|
Can we close this thread now?
It has turned into an advert and diverged from the original creators intent.
|
|
|
|
I hope you are referring to the Shells I mentioned earlier because no crypto matches the above  I goto get me more Shells tbh; borderless, decentralised, not created by big banks or gov, deflationary (the way we are killing the oceans certain to be less created over time)  Shells are not fungible, or useful in any real sense as a money. |
|
|
|
Because the only trusted nodes in the network are owned by ripple labs. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin (and the rest of crypto) has almost zero value as a currency...
Seems to me that a trustless, governmentless, unregulatable, peer 2 peer, highly resilient, decentralised method of moving digital cash anywhere in the world has a lot of very real use cases both now and the future. |
|
|
|
Just think about the Blockchain as high demand realestate. If there is an office building right in the middle of town, and all the local businesses want to rent office space; creating more offices will just lower the scarcity.
Transaction fees are proportional to the price of Bitcoin. If the fees rise due to increased transactions then that means demand is high, thus increasing the price/btc.
Ever increasing the block size sends transaction fees towards 0 at the limit. |
|
|
|
The (very low) risk of a temporary blockchain halt is one I would be willing to take as a compensation for the big disadvantage of PoW (very high costs because of the miners' energy consumption).
The high cost of mining would be better spent on something more useful than solving a hash puzzle, but one thing that high cost does give us is a very clear attack cost for producing blocks, and therefore a bound on transaction acceptability. |
|
|
|
And I don't believe for a second none of them are aware of the potential disaster described by anonymint, so why are they ignoring it? Maybe they consider it only a theoretical risk that can never happen in practice? It just seems strange to me, that all of them are willing to gamble with their reputation, hoping that nothing goes wrong.
Even if it were possible to do what shelby claims (which I highly doubt), 100% of miners have locked into segwit which means there will be 0% hash power on the old fork because 100% of miners have committed to mine on the new fork. Basically, the old fork will be dead, everyone having moved over to the segwit fork, so the point would be moot anyway. Cheers, paul. |
|
|
|
|
You realise you are essentially asking how to judge which businesses are a good investment?
|
|
|
|
|
Neither is right. Bitcoin needs major changes to scale long term.
|
|
|
|
The creator of eos was talking about this concept. He says in the future bitcoin will be used exclusively as proof of time, and will underpin all blockchains, so if you hold bitcoin in the same place for longer the more it's worth because it's easier to check its proof. I think he is working on this in eos right now. He was talking about it on a recent worldcryptonews podcast
He is sadly mistaken if he thinks a trusted execution environment is the solution to trustless consensus. |
|
|
|
PoW isn't really precise at measuring time due to the luck factor. According to their whitepaper they are initially an Ethereum token but are developing their own platform as well.
On average it is fairly precise. |
|
|
|
|
This is stupid. It's just a token on Etheruem, not a true currency. Their consensus is Ethereum's consensus.
Furthermore, PoW is already a proxy for unforgable proof of elapsed time.
|
|
|
|
PoS isn't permissionless like PoW is; you have to buy stake with which to produce blocks and once that stake is gone, it is gone forever. PoW converts electricity into blocks which anyone with a computer can do.
I get that point. It's a theoretical disadvantage of PoS currencies, but in my opinion not a fatal flaw because currencies without a working market practically are not currencies, and so the option to "buy in" is as easy (in most currencies much easier!) than to mine a PoW currency. In the context of one of these attacks it is very different. How will you buy PoS coins from an exchange when the network isn't producing blocks? In this case, there is no way for the network to recover barring a hard fork, which is very damaging for a currency which is supposed to be decentralised. You comparison to BCC is actually a very revealing example of how a PoW coin deals with a sudden and catastrophic drop in hash rate. Less blocks, slow recovery. If a PoS coin suddenly lost 95% of the staking power, a hard fork would have been the only way to recover. |
|
|
|
|
Doesn't runtime cost gas?
So if you're hoping to grind the network to a halt, you'd better be prepared to pay for it.
|
|
|
|
Those are some awfully big assumptions. Why chose a currency with all this extra, non-obvious risk-baggage associated with it?
Only small or very badly designed Proof of Stake currencies would have these weaknesses. Small PoW coins have a similar problem - they are also weak and can be attacked easily via 51%ing them because mining power typically is weak and very unevenly distributed. Even in stronger currencies this problem persists - there is often a pool or miner group that in theory could 51% the currency. I've followed the Segwit adoption in Vertcoin and Litecoin and there were often situations when a single address (pool or miner) mined more than 50% of the blocks of a day. I don't follow your comparison to PoW; in a small PoW currency, the PoW will have been designed such that it is in incompatible with bitcoin's ASICs and hard to accelerate on graphics cards. Therefore, the initial distribution of miners will be the best it can possibly be. Furthermore, PoW doesn't suffer from any of the problems listed here in this thread. Miners can come and go as they please, even a miner with 50% hashing power disappearing forever doesn't leave the currency dead in the water - it will eventually recover, the only consequence is an increase in confirmations required to accept a transaction. PoS isn't permissionless like PoW is; you have to buy stake with which to produce blocks and once that stake is gone, it is gone forever. PoW converts electricity into blocks which anyone with a computer can do. |
|
|
|
1) the coin is a very small cryptocurrency (basically, a failed one or a very young one, or one with a large premine);
2) these three stakers should know what they're doing, so they won't be "average Joes" but most probably crypto enthusiasts (like the coin developer and crypto investors, or crypto exchange owners). They should know about the danger.
Those are some awfully big assumptions. Why chose a currency with all this extra, non-obvious risk-baggage associated with it? |
|
|
|
Why would you expect joe public, who is the ultimate holder of said coin, who only has a basic understanding of cryptocurrency, to understand that they shouldn't send money to themselves? Seems like a pretty fundamental failing to me. So you think it's easy to tell thousands or millions of "average Joes" to send coins to themselves? As I said previously, you may only need to convince 3 people for this attack to work; it all depends on the distribution of staking coins. In any case, that's beside the point. Why should joe public know not to send themselves money? |
|
|
|
Knowing the danger? The danger of sending your own funds to yourself? How is that a danger in any legitimate currency?
If this attack is known, then large holders will also know that they should avoid sending all their stake to themselves, and divide their stake in various outputs/accounts (depending on the currency type). And again: This kind of attack has only chances to succeed if the currency is very unevenly distributed. The 'nothing at stake' attacks might sound theoretical, but more are being discovered all the time - it's only a matter of time before one is discovered that hasn't been patched over in one of the major PoS coins.
Please provide me some sources for new Nothing at stake attack variants. I am really interested. If there is one of them that also would work (without costing more than a 51% attack) in a well-distributed currency, then I may reconsider my stance on PoS. Why would you expect joe public, who is the ultimate holder of said coin, who only has a basic understanding of cryptocurrency, to understand that they shouldn't send money to themselves? Seems like a pretty fundamental failing to me. This attack is a new variant on nothing at stake. Here's another one for you: death. Major stake holder dies unexpectedly; there go 50% of your blocks. Eventually, the coin will die out as it's major stake holders die in the physical world. |
|
|
|
Well, this attack scenario seems very unlikely to succeed. Why should the current holders of the coin 51% it? Knowing the danger, big holders should not do that without a very good reason Knowing the danger? The danger of sending your own funds to yourself? How is that a danger in any legitimate currency? The 'nothing at stake' attacks might sound theoretical, but more are being discovered all the time - it's only a matter of time before one is discovered that hasn't been patched over in one of the major PoS coins. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
