (unlike a bank note)
also just like a house, without selling it i could use bitcoin as collateral to get a loan. still in my possession but used to validate getting a loan.
you would be very surprised the amount of things you can do with a btc transaction without ever having to sell the coin. (transaction confirmation to another address you own+IoT projects, research it)
thousands of businesses have been created around the bitcoin ecosystem. its created millions of jobs.
many networks have been created using bitcoin as the collateral(peg).
heck i even remember someone that had a jetski rental and a mini golf course where by people could rent out the equipment by locking up btc as security/insurance/deposit. and they get it back/unlocked if they return equipment. thus again no "sell' just collateral
i knew someone that would mine gold 5000 miles away. and need leased land to mine on it. they put BTC up as collateral. whereby they didnt have to pay anything upfront for the equipment on the land already. nor sell the btc.. all they had to do was fulfill the lease contract of bringing back X ounces of gold at the end of the season. the BTC never sold. and the equipment was used for free, where the miner mined enough gold to pay the lease owner and keep some gold for himself too
I have a single question for you: can someone return their investment in the bitcoin system without funds contributed by new investors? No one cares about your philosophy about banks. Just answer my simple question. Can you get more dollars without another person/entity giving it to you? You dont understand that Bitcoiners dont want more dollars, they want more Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Yes.. that is about 110 to 120 years into the future. Sure, we need to plan ahead, but I doubt that your assertion that no solution has been found is even accurate. It's not like a solution has to be found for every single hair brained theory when we do not even know if the facts are going to evolve into that direction... Makes no sense to have a solution ready for every single possible problem that could happen. In other words, there seems to be sufficient and adequate evidence that whatever is happening in bitcoinlandia at this time, is a sufficient and adequate balance of what is perfect (or good enough. .or whatever other qualifier that might fit here) for now and sufficiently and adequately balanced for a variety (if not an overwhelming majority of likely and unlikely scenarios) of future scenarios.
I think this is also important, the people that will need to solve this arent alive yet. And we cant know what their world will look like. Its all just speculation. I think Bitcoin will give them best possible basis to find a sound solution to this, for the reality they will be living in. We cant design a system for a world that doesnt exist yet, so we gotta make sure Bitcoin fits the needs of our reality first, to even survive this long. Its like someone in the 1900s trying to plan how we should live now. But thats what shitcoiners dont get. Systems are also about the people using them, its not about fancy founders with 10.000 prices and fancy features. A system needs to serve its users first, once it stops doing this it will just get abandoned or circumvented. It doesnt matter if a network has 10 trillion tps or 5.000% yield, if i cant even run a full node myself and a small group of people has control. |
|
|
|
I can imagine a scenario, where all coins would flow inside the Lightning Network, then all on-chain transaction fees could be gone, and then guess, what will happen next: you will have a system that will run out of coins. Miners will mine all 21 million coins in circulation, and what then? No new coins, so the basic block reward would be zero. And then imagine that all coins could be locked in some LN channels, and stay there. If so, then miners will stop mining (because of no incentive), and then the whole chain will stop, because the whole life will be present entirely in some lower layers.
But in practice won’t there always be nodes opening and closing channels? Then there would always remain some activity on the mainchain. And in theory by the time the block rewards run out, technology would be way more advanced than now. Could there be a possibility then that people come to a consensus to increase the troughput of the mainchain to use it more? I mean if the security depends on miners, why would people ignore the problem by the time it comes to this. Also i can imagine scenarios in the future where it could be beneficial(maybe for legal reasons like when someone is buying a house) to have big transactions on a public ledger, instead of lightning, regardless of cost, and then the rational approach would be to choose the most secure chain for this. But I’d like feedback on this. // Edit: + What if by that time, we have nation state actors and big institutions in it that depend on Bitcoin and the security of the mainchain, they would loose a lot if they didn’t find a way to support mining. But it’s just another idea. Maybe in the end it depends a lot on economics and the degree of adoption on how this problem will be tackled. It is just an idea. If Merged Mining is possible, then something that I described, could be named "Merged Signing", so it is exactly "a scenario in which miners would vote out their own business model", because then it is possible to vote for anything, just by signing some transaction, and it is possible to prefer that, instead of using Proof of Work to mine blocks. You can always sign a transaction, and then it goes into staking. If you will look inside the Lightning Network, you will see, that there is no mining. So, how to name that consensus, that is inside that network? I would call that staking, because everyone can open a channel, and put all coins at stake, and then take profits from keeping some node online, and signing messages. There is only one difference: it is running on top of the regular Proof of Work chain. But I think it could change, I described the reasons above.
When it comes to the resources about Merged Mining, then see how the NameCoin works. And imagine that instead of reusing some Proof of Work from another chain, you could reuse a signature. Then you will get, how Merged Mining could work in a Proof of Stake consensus.
