Higher block speed also puts you at unique security disadvantages, as propagation time amongst all nodes becomes an issue. The larger the network and blocksize, the great this becomes an issue. Basically, the tradeoff is like this: In PoW, blocks contain many tx. To effectively be a solution for the Two General's Problem, each node relaying a new block must download and verify its contents completely before doing so. However, a malicious attacker instead begins generating a bunch of his own blocks that are not revealed to the network. Because the miner does not have to rely on his blocks being relayed throughout the network, he is given an advantage in terms of being able to perform a 51% attack and can now do so with less than 51%; in the case of very fast blocks with large block sizes, this is probably way less than 51%. People will probably find this out as soon as an exchange loses a lot of money on a double spend; then you need to crank the block size down, and end up overall with not much of an advantage compared to Bitcoin when you're considered tx/sec, and you'll likely have to spend more in fees just to get your tx confirmed quickly because the supply of tx in a block is greatly diminished while demand runs the same. This is the only person in this thread that has any idea what they're talking about. If cryptocurrencies could be magically faster with no drawbacks, do you guys not think that Bitcoin would have done it? |
|
|
|
I don't believe that. It's the standard conspiracy theorist line but if you examine closely you will see that the core developers gave the original Zerocoin protocol a fair shake and rejected it for technical, not political, reasons.
Did you not watch the NY hearings? All those 'big shots' of the bitcoin world were ass kissing the regulators and constantly hammering on that bitcoin has a public ledger. It was like their most important argument for requesting light regulation. Also, we already know by now that the bitcoin foundation is corrupt. Chances of full anonymity implementation of a mainstream bitcoin are very slim. They said it because it was true. They didn't say that it couldn't change. If the core developers won't move on it, there are always other segments of the community who will. Ultimately miners and full nodes will decide. |
|
|
|
Zerocoin's "business model" is inherently flawed. It involves complex cryptography with anonymity implications so it has to be open source to be trusted, but if it is open source then it can be easily copied by Bitcoin. The only point to releasing it as its own currency is for a nice pump and dump.
Bitcoin probably wont ever implement full anonymity as many are trying to push it into the mainstream and acceptance by traditional finance and regulators. Current system is 'good enough' for bitcoin. I don't believe that. It's the standard conspiracy theorist line but if you examine closely you will see that the core developers gave the original Zerocoin protocol a fair shake and rejected it for technical, not political, reasons. |
|
|
|
|
Huntercoin is a great idea but the game attached and the implementation are both underwhelming. Call me when a game with the popularity of Candy Crush or Angry Birds is attached to a coin.
|
|
|
|
|
Zerocoin's "business model" is inherently flawed. It involves complex cryptography with anonymity implications so it has to be open source to be trusted, but if it is open source then it can be easily copied by Bitcoin. The only point to releasing it as its own currency is for a nice pump and dump.
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone who would do business with Karpeles is an idiot.
|
|
|
|
PS: Oh, and I have no idea how one would go about creating a currency like this. I am no coin maker
First post. Not edited - you can check that. The whole thing was only to open discussion. In any case, you are clearly more well-read on this than I am, and also have obviously researched the issue. That's fair enough - I respect your comments, and I can see your point. Thanks, Rit. I guess I didn't interpret that as a clear statement of your commitment not to pursue making such a coin. I don't even remember responding to one of your posts before this thread so I'm sorry if I come off as an "aggressive little arsebiscuit". I simply wish to see an end to the rampant cryptocurrency inflation caused by altcoin flooding. |
|
|
|
So you're just now becoming aware of a basic topic in the economics of currencies after thinking that you had invented it independently but you'd still like to go forward on making your own anyway? Do you understand why that's not a good idea?
Making my own anyway? No. As clearly stated. Clearly stated where? I don't see it. To save you some time, allow me to explain why demurrage will never work. Let's say we have coin A and coin B. They are both near-exact clones of Litecoin, except coin B automatically imposes a 4.89% annual demurrage rate on all holdings and coin A does not. As an economically rationally individual, what is my incentive to use coin B? There is none. Even if it would be better for the economy as a whole if everyone used coin B, it is incompatible with the individual's incentives and so it has no chance of getting to that point. The only way that demurrage can work is if people are forced to use a demurrage-based currency above others that better preserve their wealth. The moribund state of Freicoin should prove my point. |
|
|
|
|
So you're just now becoming aware of a basic topic in the economics of currencies after thinking that you had invented it independently but you'd still like to go forward on making your own anyway? Do you understand why that's not a good idea?
|
|
|
|
|
Is this game complex enough that computers are truly incapable of playing it?
