I don't understand. Where was the idea of a fixed supply ever in question?
It's more twisting of the facts, see my post above. This or complete lack of understanding of what really happened. I didn't say that right. I meant roll backs. But my point still stands. When gox lost all those coins, a roll back wasn't even considered. Don't pretend your patch wasn't controversial. Cypher, cmon man, you are really grasping at straws here. Those aren't even the same thing at all. For one, it wasn't even clear, and still isn't clear what the hell you would even roll back in the gox hack. The nxt rollback would have literally changed 1 transaction and was under immense time pressure due to the 720 block rollback limit. So yes, everyone panicked but eventually consensus was reached and was the best decision that could have occured. It was a lesson for the community. Every new community will be faced with such hardships and choices and it is the choices that are taken that determines what they will grow up to be. And for two, of course for bitcoin a rollback can't be considered now. It was an 8 billion dollar market with all kinds of services built on top and mining spread across the globe. This is the reason why it is so hard to change bitcoin at all let a lone roll it back. I can assure you that if Nxt ever got to that size a rollback would be equally as ridiculous. And guess what, when bitcoin was smaller I believe it went through a number of rollbacks. What about when millions of coins were created? What about when the accidental hard fork happened? Didn't a large double spend happen during that time as well? This was only possible because the community was small, like Nxt is now. As it grows such rollbacks will become more and more impossible, I'd argue based off of what happened during this hack, it is already impossible. The roll backs or reversions in Bitcoin were due to code bugs and not simply wanting to rewrite history. |
|
|
|
I don't understand. Where was the idea of a fixed supply ever in question?
It's more twisting of the facts, see my post above. This or complete lack of understanding of what really happened. I didn't say that right. I meant roll backs which is just as bad when dealing with what is supposed to be currency. But my point still stands. When gox lost all those coins, a roll back wasn't even considered. Don't pretend your patch wasn't controversial. |
|
|
|
Imo, if you birth a new cryptocurrency and make a promise of a fixed supply, then that is an immutable contract not up for consideration simply because of a simple theft . I mean, poeple invest based on that assumption. A choice should never have been offered inb the first place in the Bter case. To my mind it reflects a weak mindset of the NXT community or of the devs more specifically. It means you have no idea what the hell they'll do NXT  |
|
|
|
|
User705,
You read that wrong. I meant as an investor in cryptocurrencies in general.
|
|
|
|
You don't even need a derivative market (although that is another way to leverage the nothing at stake problem). You have some coins in block x, you sell the coins, you now have nothing however you can re-org the chain back from block x. Why? Although you have nothing "now" in the past back at block x you did have something. You are attacking with the "memory" or history of coins.
First you must secure $50 bln. (as in $50 000 000 000) funding to buy enough stake. Then you can try. apparently it only costs 200BTC, or approx $100,000, to buy 45M NXT. not quite the same maths. lol, the bter hacker was under pressure, this wasn't a normal purchase of NXT, it was Bter paying the ransom. It's notable that you guys twist facts to your advantage like that. It means there is really nothing you can find to attack NXT with and catching at straws here. what's even more ridiculous is your claim of $50 bln. lol. if the hacker had dumped that much NXT on the open mkt, the price would've tanked. |
|
|
|
You don't even need a derivative market (although that is another way to leverage the nothing at stake problem). You have some coins in block x, you sell the coins, you now have nothing however you can re-org the chain back from block x. Why? Although you have nothing "now" in the past back at block x you did have something. You are attacking with the "memory" or history of coins.
First you must secure $50 bln. (as in $50 000 000 000) funding to buy enough stake. Then you can try. apparently it only costs 200BTC, or approx $100,000, to buy 45M NXT. not quite the same maths. |
|
|
|
I would argue that the "lazy" people who download and run the JAR rather than compiling their own are probably similar in proportion to the lazy people who download bitcoin-qt without checking the hashes match.. i.e. nearly everyone.. Its 2 seconds to compile Nxt, its 2 seconds to compare Bitcoin binary hashes.. both are ways to ensure your running what you think your running.. both are seldom used  i routinely check binary hashes  as an investor, i very much disagree with how the Bter hack of 5% of all NXT was handled. i think it's a telling lesson. the debate was whether to freeze the coins after a hack of 5% of existing NXT, a huge %. i saw no attempt at a consensus mechanism. the devs released a patch to freeze the coins and the community rejected the patch. it was bad enough that the devs would even offer such a freeze and indicated mass confusion as far as i'm concerned and a lack of solid economic principles on the part of the devs. what if 51% of users accepted the patch? what would the community have done then? the devs should actually be embarrassed that they didn't accept the patch. with the Bitcoin consensus mechanism, a real effort is made beforehand to determine the pulse of the entire community so that any patches released have a very high likelihood of being accepted so that investors like myself have input and don't get skiddish about wishy washy devs or stakeholders making rash unilateral decisions. eventually, Bter owners had to pay off the hacker with a measly fraction (single digits iirc) of the "market value" of the NXT coins, ironically with BTC. and yet the hacker still holds some. it was clear Bter (composed of majority NXT stakeholders) was terrified that the hacker would put the NXT up for sale and crash the price. the community claims this was a successful outcome. i see it as a failure. |
|
|
|
That argument can apply to the internet itself.
