Just post the link where sunny king published his wiki of his own POS so OP can learn about it. you don't have to trash talk the ETH version of POS. its thier way so they also do not care about Sunny kind's version. But consider OP wants to learn it as well. I have no idea the difference between Sunny's and ETH but I'm confident ETH's POS may not be the original but its better.
It is not trash talk, Eth PoS (Casper) is not the standard PoS. You think it will be better , doubt it, as of right now they still have not even implemented it. So considering it is buggy untested code , why would anyone study it when the true PoS code has been running for years and can be used now. No telling how long before Casper is running on ETH or what problems their changes will cause. Plus they are going to keep running PoW alongside casper for the foreseeable future as they don't even trust their own code. FYI: https://www.google.com/search?q=peercoin+proof+of+Stake+explained&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8https://github.com/peercoin/peercoin |
|
|
|
|
Question for anyone running a Lightning hub.
Currently transaction fess are so low , no one is making a profit and everyone is losing money.
When you add in your input costs such as maintaining a node and personal effort maintaining your node, you are at a monetary loss.
So how do you see yourself turning that into a profit.
Do you see yourself charging higher fees or do you expect the volume to increase to such a point it allows you to make a profit?
If so , please list your expected daily volume and price per transaction where you actually make a profit enough to exceed your input costs,
ie: maintain a node, electricity, internet bandwidth, and anything else required
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Ethereum version of Proof of Stake will be like Frankenstein's PoS monster,
not really worth your time , unless you wanted bloated confused code running a Bastardization of proof of stake.
How do you come to the conclusion? OP was asking for sources to understand PoS. And the ethereum wiki is one of the best places where PoS is explained pretty detailed. Calling it 'not worth the time' is just overstated. Study Peercoin design as it is a hybrid of both PoW & PoS created by Sunny King.
OP was asking for PoS, not for any shitcoin utilizing a PoW/PoS hybrid. Yo Dum Dum, Sunny King invented Proof of Stake and used it in peercoin. It is the original , so it is the one that should be studied first. All the others derive from his original work and originally he combined PoW & PoS. Eth is going to do some weird crap using their smart contract design to fake Proof of stake , it will not be like the true proof of stake design created by Sunny King , but something else. Which unless you are wanting to follow ethereum folly of smart contracts that are NOT recognized in any court system in the world then you ignore his coin's bullshit as it is over bloated wasteful code and will eventually be crushed under it's own weight. https://hackernoon.com/the-ethereum-blockchain-size-has-exceeded-1tb-and-yes-its-an-issue-2b650b5f4f62Because of Ethereum’s exponentially growing blocksize, the bottleneck is not regulated below these external factors and as such results in a shrinking and more centralized network due to network demands that increasingly exceed the average users hardware and bandwidth. FYI: Ethereum biggest weakness is it's blockchain is growing exponentially. Bitcoin biggest weakness is its energy requirements are growing exponentially. Both Major issues totally ignored by their communities. |
|
|
|
For me after the HF everything works fine.
Meanwhile I got 3 stakes with the new wallet
The second today was only 2.500.000 from a 100M stake from this month.
HF worked and still it is very interesting. New wallet looks nice. The next years will be great and Sprouts will do its thing.
"Good things will come to those who have time and stay strong"
All the best for this great project
And with 20M will i have stake? What time? Thanks. Noone answered me here about quantity... Click on the Minting tab and select 24 hours / 5 days /10 days /30 Days / 90 days to see what your odds of staking are. * You can always view how many coins are staking per block here: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/sprts/ *FYI: People with 1 billion coins in 1 block are staking about once or twice every 30 days, so you are looking at many months to a year before 20 million in 1 block would stake at the current difficulty levels. Difficulty levels should decrease over time as coins get burned. |
|
|
|
@Wind_FURY You know, you are too stupid for words. Here's Your Sign: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBjelRDKHUkThink what you like, you're completely wrong, but ignorance is bliss until they lock you up. Enjoy your free time.  |
|
|
|
WHat fork is coinexchange.io on? It's still on the old chain, correct? Nope, it is on the New HF Chain. The exchange & the block explorer are all on the HF chain. |
|
|
|
[snipped]
dude why do you keep feeding this troll? Zin-Zang has been doing the same thing last year with SegWit and kept spreading nonsense about it like this but with a different account while advertising his altcoin. that account is banned now by the way and he is ban-evading right now. It's undoubtedly easier for us to recognise that Zin-Zang is a troll, because we have the experience and knowledge to make an informed judgement. But it would be just as easy for anyone new to Bitcoin to be lured in by such posts and start believing something that's not true. Best to nip it in the bud. The last thing we need is a whole forum full of people claiming it's some sort of conspiracy to create " banking 2.0". Wow , both of you think I am a troll, both of you luv bitcoin and both of you think LN is great therefore according to Pursuer small world theory , you too must be the same person. Nah, I have never been that lame as to believe people that shared the same views are all the same person. Enjoy your conspiracy.  P.S. I am Batman in my spare time.   (Took 6 weeks for that leg to heal.)  @Pursuer, Shame you can't tell the difference between someone speaking the truth and someone trolling. But your problem , not mine. LN is most definitely Banking 2.0 and multiple people have said this. And I doubt they are all the same person.
