The salient distinction is that mining influence in Bitcoin has nothing to do with how many tokens you own. And mining expenditure is ongoing whereas staked masternodes are only deposited once.
We've already explained this before. I am not going to explain again why staking is not secure.
Mining influence in DASH has nothing to do with how many tokens you own either. Miners govern the coin in exactly the same way as other PoW coins - they can fork a chain at any time. Masternodes/DGBB create an additional governance layer, providing, right now, funds for all sorts of beneficial projects directly from the blockchain. Nobody is saying it's perfect, finished or a replacement for mining. It is, however, a good working solution <in the present> to the governance issues and decision making malaise that stunt the growth of other coins. Masternodes can corrupt the security of the InstantX and the anonymity. Evolution is building more corruptible features on masternodes. Masternodes concentrate the coin supply to those who own the masternodes by paying them a dividend (up to 50% per annum according a chart that was on the Dash website last year), and the masternode has no significant ongoing cost, as the stake deposit is only made once. The decentralization of the mining is irrelevant when the coin supply is largely controlled by those who instamined and have been concentrating their percentage of the coin supply, thus they can force any protocol change they want, because ultimately it is payers who control which protocol they sign their transactions to. I don't have time to get in a detailed debate with you, but rest assured I can destroy all your arguments when I am ready to. That time is coming... just wait... |
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war Do you have a twitter or something with updates to your projects?
Not yet. |
|
|
|
What the Bitcoin, Monero and other well designed coins do is allow you to see the centralization as verifiable data, that's the difference that matters. As I pointed out in my second post.
Explain how mining centralization statistics are 'verifiable data'. How do you know who controls the big mining pools? How do you know if they're not all controlled by one entity/guv etc? We can't know except for example if they modify the protocol. That is what I argued to smooth and monsterer in the thread where I explained Satoshi did not solve the Byzantine General's Problem. Now your claim that Risto can destroy the coin by dumping, ect, are conjecture on your part, that I don't agree with, but if he could acquire coins by accruing them through nodes and having voting power through those nodes, I'd agree--in Monero and Bitcoin the governance is done by the miners and miners have a verifiable percentage of power through mining pools. Dash created a new and worse problem by their solution, so not exactly apples to apples. But if you want to argue about mining centralization, there are threads (populated by many members of the Monero and Bitcoin community) for that. This isn't a dash versus xmr or btc thread. It is a thread about dash's failure to make distribution of power a readily available data set that anyone can objectively observe and make fair and honest assessments.
Your claim that DASH's governance solution is a 'worse problem' is conjecture on your part. The salient distinction is that mining influence in Bitcoin has nothing to do with how many tokens you own. And mining expenditure is ongoing whereas staked masternodes are only deposited once. We've already explained this before. I am not going to explain again why staking is not secure. |
|
|
|
I've pretty much nailed down my concept for a much more composable programming language design. It appears to me that by inverting the control over typing, that higher-kinded typing is actually an undesirable anti-pattern. If I am correct, I have just identified why Haskell is a suboptimal design: https://users.rust-lang.org/t/most-coveted-rust-features/324/41Looks like I have to create my own programming language! Which is too much work probably.
Edit: ground beef (w/egg and Worcestershire sauce), mozarella cheese, tomato, lettuce, and (no high fructose corn syrup) Heinz ketchup sandwiches on whole wheat French bread again tonight! I am so tired of eating a monotonous strict diet of tuna soup, eggs, oatmeal, raw carrots, and steamed greens. No ill effects from eating this yesterday. If I can eat the food I like again, I can gain back some of my strength. I need that brain food.
After feeling strong yesterday and sleeping, I woke up with diarrhea. I've been high dosing with sublingual oregano oil since awakening roughly 4 hours ago. The oregano oil seems to be getting it under control although I still feel a bit under the weather (but not worse than a mild flu feeling). Actually my body feels strong with that food and I sleep very well. So this is another confirmation that my 4 year chronic illness is an infectious agent impacting my digestive system, which makes sense given the chronic phase began 4 years ago after being hospitalized for an acute peptic ulcer and h.pylori infection. I mentioned previously that the oregano oil seems to have greatly diminished the occurrences of the pimples on face or tongue that precede a chronic fatigue syndrome relapse in the past. As well cleared up the "70 year old" skin look on my shoulders and upper back. And my CFS episodes are much milder. And mostly I just need to sleep more whereas before so insomniac. |
|
|
|
Anonymint, you are trying way too hard to get Bitcoin to fit some Armstrong gold forecast when the two have no correlation...
The halving is not some insignificant event. It dwarfs any tiny change in interest rates or other variables. There is also the fact that Bitcoin would be seen by some as a failure if the halving was unable to produce any increase in price, so vested interests (me being one of them) will engineer it to prevent that from happening, hence why you already see a $25 price increase. What is sustainable is unknown, and will only be known a month or two afterwards, but the price will be raised to find out.
