 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
|
|
Why is Ripple still being listed? It has nothing to do with decentralized cryptocurrencies. It has frozen $1 million in user funds, its CEO is in bed with the establishment, and he has publicly bashed Bitcoin every chance he got.
Is Ripple paying to be listed in coinmarketcap?
And Stellar is basically the same thing. One good day they even decided to shut down the entire network (proving it wasn't decentralized at all) to fix a bug.
These scamcoins are hurting the ecosystem. You should be ashamed of listing them.
|
|
|
|
Java isn't really seen in a good light in the CryptoCoin community.
Because the CryptoCoin community is mostly composed by geeks (who can't tell the difference between Java, Java plugin, and Javascript), and not professional developers. There are also many C and Python fanboys who fall into the "heroic programming" category (hint: this isn't something desirable). |
|
|
|
[Gregory Maxwell] talking about PoS too. If you have any doubts go ask him yourself. He's always in the #bitcoin-wizards IRC channel. PoS is not considered a viable alternative to PoW yet. There will have to be another breakthrough to make it workable.
I briefly chatted with Gregory Maxwell on #bitcoin-wizards last spring as I was publishing my whitepaper on Bitcoin Cooperative Proof-of-Stake. Certainly the Bitcoin core developers are skeptical that anything other than proof-of-work can solve the distributed consensus problem. He graciously wished me well with regard to my approach, and I believe that the core developers, e.g. those chatting in #bitcoin-wizards IRC channel, will have more pointed questions and comments when this project's working code is deployed into production, vs commenting on a whitepaper. Satoshi designed bitcoin, I think, by adapting a napster style peer-to-peer network, e.g. omitting the central index server, to support an anonymous digital currency. His envisioned users were also operators who mined bitcoins using their laptops, from residential internet connections, while joining and leaving the network at will. This is the context of how core developers view distributed consensus. In contrast, this design fits the Satoshi Social Contract into a conventional distributed enterprise-style financial network, e.g. omitting central control. Its envisioned users are wallet owners and payment processors. Its envisioned operators are non-affiliated paid system administrators who securely provision identical software containers on bare metal dedicated servers in geographically disparate datacenters. The system is innovatively managed by peer-verified software agents having no single point of failure. The nomadic mint agent builds a canonical non-forking blockchain, which is widely copied, and allows immediate transaction processing without confirmations. Andytoshi, a core developer and mathematician here in Austin, said to me over lunch: " But this is not Bitcoin!". He elaborated to say that a single mint was opposite of what Satoshi wanted. Andytoshi was not then persuaded by my argument that a peer-verified nomadic mint solved the problem of trusting a central mint. Rather he was interested in the vulnerabilities my scheme might have with regard to attacks and network faults in which the system must come to agreement on the correct or optimal version of system state, e.g. who gets to be the mint, and what happens if there are forged blockchains. That is why this project needs to reach production for such fault scenarios to be designed, tested and reported. I agree and have high expectations for what you are doing. You seem to know your crypto and at the same time you are one of the few who actually uses professional development techniques. I was just pointing out a few false statements that I have seen here, like "Peercoin has never been attacked", "Nxt is [cryptographically] secure", "Gregory Maxwell was only talking about Peercoin", etc. |
|
|
|
Nxt doesn't use checkpoints. Although it adds features fairly often, its core model doesn't change often and new features don't make it harder to attack. Even if they did, I don't see how that would affect mounting a 51% attack. Getting to control 51% of Nxt would be implausibly difficult because of the difficulty in acquiring that many coins.