Lightning network is a 3rd party offchain payment system
Would you care to name this supposed third party? LOL, LN Hub operators. Serious how did you not know that? Guess it won't be apparent to you even when the LN Hub is Named Bank of America. What can a "Bank of America" hub exactly do to Bitcoin if they become a Lightning Hub? Nothing. They can also do nothing on the Lightning Network itself because Bitcoins are locked in a multisig address when opening a channel. What it can do is build on top of Lightning and do anything they like but only from within their service. Have the Funds to be a Centralized Hub that has the majority of channels to it directly , and refuse to open channels with hubs they or government policy disapproves of. Therefore starving non-banking hubs of funds until they run them out of business and can have their own banking monopoly like with fiat. Guess it is not apparent to you either. But how will the state stop it if anyone can open channels all over the world and outside their jurisdiction? Your debate is lost. Are you locked in a closet or do you have access to the internet? How does the Government currently enforce AML/KYC laws, simple they have people that will arrest your ass. And foreign governments have their own AML/KYC laws, that can get you arrested. https://www.moneylaunderingwatchblog.com/category/extraterritorial-application-of-us-law/DOJ Employs Money Laundering Statute to Prosecute Venezuelan Oilmen for Foreign Bribery If you are thinking you live a free world, you are sadly mistaken.*Ask Vinnik* https://cointelegraph.com/news/new-extradition-request-complicates-case-of-bitcoin-fraud-suspect-alexander-vinnikVinnik, who is a former owner of crypto exchange BTC-e,
was arrested by Greek police in July 2017
under the order of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Authorities accused him of fraud and laundering as much as $4 billion in Bitcoin over the course of six years. FYI:
Or just slip a few bucks to a few politicians to pass a law requiring all LN Hubs to require a Banking License and follow all KYC/AML laws.
Define banking license. No one is holding your money for you in Lightning. It will be the exchanges on top of Lightning that should be KYC/AML compliant. But it is the same set up that we have today, but more scalable because of Lightning. Just because you guys try and twist the english language to suit your false beliefs , does not mean it will hold up in court. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4714938.msg43006363#msg43006363https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banking_licensefull banking licenses for general banking activities, such as taking deposits from the general public Banks used to hold Gold and Silver and use Banks notes & US Dollar Notes to allow redemption of gold & silver, http://www.antiquemoney.com/value-of-10-gold-certificate/Notice on the old Fiat it used to say $10 in GoldCoin LN uses Multi signatures to hold Bitcoin (Time Locked) , LN uses their own notes system (ledger) to transfer balances between other LN hubs (No actual bitcoin is transacted , it is time locked remember). Once the LN channels are closed (you can redeem your LN transactions for real bitcoin ONchain (may take up 2 weeks))LN is exactly Banking 2.0 designed for crypto , with fees per hub , like banks charge fees. Under the right circumstances a bank or LN hub can seize your funds. Since LN balances are nothing more than a representation of a bitcoin, fractional reserve is possible in the future with a minor software update to LN. Don't strain your brain, I know you guys drank the kool-aid and believe all of the BS the core devs sprouted. Thinking is not your strong suit, otherwise you would have already come to these same conclusions. And there has been a recent development, a thinking person can see the problem with LN. https://medium.com/andreas-tries-blockchain/bitcoin-lightning-network-4-what-happens-when-you-close-half-of-the-lightning-network-b25b330dfad2This guy placed $1000s of dollars worth of bitcoin in a time lock to run a LN hub for a few weeks. His profit less than 35 cents, which if you factor in any of his input costs such as running a node or time monitoring his money, he came out at a massive loss. LN has fees for each hub, fees for the watchtowers, plus the onchain fees. For an LN hub to actually make any money , it is going to have to charge alot higher fees , meaning the promise of low fees , was a false promise once it actually gets operational, because stupid people can only work for free for so long before they go broke. Now go drink your kool aid , and forget anyone ever told you the truth. Because you can't handle the truth.  |
|
|
|
Premise: <...>
I guess you don't read the news, where Utilities are refusing or charging higher rates to ASIC miners.
