A finite supply is most important imho. Also, something tells me that Satoshi et al. put some serious thought into whether or not work should be required so I definitely could be wrong.
This is the main consideration. While Bitcoin is finite, cryptocurrency is infinite. So why should the world be interested in a new "infinite" form of money. At least fiat has *some* control on its issuance by using central banks. How could it be any better to have a currency controlled by the people behind a bunch of colorful avatars on the internet? Money is a ledger that we use to allocate scarce(*) resources. In order for the ledger to function, the units must be scarce because the real goods and services they represent are scarce. (*)In economics, "scarce" means "not infinite." |
|
|
|
I was talking about how people compare Bitcoin users to criminals we all know it happens because of laundry for one example. Then this would just give those accusers more leverage because with this enabled technically everyone would be breaking the law. You're gonna *love* my next blog post... Link it to me and I'll tell you if I "love" it or not  /ot I'm really trying to figure this out and try to address some of my concerns and I believe this would result in a lot of accusations flying out. I'm going to explain how Bitcoin can be used as a defencive weapon that allows the younger generation to avoid paying the debts bestowed upon them by the older generation, and how if they wield it correctly they'll collapse the fiat debt ponzi scheme, the tax base, and the US Dollar itself, with specific instructions for how to get started. It's going to do great things for the public perception of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I was talking about how people compare Bitcoin users to criminals we all know it happens because of laundry for one example. Then this would just give those accusers more leverage because with this enabled technically everyone would be breaking the law. You're gonna *love* my next blog post... |
|
|
|
HAHAHA im sorry but i find that absolutely hilarious lol not because i disagree, i do agree it is/will be, but because of all the pow buffs fighting the pow corner so hard and then someone, that so many pow buffs have put on a crypto pedestal and someone so high profile, turns around and says pow is dead... after all these PoW buffs have given him millions.. that is priceless!!!!!!  OMG LOLZ... hahaha If Ethereum merged with BitShares and used DPoS it would be hilarious indeed. I think my fellow "PoW buffs" would agree. Personally, I don't believe this rumour, however. Funny thing about those projects: BitShares (Invictus) was the sinking ship that Charles Hoskinson bailed from after he bailed from Mastercoin (and bailed from the Bitcoin Education Project before that), prior to bailing from the Ethereum project. I wonder if there's some common thread between all those projects besides the fact that Hoskinson got involved with them, pumped them up, and bailed... |
|
|
|
ETH(platform). Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Ethereum as a platform isn't any more likely than Ethereum as a currency. Vitalik admitted that oracles are a better solution for most of the things people what to do with Ethereum, and there's absolutely zero reason for those oracles to work with Ethereum instead of Bitcoin. Does anyone have a link to these "oracles" or what Justus is referring to in this post ? Oracle is a generic term, not specific to any particular implementation. This is the blog post I was talking about: https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/22/ethereum-and-oracles/ |
|
|
|
SHA-based PoW has shown to be "centralisable" though ... That word sounds scary, but what does it mean? Is it the case that people who can afford to perform negative ROI attacks of sufficient magnitude can break a PoW system? Yes, and Bitcoin never promised that they couldn't. We know from math it's impossible to make a distributed consensus system that's cryptographically secure, so trying to find such a system is a pointless distraction. It's a question of how do we best use the tools we have within the confines of what is possible. |
|
|
|
ETH(platform). Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Ethereum as a platform isn't any more likely than Ethereum as a currency. Vitalik admitted that oracles are a better solution for most of the things people what to do with Ethereum, and there's absolutely zero reason for those oracles to work with Ethereum instead of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Fitting, given how lazy the argumentation in that article is. What an amazing breakthrough in epistemology you've just made! All this time, we thought it was necessary to rebut an argument, but in reality insulting the argument is just as good as logical rigour. |
|
|
|
the "truth" in a POW system is determined by the objective laws of thermodynamics which are fundamental laws that exist outside the POW system. it cannot be gamed by the stakeholders.