Actually that's true. I pointed out several times in the Armstrong thread how wrong TPTB_need_war is with his Bitcoin forecasts, and that's the source of the errors: he is trying to correlate BTC with the gold model of Armstrong. There is a very strong correlation. Anonymint, I don't know how you can fall into the beginner trap of saying the halving is "priced in".
Obvious he is at least semi-trolling you. How is presenting an alternative theory of the 2013 Bitcoin bubble trolling? That all of you think it is impossible reminds me of market theory that the majority is always wrong. So let's stay tuned for the outcome... |
|
|
|
Anonymint, you are trying way too hard to get Bitcoin to fit some Armstrong gold forecast when the two have no correlation...
The halving is not some insignificant event. It dwarfs any tiny change in interest rates or other variables. There is also the fact that Bitcoin would be seen by some as a failure if the halving was unable to produce any increase in price, so vested interests (me being one of them) will engineer it to prevent that from happening, hence why you already see a $25 price increase. What is sustainable is unknown, and will only be known a month or two afterwards, but the price will be raised to find out.
Actually that's true. I pointed out several times in the Armstrong thread how wrong TPTB_need_war is with his Bitcoin forecasts, and that's the source of the errors: he is trying to correlate BTC with the gold model of Armstrong. There is a very strong correlation. Anonymint, I don't know how you can fall into the beginner trap of saying the halving is "priced in".
Obvious he is at least semi-trolling you. How is presenting an alternative theory of the 2013 Bitcoin bubble trolling? That all of you think it is impossible reminds me of market theory that the majority is always wrong. So let's stay tuned for the outcome... |
|
|
|
Synereo scam: Lol, yes these dorks are going to dominate by requiring bloggers to learn Github.  Then @ 26mins we have Greg Meredith raving about recruiting an economist and hiring a former Ethereum developer who talks about Oleg's monad blogs. As if this focus on eggheads has anything to do with wide-scale adoption of a social network. At @30min, Greg admits that the "Lively Gig" team has stated, "Synereo doesn't know what they are doing". At @38min, Greg points out that there is an insoluble problem in that the value of AMPs will be siphoned off to ETH or BTC units. And he admits Synereo can't scale for 18 months, because current block chain model won't scale and will need to be replaced. |
|
|
|
You think all "ICOs" are manipulation.
I am confident they are ILLEGAL if publicly marketed to USA investors. Maybe that's why it's important to know that the managers of these are not in the US, and in this case, neither is the company. However, regardless of either of our ideas, if they were truly as "illegal" as you state (out of context), then there would be action being taken, and I don't see that going on. (not to say that there are not scams, and intentional fraud, etc - a small %, like in every industry) Also: citation? If it's illegal, it has a link stating so clearly. Of course, you've employed circular reasoning by using the term "investment", and begged the question. Crytpocurrency is neither a currency, nor an investment in the eyes of the law. Details of USA Securities Law is covered in the following thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1218399.0Making AMPS publicly available for sale to non-accredited USA investors makes the unregistered investment securities illegal even if issued by foreigners. Greg Meredith will have a difficult time arguing that he was not promoting this, and he is a USA citizen. In my opinion he is taking a huge risk. Greg @ Synereo is avoiding explaining all the specification and technology to us in terms we can understand. No excuses you can make for that which are valid. He is selling AMPs and not giving us information we can verify. That is an illegal prospectus. If Synereo didn't sell AMPs to the public, Greg et al would have no obligation to explain the technology in detail to us in terms we can understand and verify.
Edit: it is rather useless if I go expend my scarce time to become an expert in process calculi so that I could find game theory flaws in Synereo's process calculi approach to their hyped Attention Model feature. Because it would still be an asymmetric information market for the investors, as then they would be required to trust either my conclusions or Greg's (Synereo's). The only solution is for Greg to do proper disclosure by explaining the technology in terms that all AMP investors can understand. They have the time to produce a very exquisite website and consume hours every week on video Hangouts that do hyped handwaving on technical details, then they should also have enough time to explain the technology in sufficient detail that we can analyze without requiring us to become one of the few process calculi researchers on earth.
Greg never avoids explaining. In fact, I've never heard him not add an invitation for more explanation if needed, to what he says in hangouts. Verbal handwaving is not technical explaining. It is clever marketing to fool n00bs, but I know better. Ask an informed question, and you'll get an informed answer.
