|
What makes it worth 0,15 BTC?
|
|
|
|
My point is that cryptocurrencies were created to take advantage of the law's loopholes. Indeed, so the law could not sue someone in the cryptocurrency industry until they revised the code. This is a wrong assessment, BTCitcoin is not created to take advantage of the loopholes but the rest of the coins in the market might be doing simply that to make money and to game the law  . The problem with XRP as a security is that they are not registered in the US and since they are still selling the coins then they are liable to be prosecuted as per the law and how long this drama will continue is to be seen. Lawmakers will usually try to define things in a manner abstract enough to be applied to new situations. Explicitly trying to craft something around loopholes might have been tried in some altcoin or another. But ultimately these things will converge and laws will be revised so they lead to balanced results for new phenomena. |
|
|
|
|
Well, some components like PoW cannot be faked, so altcoin designers would be easily able to proactively disprove any fakeness. Ironically, there are huge campaigns aiming at the advertisement of algorithms where the result can be faked more easily.
|
|
|
|
Hello fellow Bitcointalkers!
I've been mulling over this for quite some time, and I feel it's time to dive into one of the most profound topics in the crypto world: Centralization vs. Decentralization. I've noticed this duality splits the community and I wonder, is there a balance to strike?
Centralization:
Pros: Potential for faster transaction throughput, a focal point of control and regulation, easier to implement changes and updates.
Cons: Risk of a single point of failure, susceptibility to censorship, a tendency towards monopolization.
Decentralization:
Pros: Censorship resistance, enhanced security through distribution, inheriting the initial spirit of Bitcoin and the idea of autonomy.
Cons: Potentially reduced scalability, decision-making difficulties, possibility of fragmentation and disparities.
It's clear both come with their merits and demerits. But, do we need to acknowledge that both can coexist? Are there situations where centralization could be beneficial? Can there be a balance?
Eager to hear your thoughts! I believe it's vital to discuss these matters to guide the future of blockchain tech and cryptocurrencies in the right direction.
Let's have a fruitful discussion!
People will always adopt centralization because it's cheap and convenient, and let it centralize until it collapses. At this point, what was decentralized before is what remains. Cryptocurrencies gave us the tooling to have decentralization in finance. But their main motor of growth might already be those who find exactly that inconvenient and head towards centralized services. Otherwise, there would hardly be any loud outcry when a big platform dies. |
|
|
|
|
You might want to look into SageMath as it's really powerful for experimenting with cryptographic attacks.
|
|
|
|
Yes, they love to manipulate the Bitcoin Price. And that's what they want to do, all these companies want to use Bitcoin for their advantage and they don't give a single freak about the people invested in Crypto or Bitcoin. It's all about them at this point. In the end, they can't control the price at all. Keep them trying, don't worry at all. They surely have enough money to manipulate to be very honest.
Well, many users love to be manipulated. Otherwise, it wouldn't work after all... |
|
|
|
How is this specific to PoW, and would not apply to every other industry that uses electricity? And at an even more relevant note, what other industry would work just as well as before when you scale its electricity supply down to 50%? 1%? 0,1%? |
|
|
|
|
Considering that enabling something like "frictionless value transfer" from/to other chains will most likely require at least a hard fork for most well-established chains, it will be interesting to see whether this is a price the chains are willing to pay.
|
|
|
|
There is no way to distinguish permanently lost coins from those that just weren't moved for a longer time. If we confiscate old coins, who would still pay for digging up trash dumps? |
|
|
|
|
When adopting technology that can bring decentralization, it's of course always advisable to complement it with all sorts of centralization (e.g. from a messenger) you come across...
Speaking of which: What is the best Bitcoin-related community in the Lemmyverse?
|
|
|
|
Agreed. If that "Ordinals" idea expects to achieve any viable acceptance, it should be used for implementing something innovative, rather than merely storing something everyone can already read. |
|
|
|
I mine a block and give it time x. The next block that I mine, I give time x+1 second. The block after that, x+2 seconds. And so on, for 2,015 blocks, up to x+2,014 seconds. The last block of the difficulty epoch I give a timestamp of the current time.
That last block is expected to violate the Future Block Time Rule (2 hours). Won't other nodes reject the block when the secretly mined chain gets published? |
|
|
|
Usually when we reorganize one or two blocks, then the blocks will obviously have the same difficulty and therefore represent the same amount of work, so the longest chain will be the chain with the most work. However, if a fork lasted long enough to significantly stretch beyond a difficulty retargeting and in to a new difficulty epoch, then blocks on each chain would represent a different amount of work and so the longest chain may not necessarily be the chain with the most work. Nodes will switch to a shorter chain if that chain has more accumulated work.
Usually, the longest chain does indeed have the most work, since as you say, when the chains fork each block on each chain adds the exact same amount of work. If the fork continues past a retargeting, then the chains will have different difficulty adjustments since they will not have found all the blocks between the fork and the retargeting in the exact same amount of time. From that point on, the blocks added to each chain do not add the same amount of work, and so the longer chain will not necessarily be the chain with the most work. The chain where the blocks can be computed using less work bought that privilege by reaching the retargeting later, so there is not much to gain. Or are you talking about a timestamp manipulation attack? |
|
|
|
The longer fork represents the consensus of the network, as it has accumulated more computational work and has a greater number of participants supporting it.