Also how do you "rest" your characters when you can't play? This coin seems innovative but it needs way more documentation.
|
|
|
|
|
Breaking Bitcoin as it stands would require breaking RIPEMD160, SHA256, and ECDSA. Since most cryptographic algorithms break slowly, it's quite unlikely that all three would be broken at the same time. Bitcoin will need to eventually upgrade though, which is quite possible.
|
|
|
|
I don't want this to be my coin, I want it to become a community project.
I've heard this shit before. Sorry to say it but the community won't magically give you a good idea. If Satoshi had listened to "the community" then he would have never released Bitcoin publicly in the first place. |
|
|
|
|
Signed
I, for one, will never do any sort of business with Mr. Karpeles again. The immeasurable harm that he's done to Bitcoin based on his own gross incompetence and misunderstanding is unacceptable. As far as I'm concerned, he should be completely exiled from the Bitcoin community.
|
|
|
|
|
I think we saw the opposite. Bitcoin has been absolutely hammered by bad news and has still managed to maintain a value much higher than its pre-bubble state. Bitcoin is strong. Humans are not.
|
|
|
|
|
And I will soon be offering a CPABITCOINGROUP pass-through. All deposits will be 100% uninsured. It's my guarantee.
|
|
|
|
|
Gox really fucked up here. Anybody who gives them their business after this is insane.
|
|
|
|
How could they of handled it better?
There is a chance I suppose that they are just using it as an excuse but lets say they arent, just for discusson, What should they have done?
I think their initial post may have been vague because they didnt want to allert everyone to the fact that there was a potential security problem. But then why did the people in the know rubbish their second statement with the reason they had closed the withdrwal lines?
It all seems a bit confused, dont the devs talk to the big exchanges?
They could have handled it better by implementing the protocol correctly in the first place. It's like complaining that Spanish is a flawed language because the fact that "embarazada" means pregnant and not "embarrassed" confuses you. |
|
|
|
|
Mandatory transaction mixing has been considered in the past and denied. CoinJoin obfuscates the transaction graph in a similar way though.
|
|
|
|
For those of you who don't know, Dogecoin's market cap recently passed Peercoin's, making it the third highest among mineable coins. It hasn't fully solidified itself in that position yet but is poised to do so, having seen huge gains in what is a bear market for most cryptocurrencies. You can say what you want about Dogecoin (and I think it's a worthless scamcoin myself) but you can't deny that the amount of fun that its community members seem to have contributes to its success. With Charlie Shrem's arrest, the decline in price, the Mt. Gox fiasco, the ban in Russia, and other events in a seemingly endless string of bad news, Bitcoin fans aren't having any fun. The exuberance of the 2013 bubble is entirely gone. There might be another bubble soon but it'd be nice if we could have things to keep people engaged even when the price isn't soaring. So what can the Bitcoin community do to entertain the general public as much as Dogecoin is? Do we need an animal mascot? Should we have a Bit-chan ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moe_anthropomorphism)? It seems like one already exists ( http://www.bitcoin-chan.com) but I think the design is ugly and there was seemingly no community involvement. Stuff like bringing a Bitcoin banner to the Superbowl or putting a flag in space is great but we need stuff that anybody can be involved in. The great thing about the doge meme is that it doesn't require much of anything to participate. People seem to think that Bitcoin has lost its soul. How can we prove them wrong? Dogecoin's rise proves that, at least in the short term, technology is not all that matters for a cryptocurrency. Bitcoin is becoming associated entirely with a very sterile, corporate image that I don't think really reflects the whole community. How do we fix this? |
|
|
|
|
Dogecoin is really setting itself up for backlash with this smug bullshit. Look what's happened to atheism online recently. They need to reel it in or suffer the consequences.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