the "truth" in a POS system is not determined by any such laws outside its own system. it is self referencing, aka an echo chamber, of whatever the stakeholders "want" to be the truth, whether objective or not. it can be gamed by the stakeholders, if they all agree. I'd add the clarification that PoW only promises that defeating the consensus process is uneconomical, not impossible. The paper shows that PoS can't even make that promise. |
|
|
|
it has to do with the fact that regardless of your opinion on whether it can achieve consensus I issued no opinion whatsoever about whether or not PoS can achieve consensus. sorry.. thought you were the other guy that posted.. my bad.. I did post a link to a proof that PoS can not achieve distributed consensus, which has an entirely different set of constraints than achieving any kind consensus. |
|
|
|
it has to do with the fact that regardless of your opinion on whether it can achieve consensus I issued no opinion whatsoever about whether or not PoS can achieve consensus. |
|
|
|
nxt and proof of stake is alive and well, growing fast So is the Federal Reserve's balance sheet. WTF does that have to do with whether or not PoS is capable of achieving distributed consensus? |
|
|
|
The rollback discussion did the opposite to me. It proved the PoS achieves consensus by popular opinion rather than by objective truth. With PoW, you must expend resources to "vote" on your chain, so you pick the single best chain based on a mathematically-defined selection criteria (mining two competing chains would be a waste). Each new block added to the chain decreases the chance of a re-org exponentially, and all the participants realize this, so deep re-orgs are out of the question.
With PoS, there is no tether to the physical world. Since there are no resources spent to "vote," stakers can vote on many different chains for very little cost. Even today, it would be possible to roll back the 50M NXT theft as it costs nothing to change their blockchain. PoS gives the economic majority the power to rewrite history. Truth is defined by opinion.
There's a reason the first sentence of 1984 was used as the passphrase for the Nxt Genesis Account. https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf |
|
|
|
Fixed the link so that even the lazy people can click on it. |
|
|
|
Anyway, let me invert. What evidence do you have believe a niche utility or at least a non-complete takeover of Bitcoin is so completely infeasible you estimate the chance of it happening to be zero? If you're not going to read my posts well enough to correctly characterize what I've already said, nor to examine the references I already provided, then I'm going to assume that anything else I say will be just as much of a waste of my time as what I already said so I'll cut my losses with this post. |
|
|
|
There's quite a big chance the truth will be between your 2 projected outcomes rather than one of them. Just saying that doesn't make it true. If you've identified some error in the praxeology, then write it your argument and publish it. SNI would even accept it on their site if it's any good. Until you've shown your work, your statement falls into the category of "random shit some guy on the internet said" and can be trivially dismissed. |
|
|
|
There's little reason to put Armory's (or bitcoin-qt's) blockchain on SSD or have it encrypted from a cost-benefit point of view.
There's little reason to have unencrypted drives at all, for any application. |
|
|
|
Only in a very very far away future (and maybe not even then), if and when crypto/BTC accounts for the entire global money supply. Let's not count on that, mkay? Um, no. Bitcoin either expands until it becomes the money, or else it goes to zero(1). Anyone who is not interested in, and working toward, the former doesn't belong in Bitcoin. This isn't a game. (1) http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/the-problem-with-altcoins/ |
|
|
|
what does that mean P= (M * V)/T assuming that the velocity will be much lower and transactions much higher then the price will:
a) stay somehow stable if transactions and adoption are almost equal.
b) rise slowly, with no bubbles whatsoever if the adoption is slightly more than the transactions.
c) can even drop a bit if adoption slow down and current holders start using it as a currency
which confirm the theory above "the use of bitcoin will increase 1000x, therefore the price will rise 1000x, I believe the first part, but I don't think the second part follows necessarily", dont you think ? First of all, you're doing it wrong. P is not the exchange rate of the currency - it's the price of good and services. With M approximately constant, and with V approximately constant, increasing T means that the cost of good and services priced in Bitcoin will fall, a.k.a the purchasing power of a bitcoin has increased. |
|
|
|
I couldn't explain it better than a member of the Slovenian Bitcoin Association, so I am quoting his post. The conclusion is that price will stay unstable due to increasing adoption? I'm not so sure. At least it need not rise proportionally to adoption... One quite simple way to look at this is Fisher's formula for velocity of money: M * V = P * T.
M is money supply (fixed in case of bitcoin), T is num of transactions (rising in orders of magnitude). So to keep the equation balanced, the price (P) can rise but so can V (velocity of money, "frequency at which one unit of currency is used to purchase domestically-produced goods and services within a given time period"). Velocity has so far in history been rather stable, but given the usefulness of bitcoin for transactions (not very disputed even among critics), I wouldn't dare say V for bitcoin is going to be stable or at the same approximate level as for regular fiat money.
That's why I'm uneasy about projections like "the use of bitcoin will increase 1000x, therefore the price will rise 1000x". I believe the first part, but I don't think the second part follows necessarily. V will be lower in a Bitcoin world than in a fiat world. Right now inflation artificially increases V by encouraging currency holders to spend today rather than lose purchasing power tomorrow. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