Thanks for the insight and interesting take. |
|
|
|
We’re closer to a free monetary system than any human has ever been before us. Let’s spend our energy on making this work, instead of focusing on other 1000x pumps.
Very inspiring and romantic, but what exactly do you propose to do? Theres a whole lot of things that could help adoption in the next years. Some examples: - Businesses will need help and expertise in adopting it, it doesn’t matter if we look at erp systems or taxes for example, most businesses aren’t ready to handle it yet.
- Applications that build on Layer 2.
- If more countries will adopt it, we can’t forget to train normies too on using it.
- Learning the technicalities behind bitcoin and helping core development out.
- Helping against social attacks in the future.
- Basics (self custody, no kyc, own node).
The List goes on and on, we’re in the beginning of a new ecosystem and i think there will be opportunities for everyone to step up and do his part.
Bring on the bad stuff. Bitcoin loves it.
This is amazing about bitcoin. It grows despiste of governamental bans. Just look at China. Mining comes back to 21% after ban Or, as I might have put it, Bitcoin grows because of adversity (such as government bans). All tech does. China's Great Firewall, Iran's whiteout, it's only made the people so much more savvy about internet use. Bitcoin benefits from the same methinks. When i read about how you guys fought for bitcoin during the fork wars, it really insipired me and teached me how to stay away from bs. So i can only say thank you.
You've to thank everyone who continued using Bitcoin! It was slightly scary for me at the time, was still fairly new, and while it was easy for me to see where I stood, I did wonder if the big blockers would all go away and take a significant portion of users. Turned out they had more bark than bite. Great points and if y’all didn’t stand trough this, i probably wouldn’t be here today, so thanks again. |
|
|
|
What can one individual do to stop it?
You can’t stop altcoins from doing it, because they’re not decentralized, but you already did one important thing by sharing your own experiences to others. So another thing you can do is to keep your friends and family out of them, by putting the facts on the table, so atleast they won’t get scammed. And i dont see the point why people put themselves in vulnerable positions, voluntarily, and still go into these projects, decentralization isn’t just some cool buzzword, but a protection against the wickedness of man, and you should never accept compromises to decentralization, when it comes your money(time). Human stupidity is probably the only infinite thing in this universe, so why elect human leaders to decide about our most valuable asset(time), it just never works out for the majority. Now to Bitcoin, if an BIP like this will be introduced in the future you can engage in the discussion and give valid points. Then you can always run a node to make sure changes like this won’t run on your Bitcoin. Also i dont see a scenario in which miners would vote out their own business model. |
|
|
|
why can't you explain how they do it?
It not that the information is not in the google search engine, it is your cult mentality refused to acknowledge reality. But in your next post, you will just cry fud. https://algorand.foundation/algorand-protocol/about-algorand-protocolDecentralization
The Algorand blockchain is entirely decentralized, which means there is no powerful central authority or single point of control.
A unique committee of users is randomly and secretly selected to approve every block.
Nodes are run by entities representing diverse backgrounds across many different countries.
Fair & Transparent
Control is distributed among all individual network participants
Accurate
No risk of data being manipulated, lost or destroyed
Secure
Fault tolerant with no special group of users for an attacker to target
Permissionless
Public & Open to All
Users do not need the approval of a trusted authority to use the Algorand blockchain.
There is a single class of users and no gatekeepers.
Every participant can read every block and have the opportunity to write a transaction in a future block.
Low Cost to Participate
The Algorand platform requires minimal processing power and modest IT resources to join.
All online users who possess algos are automatically eligible to participate in block consensus.
Pure Proof-of-Stake
Algorand uses a pure proof-of-stake (PPoS) consensus protocol built on Byzantine agreement.
This means the system can achieve consensus without a central authority and tolerate malicious users as long as a supermajority of the stake is in non-malicious hands.
The users’ influence on the choice of a new block is proportional to their stake in the system (number of algos).
Users are randomly and secretly selected to both propose blocks and vote on block proposals.
All online users have the chance to be selected to propose and to vote.
The likelihood that a user will be chosen is directly proportional to its stake.
Rewards
In Algorand, the power is in the hands of the users holding stake.
Every user receives an amount of rewards proportional to their stake for every block that is committed to the chain.
We do so to encourage users to join the Algorand platform and accelerate our path to decentralization.
Open Source
The Algorand node repository is open sourced and publicly available for anyone to audit, use, and build upon. The platform is founded in principles of transparency, inclusivity, and collaboration and maintained by a dedicated community with a shared vision of a decentralized, borderless future.
Protocol Evolution
Algorand is rooted in the idea that the system should allow for changes and avoid inflexible policies—enabling both the community and the protocol to evolve.
The Algorand platform takes a consensus approach to protocol changes, which facilitates continuous evolution of the protocol and eliminates potential hard forks that could fracture the community.