this is the argument. i've always argued that the internet has been built to handle a nuclear blast wiping out a significant part of the country. it will route around that kind of damage. the worse case scenario is for the US to block the internet here to stop Bitcoin to defend the USD's world reserve status. even in that unlikely event, Bitcoin should be able to route around the damage via other countries. let's see how the banking system fairs with that. we know that China and Russia are doing what they can to undermine the USD. they've headed towards gold as their strategy. for all the arguments i've made since Gold: I smell a trap, i doubt that will work. point being, cooperation with the US to block Bitcoin seems very unlikely. as long as a few countries accept it, Bitcoin should survive. |
|
|
|
You are so full of FUD.
I am leaving this thread then. Please stay in your blissful ignorance. you ditch out after the most important question of all? i'll ask again given that gvt's are the fundamental unit of organization that has the ability to point a gun at mining centers: "so which gvt are you talking about? The US? China? Russia? Or all of them together since they all seem to get along so well?" Any and all of them can do it, separately or together. Bitcoin is a threat to them all, they could agree on this single point, I don't see why they would not. Not immediately, because it's not a threat yet, also they could wait till it gets even more centralized, which is inevitable, that will make it an easier target. your arguments are basically a never ending series of buts; but, but, but... at some pt you have to make an assessment of what is likely and plausible. |
|
|
|
You are so full of FUD.
I am leaving this thread then. Please stay in your blissful ignorance. you ditch out after the most important question of all? i'll ask again given that gvt's are the fundamental unit of organization that has the ability to point a gun at mining centers: "so which gvt are you talking about? The US? China? Russia? Or all of them together since they all seem to get along so well?" |
|
|
|
the Nash Equilibrium continues to equilibrate:  |
|
|
|
Cue the integrated asic mining chip in personal computers as some premium feature. @hunyadi arf my bad but i guess my point is still valid, not going to argue for 2nm ^^ The development & running cost for sub20 nm is unlikely to ever ROI. Could be beautiful but not very scalable. Maybe in 10 years when intel releases their 7nm chip and the technology had matured enough?! Yes, I think 20nm will be the best chip in bitcoin mining for many years to come. Also, there wasn't even very big improvement in the performance compared to 28nm. once the chip set size becomes standardized, at least for a while, the prices for miners should come down. |
|
|
|
we got a rejection going so far off ceiling resistance:  |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is going down.
Gold is not fallling.
Upside down world.
Nasty ass reversal:  |
|
|
|
I would say you would have a pretty good legal leg to stand on if they raised prices only for one particular industry.
In most countries there is a privatised energy industry -meaning it wouldn't be the governments decision to raise or lower prices.
Also - it would be easier to just ban bitcoin mining in a country, declare it illegal. This would be a better route if you wanted to stop or discourage it, as opposed to charging miners higher electricity costs.
Legislation is not set in stone, it can be changed in the name of national security, welfare of people, optimized usage of natural resources, etc. you get the idea. Electricity fees are a good attack vector, they are not using it yet, because Bitcoin is still insignificant and doesn't pose a threat yet. When/If it does, all bets are off. You are so full of FUD. so which gvt are you talking about? The US? China? Russia? Or all of them together since they all seem to get along so well? |
|
|
|
The real world work part and electricity costs are quite important to discourage gvt attacks.
It's not a sustainable path, it can go on for some time, but not forever. They are not gonna produce ASICs to outrun miners, don't worry. What will happen most likely is the electricity fees will be raised dramatically for Bitcoin mining by governments to drive them out of business. In the interests of security of other electricity users. And that is one of major flaws of Bitcoin, it depends on scarce natural resources, that others are in competition for. Not if it replaces significant parts of the banking system. http://www.coindesk.com/microscope-economic-environmental-costs-bitcoin-mining/ |
|
|
|
You're inflating the cryptocurrency space with a coin created with code only, no work.
First of all, I am not inflating anything, I am a user. Second, if you can skip the work part and achieve the same and even much more, why do you need the work part? Just for the sake of work? Why don't people still do all the manual work at this age but instead use devices to make their life easier? Not to mention, this 'work' you're referring to is not sustainable long term, if it keeps growing at the rate it is growing, soon half the world will be working to produce ASICs and generate electricity for mining Bitcoin. Which is of course crazy and not gonna happen, something's gotta give sooner or later. The real world work part and electricity costs are quite important to discourage gvt attacks. They'd just rather print money to try and attack Bitcoin I'd imagine. Sorta sounds like POS. Attacks have to be expensive. Stakeholder collusion would be very bad. |
|
|
|
While doing all that work and paying for electricity for BTC at a price of $0.05 and a chance for it to go to 0.
Coins mined today could still be worth lots tomorrow. At least we have a short at mining fresh coins. Not with POS.
That's risk taking. Risk taking should be rewarded, nobody argues with that. However, you argue that other people taking risk, outside of Bitcoin system, somehow don't deserve to be rewarded. How is that not hypocritical? You're inflating the cryptocurrency space with a coin created with code only, no work. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