I guess you don't understand those miners already have to apply for permits to draw the amount of electricity.
I guess you don't understand that China is literally kicking ASICS Miners out of their country.
<...>
Conclusion: <...>
Either bitcoin dies or the Government Mandates the so-called equilibrium which bitcoin insane energy usage will force to happen.
There are no other futures for it, one of the 3 listed and that is it as long as they use energy wasting PoW, they have no other possible futures.
<...>
Nope, with that premise, the conclusion can be different. There will be more small-home ASIC miner, someone somewhere in his basement will continue to mine bitcoin. China is kicking ASIC Miners then they will operate somewhere in their secret basements LOL, No , they won't , not for long.Small operations lost the ability to make a profit mining bitcoin years ago. The electricity draw alone will alert the authorities to any bitcoin PoW miner. See FYI below.All PoW operations grow too large to hide, only proof of stake coins could hide and never be found, but for PoW hiding is impossible once their price rises high enough. It is one of the failures of PoW design, get large or get out. The Fact that special permits are required to draw that much power also escapes you. Allocation of those permits is what the Governments will use to enslave the miners to their dominance. So the Governments can denied those permits and cause bitcoin to die from unprofitably or allow those permits and control the miners (telling them to not include transactions from unapproved sources). Sorry it is Checkmate against bitcoin either way. FYI: https://cointelegraph.com/news/chinese-police-arrest-bitcoin-miner-who-stole-150-mw-of-electricityhttps://www.computerworld.com/article/2469854/internet/bitcoin-miners-busted--police-confuse-bitcoin-power-usage-for-pot-farm.htmlhttps://www.ccn.com/russian-police-build-case-against-cryptocurrency-mining-farm-organizers/https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/mbk7wy/how-much-energy-growing-weed-vs-mining-bitcoin |
|
|
|
Muh,
If you want some reward > work for! PoW
Meh
If you already have too much wealth, let it work for you and get richer. PoS
Why on earth Vitalik wants the latter, now he is fucking rich?
PoW has just too many unforeseen external risks, nahh, he does not want to get decentralized by these again...
PoS = proof of shit
Sounds like you need to stick with fiat. |
|
|
|
What I am telling you is , you are wrong.
If you modify the wallet client to place false time date in the blocks , all you are doing is making a hard fork that the other nodes will ignore.
That's called 'weak subjectivity'. You really need to do some more research. I find it amazing , that you PoW zealots , always say someone else needs to do more research. When you are always the ones unable to prove your point. The fact is I ask a very simple question, how does one make up the 3 months, you come back with a pretense that you can just fake the timestamp and think the other nodes will fall for it with zero proof. And you can't even post a link to a VM that fakes time so we can real world test your weak speculations. My research on you is complete, as expected you are just spreading fud with no logic , just fear mongering. Seems to me you need to get your act together Mr. Little.  You just sprout more random talk trying to cover up the fact , that you are really clueless and not even able to test a real world attack simulation of what you claim is almost certain destruction of a PoS coin. Enjoy your useless fud , you wasted enough of my time. |
|
|
|
Laptops can be used with Proof of Stake coins. But using laptops with Proof of Work coins is not a good idea as they don't distribute heat as well as a desktop , so odds are you'll shorten your laptop lifespan more than any PoW coins that you would earn. |
|
|
|
It is not how we discuss attacks (in this forum at least), we don't say this or that vulnerability is imaginary because it has not been carried out by a hacker or an adversary. A protocol should maintain its consistency against any hypothetical attack.