So you have already forgotten that one time when a hacker stole 5% of all the coins, and with that, 5% of all the hashing power? A hack of an exchange is not a 51% attack. 5% is not enough coin to mount an attack. The hack had no effect on block-chain security; the hacker couldn't do anything that Bter couldn't have done. And I don't see what's so "implausible" about buying half of the coins when the market cap is so small. If you try to buy so many, the price will rise. If you succeed, you will find you are attacking yourself. Did you know that you don't even need to own the coins to perform the attack? You just need to have owned them at some point, and begin your forks there. You have to have owned them within the last 12 hours or so, because although Nxt doesn't have checkpoints, it does disallow block-chain reorganisations past 720 blocks. This means to do what you suggest you have to acquire 51% of Nxt and then sell them all off within 12 hours. Dumping in such volume would crash the price, and you'd lose a lot of money. With PoW at least the attacker will have trouble recovering the costs of his mining gear which will become obsolete. The mining gear can be used for other PoW coins that use the same ASICs. See what Gregory Maxwell (nullc) thinks about PoS: He's talking about Peercoin. It's a different algorithm. His comments don't apply to Nxt. No, he's talking about PoS too. If you have any doubts go ask him yourself. He's always in the #bitcoin-wizards IRC channel. PoS is not considered a viable alternative to PoW yet. There will have to be another breakthrough to make it workable. |
|
|
|
To my knowledge, no proof-of-stake coin has been compromised in a 51% attack
Peercoin has been successfully attacked. The reason these PoS coins are still up and running today is because they either use checkpoints (which makes them 100% centralized and pointless, which is the case of Peercoin), or they are continually making changes which makes attacking them annoying or hard, but is just another form of centralization (they depend on the continuous updates that everyone must accept blindly, as opposed to a stable protocol that rarely changes. Someone compared this to the whack-a-mole game). Nxt doesn't use checkpoints. Although it adds features fairly often, its core model doesn't change often and new features don't make it harder to attack. Even if they did, I don't see how that would affect mounting a 51% attack. Getting to control 51% of Nxt would be implausibly difficult because of the difficulty in acquiring that many coins. So you have already forgotten that one time when a hacker stole 5% of all the coins, and with that, 5% of all the hashing power? And I don't see what's so "implausible" about buying half of the coins when the market cap is so small. Did you know that you don't even need to own the coins to perform the attack? You just need to have owned them at some point, and begin your forks there. With PoW at least the attacker will have trouble recovering the costs of his mining gear which will become obsolete. With PoS that cost doesn't exist. The attacker can sell all his coins and then start the attack. See what Gregory Maxwell (nullc) thinks about PoS: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1uoq6e/what_do_you_guys_think_of_proof_of_stake_mining/cek8epc?context=2https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6798997 |
|
|
|
To my knowledge, no proof-of-stake coin has been compromised in a 51% attack
Peercoin has been successfully attacked. The reason these PoS coins are still up and running today is because they either use checkpoints (which makes them 100% centralized and pointless, which is the case of Peercoin), or they are continually making changes which makes attacking them annoying or hard, but is just another form of centralization (they depend on the continuous updates that everyone must accept blindly, as opposed to a stable protocol that rarely changes. Someone compared this to the whack-a-mole game). |
|
|
|
I'm not upto speed on all of this project ie spent about 2 minutes.
However you wish to hardfork BTC beginning of 2016? you want major holders to follow your fork?
Why not just create a new chain?
What is the point of using BTC when for a start even a bitcoin advocate could hardly consider bitcoins current distribution as ideal?
Also well before you finish there will already be a bitcoin pos on its own blockchain (another project with significant backing far removed from this forum).
Because he wants his initiative to succeed, not to be just another short lived pump and dump scam. He wants to preserve Satoshi's social contract. |
|
|
|
Litecoin, Dogecoin
The forks could come much earlier than January 2016
This part makes no sense. Why would you want to do that? Do you realize by 2016, those coins might not even exist anymore? Both of them have been falling in BTC price non-stop as expected from their lack of usefulness, and will probably be displaced by non-Bitcoin clones like Monero for example, which at least adds *something* new (true decentralized anonymity thanks to the use of ring signatures). http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/litecoin/http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/dogecoin/If you don't know much about what happened in the dogecoin world you should read this: http://www.dailydot.com/business/moolah-dogecoin-alex-green/There's also this leaked video: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e63_1404777061About Litecoin: The tale that Scrypt made it ASIC resistant is now proven to be false. It's being mined by ASICs, and even the creator of Scrypt himself said "they used it poorly", because it was supposed to use a lot of RAM, but it didn't. So it's basically just another Bitcoin clone with nothing new, less adoption, less investment in mining gear, less security, less brain power working on it, less venture capital, less companies, less network effect, less market capitalization, less everything. |
|
|
|
People accept the risk of the theoretical >50% attack when they use PoW networks.