I have stated what is needed. When the appropriate technical documents are made available, which expert programmers such as myself and smooth can understand and verify without needing to become process calculi researcher. We need sufficient technical detail so that we can verify if the system will do what he is claiming it will do. Please don't reply to my post with more diversionary bullshit. It is getting very repetitive. |
|
|
|
Another reason that smart contract block chains can't work. Synereo and Casper developer Greg Meredith admits that the fees incentivize forking the block chain. At @38min, Greg points out that there is an insoluble problem in that the value of AMPs will be siphoned off to ETH or BTC units. |
|
|
|
Lol, yes these dorks are going to dominate by requiring bloggers to learn Github. Then @ 26mins we have Greg Meredith raving about recruiting an economist and hiring a former Ethereum developer who talks about Oleg's monad blogs. As if this focus on eggheads has anything to do with wide-scale adoption of a social network. At @30min, Greg admits that the "Lively Gig" team has stated, "Synereo doesn't know what they are doing". At @38min, Greg points out that there is an insoluble problem in that the value of AMPs will be siphoned off to ETH or BTC units. And he admits Synereo can't scale for 18 months, because current block chain model won't scale and will need to be replaced. |
|
|
|
You think all "ICOs" are manipulation.
I am confident they are ILLEGAL if publicly marketed to USA investors. Maybe that's why it's important to know that the managers of these are not in the US, and in this case, neither is the company. However, regardless of either of our ideas, if they were truly as "illegal" as you state (out of context), then there would be action being taken, and I don't see that going on. (not to say that there are not scams, and intentional fraud, etc - a small %, like in every industry) Also: citation? If it's illegal, it has a link stating so clearly. Of course, you've employed circular reasoning by using the term "investment", and begged the question. Crytpocurrency is neither a currency, nor an investment in the eyes of the law. Details of USA Securities Law is covered in the following thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1218399.0Making AMPS publicly available for sale to non-accredited USA investors makes the unregistered investment securities illegal even if issued by foreigners. Greg Meredith will have a difficult time arguing that he was not promoting this, and he is a USA citizen. In my opinion he is taking a huge risk. Greg @ Synereo is avoiding explaining all the specification and technology to us in terms we can understand. No excuses you can make for that which are valid. He is selling AMPs and not giving us information we can verify. That is an illegal prospectus. If Synereo didn't sell AMPs to the public, Greg et al would have no obligation to explain the technology in detail to us in terms we can understand and verify.
Edit: it is rather useless if I go expend my scarce time to become an expert in process calculi so that I could find game theory flaws in Synereo's process calculi approach to their hyped Attention Model feature. Because it would still be an asymmetric information market for the investors, as then they would be required to trust either my conclusions or Greg's (Synereo's). The only solution is for Greg to do proper disclosure by explaining the technology in terms that all AMP investors can understand. They have the time to produce a very exquisite website and consume hours every week on video Hangouts that do hyped handwaving on technical details, then they should also have enough time to explain the technology in sufficient detail that we can analyze without requiring us to become one of the few process calculi researchers on earth.
Greg never avoids explaining. In fact, I've never heard him not add an invitation for more explanation if needed, to what he says in hangouts. Verbal handwaving is not technical explaining. It is clever marketing to fool n00bs, but I know better. Ask an informed question, and you'll get an informed answer.
I have stated what is needed. When the appropriate technical documents are made available, which expert programmers such as myself and smooth can understand and verify without needing to become process calculi researcher. We need sufficient technical detail so that we can verify if the system will do what he is claiming it will do. Please don't reply to my post with more diversionary bullshit. It is getting very repetitive. |
|
|
|
Lol, yes these dorks are going to dominate by requiring bloggers to learn Github. Then @ 26mins we have Greg Meredith raving about recruiting an economist and hiring a former Ethereum developer who talks about Oleg's monad blogs. As if this focus on eggheads has anything to do with wide-scale adoption of a social network. At @30min, Greg admits that the "Lively Gig" team has stated, "Synereo doesn't know what they are doing". At @38min, Greg points out that there is an insoluble problem in that the value of AMPs will be siphoned off to ETH or BTC units. And he admits Synereo can't scale for 18 months, because current block chain model won't scale and will need to be replaced. |
|
|
|
Lol, yes these dorks are going to dominate by requiring bloggers to learn Github. Then @ 26mins we have Greg Meredith raving about recruiting an economist and hiring a former Ethereum developer who talks about Oleg's monad blogs. As if this focus on eggheads has anything to do with wide-scale adoption of a social network. At @30min, Greg admits that the "Lively Gig" team has stated, "Synereo doesn't know what they are doing". At @38min, Greg points out that there is an insoluble problem in that the value of AMPs will be siphoned off to ETH or BTC units. And he admits Synereo can't scale for 18 months, because current block chain model won't scale and will need to be replaced. |
|
|
|
yeah but my point is the liberals have taken over the conservative icons of our history. This represents an unacceptable slap in the face to the conservatives. They are nearing the point of mass revolt. The USA will split along liberal and conservative divides. The southern Bible belt will break away.