Look here aliashraf , to even attempt said attack, requires a Multistaking PoS client. There are none! Therefore a N@S attack is pure imagined theory , with no basis for concern in the real world. Tell me what is it you fear so much about a theoretical N@S attack, and I tell you why you have nothing to fear. Because I explored it as a threat and every time it came up as a non-event. It either negated itself or had no real effect during every scenario people threw out. So what is it exactly you think an imagined N@S attack could do?
PoS is not a new idea. We have PoS in its ultimate (and failed) form right now:
Traditional banking systems and fiat currencies are PoS based, they resemble what PoS is going to offer: a subjective store of value, centralized in shards of big stake/money holders (banks) which are coordinated by a central entity in charge of clearing inter-shard transactions and inflation.
Your confusion is sad. Proof of Stake is a Consensus method. Banks make money by growing debt and loaning out money they don't have, therefore using debt as money creation. Proof of Stake does not use Debt, it is more like an agricultural product, you need some to grow more. There is no debt in the system. The Banks use fractional reserves to rip off the masses, In Proof of Stake you either own a coin or you don't , there is no debt and their is no fractional reserve shenanigans.You might want to study up on the Goldsmiths that became the 1st banks, to end your personal confusion. |
|
|
|
You say that as if the users do not have full control over their Bitcoins and channels. They still do have 100% of their coins.
OMG.. lets address the last point first. in LN YOU DO NOT have full control over your bitcoins.. LEARN MULTISIG it requires signatures of more than one person. atleast learn that as a basic first lesson. just because it is using multisignature features it doesn't mean you don't have full control over your funds. you still own the signed transaction that is required to "settle the real balance on the blockchain" so to speak if the other party didn't honor his end of the deal. maybe you need to read the paper or use LN first at least then talk about it! Maybe someone should explain to you the definition of FULL CONTROL. Definition of FULL : COMPLETEDefinition of CONTROL: AUTHORITY OVER Now put them together: FULL CONTROL = COMPLETE AUTHORITY OVER Therefore multisignature which grants a portion of control to another party, means exactly THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE FULL CONTROL!Franky1 is right again and LN supporters wrong again. Looks like a pattern to me. You could argue that there is shared control, but never full control.I now understand why you LN guys are so clueless, your complete and utter failure to understand the English Language. Explains a lot. At this stage we don't even need to refute your misinterpretation of it. We'll just quote you, so that when you realise how totally and utterly wrong you are, you won't be able to go back and edit your posts to mask your ignorance. Anyone who does understand how this works can immediately recognise how totally unknowledgeable you and franky1 are. Providing you act within the rules of the network and stay online to counteract any malicious activity by the other party, you are in total control of your portion of the funds in the channel. That's how it's designed to work. Learn smart contracts. If you mistakenly spend from an outdated channel state or go offline and miss the expiry of the timelock, then that's a breach of the smart contract, so yes, you can potentially lose control of your funds in those situations. But as the technology advances, developers will clearly work on reducing those risks as much as they can. I suggest you get a dictionary for Christmas, because you are quite literally a full/complete/total idiot.  Largest LN Node just closed all of his channels , why : it was scaring the hell out of him that all of his funds would be stolen while he slept. Also he did not even earn enough in fees to even cover his PC daily electricity usage. https://1ml.com/node/036b32ac6acf6d178f47c2139b7327ab85bd3d5f5c40681a9a48109ea21f53e1e5/historyhttps://medium.com/andreas-tries-blockchain/bitcoin-lightning-network-4-what-happens-when-you-close-half-of-the-lightning-network-b25b330dfad2Operating the largest node on the Bitcoin Lightning Network has been educational, frustrating, fun, and at times terrifying. My Lightning Node has routed 389 payments, making a profit of $0.34. I suspect the increase is mostly from the recent increase in bitcoin’s price. Running a large Lightning Network node has been quite stressful.
An exploit such as we saw with heartbleed could allow an attacker to drain all funds from the node while I’m sleeping. Closing a channel using --force results in a unilateral close which makes the funds unavailable to me.
The amount of time the funds are locked up depends on the channel policy. This policy is negotiated when the channel opens.
Most channels will release the funds to me in between 1440 and 20180 minutes. FYI: 20180 minutes is 336.33 Hours or ~2 weeks Seems to me if the guy had complete control as some idiots think they do , he would not have to wait 2 weeks to find out whether or not his bitcoins are redeemed or lost forever. |
|
|
|
You say that as if the users do not have full control over their Bitcoins and channels. They still do have 100% of their coins.