Being the longer chain does not mean a fork has accumulated more computational work. Proof of work is determined by the difficulty in solving the puzzles which influences the amount of computational energy that is spent. A longer chain can have significantly less computational work if it has a low difficulty level. Considering that both chains are supposed to exist at the same time, and having forked apart from a common block, how would the longer chain have a lower difficulty level if both chains adhered the difficulty retargeting protocol? |
|
|
|
Any ideas to spread the Bitcoin education to the world?
In a world that is split into arbitrary polarized viewpoints on everything that somewhat sounds like "blockchain", I'm not sure to what extent Bitcoin education can help. Maybe more education on the values of decentralization is necessary for people to understand how Bitcoin might be something useful. |
|
|
|
Coinbase has assembled their team of avengers to go and face the SEC and prove to them that proof of stake projects are not a security, how do you think this will end? The team consists of six different tough attorneys, will this end in Success or failure? So far, why is coinbase the only one who was forced to assemble to battle? It's like the whole crypto space is yelling out to Coinbase to save them.  I regard PoS as too experimental to really care. But hopefully these battles will lead to some clarity regarding where to draw the line between securities and something else. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin's voyage away from central authorities and towards decentralization won't succeed if we arbitrarily judge transactions to be "attack" or "non-attack", respectively. The on-chain transaction protocol left plenty of open ends on purpose, so that future innovation is possible. This means that the blockchain will always also contain transactions that some users will find more useful than others.
You are just playing with words and bending the truths. The abuse of the system is not an arbitrary opinion. In fact the Ordinals abusive behavior is pretty clear since it is turning bitcoin (aka a payment system) and its blockchain (aka a ledger to store monetary transactions) into a cloud storage. As abuses go, it doesn't get any clearer than this! As for the protocol, it is left "loose" in some places so that it can be extended but always within the same utility category that Bitcoin is supposed to offer, not to turn Bitcoin into something else like cloud storage! Well, aggressive wording doesn't make your point more true. It may just - together with the fact of the more relevant parts of the posts remaining unanswered - lead to being ignored. Storing data on the blockchain being abusive is an opinion. Even a widespread opinion. But still a mere opinion. I do even agree to some extent, and I am sceptical about "ordinal theory" being a useful concept with respect to NFT storage. I was just saying that the concept may have other, less obvious uses. In the end, the community decides. As long as miners accept the transactions into blocks, and regular users accept the coins mined by these miners, there is something like a consensus, and no one seems to find it bad enough to act. This might of course change. Until then, I suggest to lean back and relax. |
|
|
|
Well, I guess these things are kind of self-regulating. People spam the chain with monkeys until it becomes unusable. Price drops. People move on. Or more likely it won't go that far because before that, transaction fees bring people back to the ground.
History proves this to be fallacy. For example ICOs are widely known to be scams, yet they are not dead yet and people are still being scammed under the same name or alternative names (ICO, IDO, IBO, IEO, ITO, STO, DeFi, NFT). Every individual has the right not to learn from other individuals' mistakes and to lose money of their own. This alone doesn't make infeasability of certain ventures a fallacy. They could prove useful to democratize Bitcoin, e.g. by letting people boycott sats from miners that employ policies they don't like.
That is called censorship, besides it has nothing to do with Ordinals Attack. You should try to first learn what this attack is and how it works. I don't care about the "attack". I'm just looking at the technical concept. By the way, it's more accurately called "free market". People not wanting to buy products they don't like has nothing to do with censorship. The line might be thinner if we were talking about government authorities deciding about what to boycott and what not. But that's not what I'm talking about. But using that concept to push for more content being put on-chain seems counterintuitive in presence of all the progress made to reduce the burden on the chain.
Bottom line is no matter how a small group of people swing this, Ordinals is an exploit since it is using it in a way that is should not be used, ergo it is categorized as an attack on bitcoin. Bitcoin's voyage away from central authorities and towards decentralization won't succeed if we arbitrarily judge transactions to be "attack" or "non-attack", respectively. The on-chain transaction protocol left plenty of open ends on purpose, so that future innovation is possible. This means that the blockchain will always also contain transactions that some users will find more useful than others. |
|
|
|
Considering the ongoing dispute about the usefulness of NFTs, it might be more reasonable to establish a robust layer 2 smart contract platform and let people decide themselves whether they want to use it for NFTs or something else.
and where would the pictures of the monkeys be stored on this new layer 2 platform? you know, it's going to be really hard to educate people that have already been uploading monkeys using ordinals and loving it to settle for anything less than what they've been getting which is their monkey's stored on chain. ordinals hit the ground running and i just dont think anything could replace it especially if the monkeys are not being stored on chain...  Well, I guess these things are kind of self-regulating. People spam the chain with monkeys until it becomes unusable. Price drops. People move on. Or more likely it won't go that far because before that, transaction fees bring people back to the ground. Not saying ordinals as a concept are useless. They could prove useful to democratize Bitcoin, e.g. by letting people boycott sats from miners that employ policies they don't like. But using that concept to push for more content being put on-chain seems counterintuitive in presence of all the progress made to reduce the burden on the chain. |
|
|
|
|
Considering the ongoing dispute about the usefulness of NFTs, it might be more reasonable to establish a robust layer 2 smart contract platform and let people decide themselves whether they want to use it for NFTs or something else.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