At the moment there is a similar theoretical risk of a 'Nothing at Stake' attack on a PoS network.
People accept the risk of what a >50% attacker could do to a PoW network if they were a non-rational(economically speaking) bad actor. So why do people dismiss PoS simply because it currently has the possibility of a theoretical non-rational attack?
Seems very contradictory to me.
Except it's not theoretical, and it's not non-rational. Had you bothered reading the links I posted you would have learned that Peercoin was successfully attacked this way. You don't even need to actually own any coins to attack a PoS coin. You can use coins you don't own anymore, meaning you can't even use the argument "Why would a stakeholder want to destroy the value of his own stake?". |
|
|
|
|
It's funny to watch how noobs continue jumping into this shitcoin and the price continues going down.
They have been saying "Cheap coins, time to buy!" since 130. Now ~46 and still falling...
Worthless coins are worthless.
|
|
|
|
|
Wtf is this Bytecoin doing at #9?
It's almost completely mined!
Why isn't it marked as "Significantly Premined"?
|
|
|
|
If you want to save long-term, then invest in mutual funds or real estate or whatever you want, but don't sit on your currency.
Or... I can invest in Bitcoin, which doesn't tell me what to do. That's what it was created for, remember? We are supposed to be in control, and not have our wealth stolen through inflation or other trickery. If you are in doubt of this, go read the genesis block. A currency that is just like the USD is not interesting and I won't use it, no matter what your theories say. Bye. |
|
|
|
Savers are useless non-contributors. Not that there's anything wrong with saving, but economies of scale don't depend on it, and so there's no economic justification to encourage it.
You cannot be more wrong. Saving is simply deferred spending. It's spending later vs. spending now. You could argue that incentivizing spending over saving is transferring prosperity from the future to the present. In the end it's a zero sum. More than that. Saving is required for capital formation. Many enterprises and much innovation depends upon capital formation. Without capital formation it is much closer to net zero-sum. With capital formation, it is more like win-win than it is without it. Yup. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_identityThe caveat is that not all investment is actually useful investment. For example, building up inventory of unsold goods is considered investment in accounting terms, even though the goods may not be wanted and may never be sold. That said, you do need savings for there to be (good) investment. Guys I'm not claiming that saving is unimportant. I'm talking about savings in the form of unspent currency. I was responding to hbadger's claim that inflation punishes savers. There are plenty of appreciable saving/investment vehicles that will result in greater long term yields. Incentivizing saving in the currency itself, however, will only serve to kill its velocity. Economies of scale require a currency that moves. I hate to bring fiat into the argument, but despite all it's problems the U.S. dollar does a great job at supporting large-scale economies. Even with a 2.5% - 4% annual inflation (definitely not "saver friendly"), capital formation does not seem to be a problem. Go figure. It's not a claim, it's a fact. If you make people lose money you are punishing them. And since you don't have the monopoly of violence, you have no power over them and people will simply use a coin that suits them better as a store of value. Individual savers will never care about creating artificial incentives for their economy, let alone a foreign or global economy. Only politicians care about that, because it lets them deliver better looking economic growth indicators which will help them with their propaganda. Also, you keep pushing the false dichotomy that if someone saves, he can't possibly spend. Meanwhile, actual data shows that bitcoiners spend all the time, but even more during spikes. Go figure. |
|
|
|
After reading this whole thread and some topic on reddit i understood that there is no monero economy. Everything seems to be a fake. I'd rather invest all my money to BCN. Coz all of MRO's homies are doing the only business - talking about how smart they are, but in fact BCN team IS the team who work hard, and it’s their right not to communicate if they choose not to.