OMG.. lets address the last point first. in LN YOU DO NOT have full control over your bitcoins.. LEARN MULTISIG it requires signatures of more than one person. atleast learn that as a basic first lesson. just because it is using multisignature features it doesn't mean you don't have full control over your funds. you still own the signed transaction that is required to "settle the real balance on the blockchain" so to speak if the other party didn't honor his end of the deal. maybe you need to read the paper or use LN first at least then talk about it! Maybe someone should explain to you the definition of FULL CONTROL. Definition of FULL : COMPLETEDefinition of CONTROL: AUTHORITY OVER Now put them together: FULL CONTROL = COMPLETE AUTHORITY OVER Therefore multisignature which grants a portion of control to another party, means exactly THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE FULL CONTROL!Franky1 is right again and LN supporters wrong again. Looks like a pattern to me. You could argue that there is shared control, but never full control.I now understand why you LN guys are so clueless, your complete and utter failure to understand the English Language. Explains a lot. |
|
|
|
Franky1's analogy that LN is Banking 2.0 is accurate
Except for the part where it isn't. Not my fault , you are too stupid to see it. Having someone claim every problem that arises, well it is beta, gets pretty lame,
get the shit working or don't release it to the public as I am not wasting my time fixing their lousy programming for the new banking system.
It's beyond adorable you think you have anything to offer in terms of development. You be shocked to know how much. First you push hubs, then you claim users should just transact between each other.
Do you seriously think individuals are going to waste all of that time and all of the hassle transacting in LN offchain crapshot, when they can just transact onchain.
I'm all about giving people options. You're about authority and telling people what they can and can't do. Also, what's your alternative proposal? What do you think we should be doing instead of LN? Larger blocks? Tell me what the point is in having two BCHs. How is that, in any way, productive? If you want larger blocks, there is already a blockchain that caters to your needs. You're free to choose that one if you like. But you're not making our choices for us. Get a clue. LOL, you the one saying they should use LN over all altcoins & exchanges that work better and are safer. LN is 1 service, their are multiple altcoins and exchanges that do the job better than LN tied to bitcoin. Maybe you should pull your head out of your butt and find that clue yourself. If people want to use a bank, I have no problem with that, but don't lie and say it is not a bank when it is. Your False Religious Beliefs blinds you to the reality of how bad LN sucks and the fact no casual users will ever run hubs or transact at that level.
John Q. Public wants easy / quick / simple transactions without needing a PHD to use it.
(LN is none of those things.)
Without being easy for the consumer, mass adoption will never occur, and bitcoin will continue to be a greater fool's game for naive geeks.
Some of us are just more Gullible than others. FTFY , |
|
|
|
<...>
Ever heard of "equilibrium" fella? Price vs hash-rate will fluctuate in order to reach equilibrium. So point 1 is invalid. When electricity is limited, the competition then shifts to efficiency. Whoever can design better ASIC will win the battle. So point 2 and 3, are incomplete. Anyway, this real world is complicated, you don't have to simplify things I guess you don't read the news , where Utilities are refusing or charging higher rates to ASIC miners. I guess you don't understand those miners already have to apply for permits to draw the amount of electricity. I guess you don't understand that China is literally kicking ASICS Miners out of their country. Either bitcoin dies or the Government Mandate the so called equilibrium which bitcoin insane energy usage will force to happen. There are no other futures for it, one of the 3 listed and that is it as long as they use energy wasting PoW, they have no other possible futures. |
|
|
|
Exactly why do you think a Nothing at Stake is an issue. Exactly what damage do you think it can do, so I can tell you why you are mistaken. (You apparently did not bother to read : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3789535.msg42945673#msg42945673 )Only a few posts above your misinformed post.
There are NO Multistaking Proof of Stake clients. So without that it is literally a MYTH! Sorry to have to break this to you , Your Imagination is not Reality. Reading is really not your strong suit, you did not even read the 5th link in your own google post above. Which States: Nothing Considered: A look at Nothing at Stake Vulnerability for Cryptocurrencies https://pivx.org/nothing-considered-a-look-at-nothing-at-stake-vulnerability-for-cryptocurrencies/presstab, Core Developer, Pivx
Abstract—Nothing at stake is a routine argument launched against any and all Proof of Stake proof systems.