Nearing the point of disorder and social unrest yes but break away? I am skeptical that an overall population dependent on government will do this. The general public has no understanding of fundamental etiology and thus lack the ability to advocate for coherent solutions. They are simply angry. They will push for and support people with 'answers'. In this election cycle both Trump and Sanders are trying to capitalize on this anger Trump via appeals to nationalism and Sanders by appeals to socialism and redistribution. Nationalism is dying but it may just be alive enough to win one last election cycle. Even if Trump wins, however, I believe it will change little maybe delay the inevitable for a few years if that. The near future for better or worse belongs to people like Sanders. This will be the case until the demographics fundamentally change and allow for something better which will take a long time. Not all Americans are dependent on the government. And these conservatives are pissed off. They will not tolerate being forced to pay taxes to support the rest. And this will grow as taxes increase. The liberals will stay with the government and will bankrupt it, as the conservatives will refuse to pay for it, and break (defect en mass organized) away. Armstrong's model will not be incorrect. |
|
|
|
2. Marginal miners won't shut off their mining once Bitcoin becomes unprofitable for them, instead they will shift their ASICs to Bitcoin clones. Another Litecoin (formerly the GPU switch) is out there right now, waiting to be beneficially. Is it Vcash? What Bitcoin clones are out there?
Correct me if I'm wrong someone. But I believe all bitcoin PoW clones are effectively dead. Nothing above a 2 - 3 million market cap (maybe nothing at all?) After litecoin ASICs I believe the general consensus was that ASIC PoW was something flawed and to be avoided. So somebody may make a fortune buying the chosen one now if the theory is correct. |
|
|
|
Anonymint, I don't know how you can fall into the beginner trap of saying the halving is "priced in". For something to be priced in, it would imply there is some form of equilibrium at hand, meaning the price goes up, minining power doesn't increase with it, halving occurs, then mining power stays the same. That isn't what happened at all though. The price went up and more mining power joined the network, raising the price floor months ago and it has been shown to be pretty stable at the higher price. Now when the halving occurs, the price is either required to increase a lot, or lots of miners will have to drop out. There is no form of equilibrium at hand. Tidal waves of cause and effect have to occur.
We also know that ASICs require lots of R&D investment and capital. Since people have already invested millions of dollars in mining farms, there is no way in hell they are going to turn off their 16nm, state of the art miners. Current process node miners simply do not turn them off ever. They always mine at a loss or buy coins off the wall to dollar cost average before doing that. Even if you did think the Bitcoin price was unsustainable (it's not, market cap is still small), it's inevitable the price would spike higher before any unsustainable reality could set in.
The act of mining is also a decentralized exchange while Coinbase is a centralized exchange. Supply is being cut in half on the DEX while demand remains the same because miners are simply not going to be turned off. Centralized exchanges are forced to follow the price action.
1. Marginal miners continuing to mine has no positive effect on the price. If hashrate doesn't halve, they have to sell proportionally (to the block reward) more Bitcoin to pay expenses. So while the main argument for the price increasing (other than expectations of investors), is the halving of the annual supply of coins will be available for selling from mining, some of that could be offset by increased selling as more marginal miners become cash flow negative. So the initial effect could be an increase in selling while marginal miners try to stay afloat hoping price will rise. This is entire consistent with the V crash followed by a slingshot rocket up, which is what I stated is possible. 2. Marginal miners won't shut off their mining once Bitcoin becomes unprofitable for them, instead they will shift their ASICs to Bitcoin clones. Another Litecoin (formerly the GPU switch) is out there right now, waiting to be beneficially. Is it Vcash? What Bitcoin clones are out there? 3. I don't think the DEX demand via mining is entirely price inelastic. At some price, it is more profitable to mine an altcoin, then trade it for Bitcoins (after pumping the price of the altcoin by mining out the float and doing manipulation). The game theory is much more sophisticated than your simplistic one.
|
|
|
|
Halving is not priced in ... it is now being and will be, eventually.
Think of it like the 6,3,2,1 month discount interest rate future pricing mechanism on money markets.
Equity markets don't work like rational discount rate computations. Rather they work on shifts in expectations coincident with momentum, since one of the rational actions is to chase price. So popular expectations are normally priced in early, which is why the maxim "buy the rumor, sell the news" exists. I applied that to publicly call the March top in the ETH price once Homestead was released (sell the news). Note in recent blogs, Armstrong is stating May/June, else August as the potential timing for a directional change. And bottom in gold maybe not until 2017. bitcoin is not an equity and behaves very little like an equity market ... or any market for that matter. That's why I said money markets ... Bitcoin is definitely more like a currency than an equity, there are so few comparisons between Bitcoin and any asset aside from a currency. I'm not sure why he thought you meant an asset lol. Bitcoin is still controlled by a combination of investment expectations (as if it were a stock) and complex game theory, and not straightforward discount computations. Your assumptions about what I thought are not what I thought. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