Wake up, dude. Welcome to the real world -_- I don't know why everybody were so excited with these altcoins... If you want to waste another usefull minutes of your priceless time you can read others mro's threads and find out more information about monero's dirty schemes! Are you sure that we should trust them? Of course i know a lot of Bytecoin and i'm thinking that Monero is a regular clone of this amazing currency but not everything that you can read here is obviously true. Never forget about scams... And never forget that BCN is much more cooler than MRO. Newbie having monolog with himself, lol Someone is afraid of competition, just sell, it's not too late to escape out of BCN and you only lose 50% of money, better than waiting and lose 99%. +1 lol |
|
|
|
The 51% attack which happened this week is a warning sign to anyone paying attention. It's a red flag exactly like what we saw when Mt Gox was not processing withdraws. The time to push for a hard fork is right now because Proof of Work as Bitcoin is implementing it is obsolete. It's an incomplete solution compared to a more complete solution such as the Cooperative Proof-of-Stake CPoS or Delegative Proof of Stake DPoS. NXT has a solution as well and the specific challenge we have is to promote the best technologies even when it might not be in the best economic interests of entrenched elites of Proof of Work Blockchain hierarchies.
Holy crap. Is this true? No. Ignore him, he's just panicking and trying to solve something he's not qualified to solve. And while he's at it he's polluting an otherwise very interesting thread. |
|
|
|
I make this post to go on record that I'm in favor of a hard fork of Bitcoin. The core devs and culture surrounding Bitcoin have allowed a 51% attack to occur, MtGox to become centralized, fail, and generate months of bad press, and refuse to switch out of SHA-256 and on to another hashing algorithm or at least Proof of Stake.
Other developers have been warning them, people were warned about MtGox, nothing changes. Instead excuses are constantly being made for increasing centralization. Every month we look and see more signs of centralization.
Either Bitcoin must be hard forked or I'll be using something else like NXT or Bitshares.
What the hell are you talking about? Bitcoin is not sustainable as a decentralized currency. Proof of Work does not and by design cannot scale until a day when each of us can make chips in our basement 3d printers. Since we aren't chip makers, the electric company, or the producers of hashing power, we must continuously buy or borrow hashing power from others. The producers of hashing power control the SHA-256 Proof of Work technology and with it they have obtained the ability to 51% attack. Due to the economics the pyramid can be expected to continue to become more steep over time as control winds up in fewer hands. The 51% attack which happened this week is a warning sign to anyone paying attention. It's a red flag exactly like what we saw when Mt Gox was not processing withdraws. The time to push for a hard fork is right now because Proof of Work as Bitcoin is implementing it is obsolete. It's an incomplete solution compared to a more complete solution such as the Cooperative Proof-of-Stake CPoS or Delegative Proof of Stake DPoS. NXT has a solution as well and the specific challenge we have is to promote the best technologies even when it might not be in the best economic interests of entrenched elites of Proof of Work Blockchain hierarchies. They got in their positions because they chose the most advanced technology and I don't see why they should entitled to keep their leadership position if they do not consistently choose the best technology. Progress should be more important than whether or not some miners can get rich. If I were them I would pull some of my money out of Bitcoin and put it into Proof of Stake or I would fund the development of CPoS to support the hard fork of Bitcoin. I'm aware of PoW problems, but you were saying non-sensical things like we allowed "MtGox to become centralized". MtGox was just an exchange, and it was never decentralized. It's just a website! What do you expected Bitcoin developers to do about it? Also, nothing changed when a pool reached 51%. If you didn't panic at 30% or 40%, why are you panicking now? CPoS hasn't been proven secure yet, and other alternatives have been proven insecure. If you are so sure PoS is secure, go ahead and sell your bitcoins for Nxt. But have you considered that a technology might not be "the most advanced" just because someone says so? This thread is for research, not panicking, fudding, and complaining about the state of Bitcoin or its politics. Please keep it clean. |
|
|
|
I make this post to go on record that I'm in favor of a hard fork of Bitcoin. The core devs and culture surrounding Bitcoin have allowed a 51% attack to occur, MtGox to become centralized, fail, and generate months of bad press, and refuse to switch out of SHA-256 and on to another hashing algorithm or at least Proof of Stake.
Other developers have been warning them, people were warned about MtGox, nothing changes. Instead excuses are constantly being made for increasing centralization. Every month we look and see more signs of centralization.
Either Bitcoin must be hard forked or I'll be using something else like NXT or Bitshares.
What the hell are you talking about? |
|
|
|
|
