 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
Guys, thoughts? We need to change Bitcoin to proof-of-work (PoW) to proof-of-stake (PoS), right?
From what I know, right now it costs over 1000$ to mine one BTC. From what I remember - it may not be very accurate - the PoS coins value keeps degrading over time (whales just sell the coins they get for free). All in all, while I agree that the global cost of energy for BTC is huge, if we change this we may end up with a very very cheap Bitcoin. This is a huge common misconception. Ether for example now with PoW has 14% inflation, but when it moves to PoS with Casper it'll have just 1% inflation, lower than bitcoins 4% currently. It all depends on the parameters set. PoS, if anything, is more deflationary than PoW if it wants to be, because in PoS you don't have to reward as much to miners for all that useless mining computation. |
|
|
|
Guys, thoughts? We need to change Bitcoin to proof-of-work (PoW) to proof-of-stake (PoS), right? https://www.reddit.com/r/Crypto_ICO_Investing/comments/72btqm/proof_of_work_is_not_secure_has_no_future_and_is/?ref=share&ref_source=link"Bitcoin needs to change to Proof-of-Stake (PoS) if it’s to survive in the long run. Otherwise, it’s competing crypto-assets would do the world a favor by burying it. Why? Firstly, PoW is not secure: As of August, you’d need only $400–800 million (*1) to attack the $44 billion Bitcoin chain (and in PoW too, you can even get some or even all of the attack-infrastructure investment back by short selling in the right moment). This makes PoW seem way less secure than PoS, where you’d need at least 15% of the stake (*1), or over $6B, and to buy all that, you’d drive the price to the moon, while everyone else cashes out, and the attacker is holding a worthless bag. But in PoW, even if the network forks away, the attacker didn’t spend money buying any coins, but rather the transferable power to attack any similar forked coin as well. Secondly, PoW is also a huge pointless electricity drain on the world, already using more electricity than Iceland, the country. PoW served it’s purpose. It was good for getting economic incentives for miners to jump aboard. However, if prices go 1000x higher as we like, it’ll be 1000 Icelands, or entire continents of power just for PoW (*2). PoW therefor has no future. It’s not at all secure, and it’d use entire continents of power usage to power it. Bitcoin better change to Proof-of-Shares (PoS), if not delegated dPoS, or it’s hard to imagine how it’ll survive, by even modest govt attacks or otherwise. For the time being, only PoS and dPoS systems such as NEO, QTUM, LISK, Bitshare, Steem and others coming to d/PoS like Ethereum, Tezos and EOS, seem like viable." (*1) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2050869.msg20571959#msg20571959(*2) It's a common misconception that the transactions volume would need to go up 10x for electricity usage to go up 10x. It doesn't. The electricity usage is much more correlated to bitcoin price than usage. If price goes up 10x, then miners are incentivized to invest 10x more on hardware and thereby increase the computational competition and "difficulty" of mining by 10x, and therefor electricity, by 10x. |
|
|
|
check this: https://www.reddit.com/r/Crypto_ICO_Investing/comments/72huo0/cryptoassets_market_grew_114x_in_1_year_101000x/The crypto-assets market grew 11.4x (1140%) in 1 year, from Sept 26 2016, to today. Wow. The industry is already at $137B market cap, but it's got 10-100x growth to go, easy, since we're rebuilding the entire internet over here in the distributed cyberspace that's know as crypto-land, and it'll dwarf the existing internet in disruption capacity. If FIAT currencies are also replaced (which, let's face it, eventually they will be), there will be over 1000x growth. |
|
|
|
|
What's holding me back now is ZERO (original) code released to Github.
Do that, and you'll gain a lot more credibility.
What's the ETA for that?
|
|
|
|
At this moment, you need about $400-800 million dollars to attack the $44 billion Bitcoin chain (and in PoW too, you can get some or even all of them back by short selling in the right moment).
This $800 million sounds about right, but can you source or show how you calculated this number? This makes PoW seem way less secure than PoS. PoW is also a huge pointless electricity drain on the world, already using more electricity than Iceland, the country. If prices go 1000x higher as we like, it'll be 1000 Icelands, or entire continents of power just for PoW. PoW therefor seems to have no future. |
|
|
|
Alert: We're not very optimistic about ICON ICO (ICX) prices going very high (over 5x after ICO in the short run) because of its Bancor protocol price-stabilization" [read: no returns, investors leave, price plummets]. https://www.reddit.com/r/Crypto_ICO_Investing/comments/721psk/not_buying_icon_icx_why_bancor_formula_sucks_for/?ref=share&ref_source=linkThis is unfortunate, because we really liked the company and project, otherwise ("The Korean NEO, SWIFT partner, biz focused, etc") ICON WhitePaper, page 18: "While stable prices make sense for inter-blockchain business operations, it's not so good for investors, who see the price not going up fast, so they exodus, and price dumps. "As a blockchain network that links multiple blockchains with their own unique governance, ICON provides DEX based on ICX. It enables transactions among different cryptocurrencies by determining the exchange rate through Reserve based on the Bancor Protocol18. For transactions between ETH and ICX, DEX can be comprised of nodes with voting rights to Reserve Smart Contracts within Ethereum and ICON. In this case, the price of ICX is determined according to the following equation: 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝐵𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 × 𝐼𝐶𝑋𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 × 𝐼𝐶𝑋𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝐼𝐶𝑋𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 = 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝐵𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 × 𝐼𝐶𝑋𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 If one purchases ICX with ETH via DEX, the Reserve Balance composed of ETH increases and the ICX Volume decreases, resulting in an increase in the ICX Price. Conversely, buying ETH with ICX reduces the Reserve Balance and increases the ICX Volume, resulting in a decrease in the ICX Price. Please refer to the Formulas for Bancor system19 for the details on the purchase price and ICX token number calculation. If ICX is listed and traded on another exchange, its value at the corresponding exchange and the value at ICON DEX may be different. In this case, arbitrage transactions which lead to ETH inflow and exchange will take place, thereby resulting in similar price levels of ICX." http://docs.icon.foundation/ICON-Whitepaper-EN-Draft.pdf |
|
|
|
|
Very unethical, perhaps a scam:
1. ICO using dumb wallets, no smart contract.
Yes, there was a limit of 7 ETH, so you wouldn't think scam. But you could use infinite email addresses (no real passport photo KYC)
2. No word from them for over 3 hours already after end of ICO about refund for late contributions after the limit
3. $3M was really raised it seems, not $32 ($29 was already raised in presale, it seemed, when sale began)
4. That Jack Bruckman guy did the same thing with Decentraland.
8. No telegram/slack listed on their site
5. I got deactivated from the slack, and now have no where to turn to for answers, or even a live community to consult.
6. Wallet addresses got exposed 14 hours earlier cuz of a bug - incompetence?
7. No white-paper on their site
|
|
|
|
|
What's the status now, especially on releasing the source-code? I tried to contact the team.
|
|
|
|
|