This ability is powered by the Algorand consensus protocol that enables the users to reach consensus on anything.
Not just on the next block, but also on a protocol upgrade.
Proposed changes are posted on the blockchain
The community uses Algorand’s consensus protocol to vote to accept or reject the change
When accepted, the community agrees on the block where the change happens
Everyone switches to the new protocol at the same time As far as security goes, Bitcoin forks and Algorand never forks, if this does not immediately point out to you that Algorand is more secure than Bitcoin could ever pretend to be, well you should just quit reading and go play with your crayons.  https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-a-bitcoin-fork-4684459On a basic level, these forks arise out of different perspectives on transaction history, *Forking is what can allow Double-Spends.* https://algorand.foundation/algorand-protocol/core-blockchain-innovationImmediate Transaction Finality
The Algorand blockchain does not fork. Unlike with proof-of-work protocols, two different blocks can never be added to the chain in the same position.
Only one block can have the required threshold of signatures in order to be certified in a given round.
All transactions are final in Algorand.
Once a block appears, users can rely on the transactions it contains immediately, as they can be confident that the block will forever be part of the chain.
Even if the Internet is split into multiple pools of users, only one safe and consistent Algorand chain will exist.
Turing Award-winning scientist, Algorand founder on creating the ideal crypto - Silvio Micali https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttw4DpDNSo8Silvio Micali is a computer scientist, recognized for his work on cryptography.
He is the recipient of the Turing Award (in computer science), of the Gödel Prize (in theoretical computer science) and the RSA prize (in cryptography).
He has been on the faculty of the MIT Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Department, since 1983.
Bitcoin is the easiest coin to restrict , one call to the power utilities and a automated disconnect by smart meter and bitcoin is dead.
Not as easy as you think, considering Bitcoin network is still running today. Did I say, they are doing it in the US right now , no I did not. What I said was they could if they wanted too, and it would be easy. US Government has to ban btc mining 1st, that is less than 2 or 3 years away. https://www.ictsd.org/how-do-power-companies-disconnect-service-with-digital-meters/Can Smart Electric Meters Be Turned Off Remotely?
Yes, of course. Southern California Edison said smart meters can be used to silence a customer’s service remotely. 1st states ban btc mining and eventually the Country https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2022/06/03/new-york-clamps-down-on-bitcoin-mining-in-newly-passed-bill/?sh=7ae439c76de5And why will the bans increase [Suspicious link removed]j.com/articles/electricity-shortage-warnings-grow-across-u-s-11652002380 Electricity Shortage Warnings Grow Across U.S.
Power-grid operators caution that electricity supplies aren’t keeping up with demand amid transition to cleaner forms of energy Because energy is not in abundance any more thanks to climate issues , war , and sanctions. https://www.npr.org/2021/10/01/1042209223/why-covid-is-affecting-chinas-power-rationshttps://www.theweek.co.uk/news/uk-news/956911/what-is-power-rationing-uk-electricityhttps://www.ft.com/content/13b06f9a-20cc-4499-9137-6299c0b81643The failure by the btc cult to recognize that the energy abundance of the past few decades is changing , so that for most countries holding 1st world status will be unattainable. In short, governments are most likely not going to be able to keep the lights on 24x7, much less have the capacity for an overly wasteful PoW mining using up resources that are in short supply. So unless one of the BTC cultist can build a Dyson sphere, even the current energy % wasted by PoW mining will be unsustainable very soon. * The secondary danger of low energy resources, is economic.* https://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/2022/06/02/were-in-trouble-electric-rates-in-texas-have-surged-over-70-as-summer-kicks-in/Electric rates in Texas have surged over 70% as summer kicks in With the Price of energy increasing and the loss of free investment capital going away because of the baby boomers shifting to safer investments like cash/bonds/tbills for their retirement, a large % of miners might go bankrupt before the bans occur. Most miners survive off investment of venture capitalists , not the actual mining itself. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2022-06-01/in-crypto-downturn-startups-are-still-getting-venture-capital-dollarsventure capital investing in crypto overall appears to be slowing 1. Youre talking about cults, but all you can come up with is to quote the exact words of algorands foundation, we didnt ask for a modern version of jehovas witnesses, but to answer the questions above - yourself. 2. If were talking about energy and PoS doesnt solve the centralization problem, then we didnt save any energy, but just put it to waste for nothing, since it didnt solve any problem. So it consumes less energy, but wastes it, so whats the point. If i go on coinmarketcap rn i see 19731 cryptocurrencies being listed, with the majority being PoS. Every shitcoin nowadays claims to be superior to bitcoin, yet theres 19 thousand of them and yet not a single one of them, does what bitcoin can do. Are we saving energy if theres 19 thousand shitcoins that consume less energy(individually, but do they on a whole?) than bitcoin, but none of them can do the task? I doubt it. And saving energy on societal level is a fancy word for mass poverty, Bitcoin mining is a way to harness new energy sources that werent profitable before and can be one step into an energy abundant future. And mining is the most profitable with the cheapest energy being used, and the cheapest energy thats available is energy that wouldnt have been used otherwise, like solar energy during non peak hours. Maybe there will be use cases to even support decentralized grids with bitcoin mining. The game theory is just on point again. |
|
|
|
|
I would also argue that PoW doesn’t require many different coins, since Bitcoin already does what it’s supposed to do. And that the switching to PoS of many shitcoins is more an expression of each founder wanting more control/ profits over their networks. But ofc sheep listen to empty words and marketing lines, instead of looking what the tech actually does.