Although the argument has some interesting components to it, it is should be seen as something of very little concern for a Proof of Stake based cryptocurrency.
A wide distribution of staking power as well as a wide distribution of honest nodes will easily prevent any line of attack from the nothing at stake scenario. CONCLUSION
For both cases of fork with honest nodes and cases of forks with malicious actors, there is in fact “something at stake”.
For the particular arguments presented against Proof of Stake,
it can be said that Proof of Stake may actually have more robust incentives for its peers and proof holders to stay on the main chain than does the Proof of Work system.
What is worth more, a person’s entire coin holdings for Proof of Stake miners or a few minutes of electricity consumption for Proof of Work miners?
PoW is more secure than PoS;
PoS is faster and cheaper than PoW;
Since PoW is very expensive, there will be an only small amount of PoW coins;
There is no PoW vs PoS, each has a different purpose.
There is no proof PoW is more secure , only more wasteful of electricity. Chinese Mining Pools had ~70% dominance for over 2 years now in bitcoin, they could 51% attack bitcoin at any time (still can), they choose not to, but that was not security, just greed that stopped them. Speed and price of a coin are not determined by whether they are PoS or PoW. Speed is determined by coded blockspeed, and price is determined by markets. The code decides how many coins their are , not the consensus method. example Diamond PoS coin has less than 5 million coins. NewYorkCoin PoW coin has over 134 Billion coins. * Bitcoin 21 million coin limit is nothing more than a number in the code of when to no longer give more block rewards.* * Developers could change it at a moments notice and if people updated , it would become reality. * |
|
|
|
Cost is not the issue, Each Block has a defined target of say 1 minute between blocks.
Your chain is 3 months behind, and still has a target time of 1 minute, your block height will always be ~ the same 3 months behind and as such never a threat to causing a reorg, because a reorg can only happen if your block height # exceeds the main chain.
So how do you make up the 3 months time difference?
FYI:
Any change to the code to modify the time target between blocks could allow faster blocks, would lower the target difficulty making it a weaker chain and also break consensus with the other nodes, therefore making sure it would never be accepted over the main chain.
FYI2:
The phrase (block production has zero cost) , is incorrect.
There actually is a cost , it is time.
Your block has to wait the coded time before block generation can occur, and those coins go dormant for a coded period, another time factor.
The Time between blocks is hard coded which affects the difficulty # in proof of stake coins, thus defining the strength or weakness of a chain.
What exactly would make a block of a POS coin invalid, e.g. timestamp too late, compared to timestamp of previous block? A POW coin can have a target time of 1 minute but could be stalled for days. Some shitty ones regularly do this. If a block has to wait the coded time of 1 minute before block generation can occur, then every node must have really exact system time. Not like Bitcoin A timestamp is accepted as valid if it is greater than the median timestamp of previous 11 blocks, and less than the network-adjusted time + 2 hours. "Network-adjusted time" is the median of the timestamps returned by all nodes connected to you. (quoted from wiki) With some PoS coins it is a requirement that all nodes be within a certain time frame. It used to be 2 hours , but a flaw was discovered that allowed people to gain a staking advantage by having such a large time window. So the window was lowered to 1 minute or lower for most coins to stop the unfair staking advantage. So if your PC time is >1 minute off from the actual time, any block your system created was refused by the Proof of Stake network. * Even Bitcoin Requires blocks to be within that 2 hour window to be accepted in their network.* https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/5076/what-stops-miners-nodes-lying-about-what-time-a-block-was-mined
Cost is not the issue, Each Block has a defined target of say 1 minute between blocks.
Your chain is 3 months behind, and still has a target time of 1 minute, your block height will always be ~ the same 3 months behind and as such never a threat to causing a reorg, because a reorg can only happen if your block height # exceeds the main chain.
So how do you make up the 3 months time difference?
FYI:
Any change to the code to modify the time target between blocks could allow faster blocks, would lower the target difficulty making it a weaker chain and also break consensus with the other nodes, therefore making sure it would never be accepted over the main chain.
FYI2:
The phrase (block production has zero cost) , is incorrect.
There actually is a cost , it is time.
Your block has to wait the coded time before block generation can occur, and those coins go dormant for a coded period, another time factor.