//Edit: + There needs to be many PoS coins since everyone wants their own hands in the honeypot to lure in newbies, who can’t separate the difference between bitcoin and shitcoins yet. And so PoS coins hold a competition by who can add more useless features, while not even providing the basics of what a decentralized and free monetary system should do. And beginners fall for it, because it sounds good on paper, but they don’t understand the consequences of each design yet.
|
|
|
|
I've studied bitcoin, I've talked about it a lot,
And yet , you have not studied the PoS version 3 blockchains like cardano and algorand. It like saying you learned English and know it is superior to French. But have not studied French. My point above is, if PoW is so great where are all of the new coins using it. Answer , their are no new coins using it, because it is a dying tech, kind of like a dying religion that was false to begin with. PoS Tech is growing and evolving every day , what happens to a dying PoW tech is a non-issue for the rest of us.  Which is why you have to bump your thread, as everyone already knows the conclusion of the discussion is the death of PoW. Whether Bitcoin evolves to avoid the PoW death, that is up to the btc devs. But to be honest most of us no longer care what happens to btc. @n0nce, the developers of ethereum and doge have realized PoW is a dead end, shame you have not caught up to their thought processes yet. Next is where you claim you are smarter than the devs that are switching.  You two have a great weekend, regaling how great BTC PoW is and why it will rule the universe.  K so lets go over your thought process and start with the biggest aspiring shitcoin first. In ethereum with PoS your staked coins literally get locked up, like 10 percent of all eth is locked up at the moment and the update isnt even here yet. Since EIP-1559 it burns coins for being used to get "deflationary", but yet the eth supply is higher now, than when the update was introduced. So you basically created a network that punishes you for using it, but incentivizes old holders to not move their coins. Every newcomer is already at a huge disadvantage with this. Then to stake you will need atleast 32 eth and most wont ever have this much, so they will need centralized staking pools like coinbase and so on. So youre basically throwing the concept of self custody out the window, what happened to decentralization? Every sheep nowadays just runs after some fake yields without using their head. Most ethereum nodes are already running on aws, so lets increase the troughput of the network even more in eth 2.0 to make it even more centralized. Giving up self custody and decentralized nodes and punishing people for doing transactions sounds like a super sound concept, but they have jpgs, that arent even stored on the chain but on centralized websites that just have a smart contract on the chain(without the jpg on it), so it must be superior to bitcoin and worth it. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin has a fee market, so you can't pay a fixed price to effectively stop legitimate transactions from being confirmed. You can make a million transactions with $1 fee and it won't mean you have bought all transaction space for a day - it would mean that the users who have paid $1 or less will have lower chance of getting their tx confirmed and will suffer some delays, but those who paid higher fees won't be affected. Essentially, trying to DDOS Bitcoin can only increase the transaction costs, not actually deny service, though for some cases, like micropayments that would become uneconomical, that would be a denial of service.
So now my question is, what would be the impact of a group of people sending 1,000,000 transactions at $10 ? It will just piss some people off because fees would jump from $1.5 to $10 ? and it would be absorbed in only a few hours? It can take a few hundred blocks to process this many transactions and only if they set the transaction fee to be ridiculously high then maybe most would wait till they’re processed until they do transactions again. But it would make the attack way more expensive and wouldn’t really stop the service. |
|
|
|
Hello,
What would happen if some bad people launch 1 million transactions in 1 click? Would the cost be only ~2-5 millions usd ?
Second question in case question 1 does hurts why bad people don't do it right now?
Thank you.
Ssatooshi
PS: I'm talking about really nicely made transactions that look like normal transactions and couldn't really be distinguishable from the rest of the transactions appart from the fact they would have the same ~timestamp.
And we could also think about a slow attack spread over time.
They would go into the nodes mempool waiting to get confirmed, since 1 block only takes in a limited amount of transactions. So then people would have the option to pick a higher transaction fee than the attacker did and his transactions would be stuck for some time. Or other nodes could up their minimum mempool fee rate to be higher than the transactions and they wouldn’t be taken in anymore. So in the end he wasted money on nothing and the network would work just fine. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