The Time between blocks is hard coded which affects the difficulty # in proof of stake coins, thus defining the strength or weakness of a chain.
I really hope you're not the developer of that coin in your sig, because you seem to have some fundamental misconceptions about consensus design. 1) I have already said this above, but I'm going to restate it in plain terms: any concept of time elapsed in a trustless system is utterly unverifiable without an objective measure such as PoW, which is an unforgable proxy for elapsed time 2) In PoS block production has zero cost, see 1) What I am telling you is , you are wrong. If you modify the wallet client to place false time date in the blocks , all you are doing is making a hard fork that the other nodes will ignore. I telling you , you have to run the wallet code unmodified to create the blocks so that the real network would even think about accepting them. So can you give me a virtual machine that lets me run a wallet application tricking it into thinking 24 seconds is 24 hours. Because unlike you , I plan on doing some real world testing with it , not limited to speculative discussion. If you can't provide me with such a virtual machine, then you are nothing more than chicken little running around screaming the sky is falling. |
|
|
|
Lightning Network is a place for fastest reliable BTC trans. The lightning network works smoothly and It made BTC transactions faster than before. LN may be able to make a slide or more change in BTC price as having a fast rout in transactions. But it is true that it has no ability to make BTC market boosted or changed overnight. We should always be positive.
LN is not the fastest or reliable 3rd party payment service. It is a buggy (in some cases money losing) 3rd party payment service. Using some exchanges offchain transactions is faster & more reliable than LN. Some will argue an exchange is more centralized, but exchanges do not require time locking for hours or weeks at a time. With a exchange , I only need to send the amount I spending at that moment , with LN you have to lock up larger amounts of funds for much longer periods. Also even LN developers admit , it is not fully safe yet and some lost money which will never be recovered. https://www.trustnodes.com/2018/03/26/lightning-network-user-loses-fundsBut some people lie and act like LN is running perfect when it is not.
Lightning network is a 3rd party offchain payment system
Would you care to name this supposed third party? LOL, LN Hub operators. Serious how did you not know that? Guess it won't be apparent to you even when the LN Hub is Named Bank of America. Guess it will never be apparent to you that you don't have to route through a hub if you don't want to. Try actually learning how it works instead of repeating the crap you've absorbed from reddit. It's as peer-to-peer as you're willing to make it. I mean, perhaps you might need to rely on a hub, since you don't strike me as the kind of person that people would voluntarily want to associate with, let alone transact with.  Seems like you've spent too long looking at franky1's bus. Franky1's analogy that LN is Banking 2.0 is accurate, too bad that is beyond your ability to understand. The last beta code , I played with was OS/2 . I don't waste my time on beta code anymore. Having someone claim every problem that arises, well it is beta, gets pretty lame, get the shit working or don't release it to the public as I am not wasting my time fixing their lousy programming for the new banking system. First you push hubs, then you claim users should just transact between each other. Do you seriously think individuals are going to waste all of that time and all of the hassle transacting in LN offchain crapshot, when they can just transact onchain. We use Alts ONCHAIN to transact as they are faster and cheaper and EASIER than wasting time on LN's beta crapshoot service. Your False Religious Beliefs blinds you to the reality of how bad LN sucks and the fact no casual users will ever run hubs or transact at that level. John Q. Public wants easy / quick / simple transactions without needing a PHD to use it. (LN is none of those things.)Without being easy for the consumer, mass adoption will never occur, and bitcoin will continue to be a greater fool's game for naive geeks. |
|
|
|
Lightning network is a 3rd party offchain payment system
Would you care to name this supposed third party? LOL, LN Hub operators. Serious how did you not know that? Guess it won't be apparent to you even when the LN Hub is Named Bank of America. What can a "Bank of America" hub exactly do to Bitcoin if they become a Lightning Hub? Nothing. They can also do nothing on the Lightning Network itself because Bitcoins are locked in a multisig address when opening a channel. What it can do is build on top of Lightning and do anything they like but only from within their service. Have the Funds to be a Centralized Hub that has the majority of channels to it directly , and refuse to open channels with hubs they or government policy disapproves of. Therefore starving non-banking hubs of funds until they run them out of business and can have their own banking monopoly like with fiat. Guess it is not apparent to you either. FYI: Or just slip a few bucks to a few politicians to pass a law requiring all LN Hubs to require a Banking License and follow all KYC/AML laws. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
