Among top ten crypto-currencies (by market-cap), bitcoin still seems the most decentralized. % of supply owned by the top 100 accounts, standouts: - Bitcoin 19%- Ethereum 35% - Ripple 98% - Bitcoin Cash 25% - Stellar 95% - IOTA 62% - NEO 70% Source: https://arewedecentralizedyet.com/Gotta get rid of my Stellars for sure. Wow, I didn't expect Bitcoins wealth distribution to be that good relative to the other coins. Im not sure if this is too accurate of a number though, many whales have their coins spread out over multiple wallets. But eh, what can you do. Now if only we could get mining more decentralized... |
|
|
|
Hey there, flora_digitalis
...
Thanks for your review request. Unfortunately I don't speak Korean. Do you have any other English posts for review? Actually these two posts are coming pretty close to what I'm looking for (finally!). Sent you 2 + 1 merit. Awesome, that's great! Thank you very much for giving me my first ever merit! |
|
|
|
|
Payment received thank you very much! I hope there will eventually be an extension or new campaign soon.
|
|
|
|
It does seem like satoshi has envisioned second layer technology for scaling. He also does mention Bigger blocks, but I don't think satoshi forsaw the centralization of mining like it is today. So the Bigger blocks would have further increased centralization and Satoshi may not have realized that at the time. Thanks for sharing this, definitely does seem like he was talking about a second layer in that email correspondence.
The Bigger Block increasing centralization is a myth, LN Hubs will cause a greater centralization than anything on the onchain network. If you want a better understanding read the following: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3378014.msg36005734#msg36005734What would be interesting is when/if LN is ever safe to use, and actually has people making thousands of transactions per minute, why does everyone act like the Hub Database and memory requirements are not going to grow exponentially. Has anyone actually calculated at what rate LN Hub Data requirements will increase per transaction. Also any LN HUBs that transact in the US will be required to hold all data for 5 years past where a person no longer used that hub. So if the LN hubs think they can just delete a channel records after closing , they are going to be in for a rude awaking.  This is interesting, I was under the impression that Bigger blocks require more specialized hardware and bandwidth requirements. While I do agree that LN Increases centralization, I don't think that is a problem, as long as the base layer is still decentralized. You wouldn't necessarily need a decentralized network to pay for coffee, although it would be nice, but blockchains inherently do not scale. As you can see the Bitcoin Core Blockchain is ~33GB bigger now than the Bitcoin Cash Blockchain. Bitcoin Cash just raised the upper limit possible so they have no fear of transactions congestion for years to come. Bitcoin Core was congested for many months with insanely high fees, Bitcoin Cash will not have to worry about it. As you can see here : https://www.blocktrail.com/BCCBitcoin Cash is using on average less than 100kb per block, so the fact it is taking less resources to run than Bitcoin Core. So the worry that Bitcoin Cash will be more expensive to run is a pure Myth at the present time. This part is what I'm confused about. Isn't BTCs blockchain growing more than BCHs because on Bitcoins blockchain there are significantly more transactions taking place? Theoretically, if everyone were to suddenly stop using BTC and start using BCH, and it had say 5 million transactions per day on chain, wouldn't the blockchain be growing faster than BTCs ever has? Making the bandwidth and resource requirements very very high making full nodes limited to centralized server farms? I admit I have a limited understanding of how the blocks and transactions propagate through the network, so if you could clarify this for me I would appreciate it! Thanks! BTC blockchain is growing faster than BCH's due to more transactions being stored on it, However if all BTC transactions moved to BCH, it would grow at the exact same rate, not an inflated rate. That's true, but because of BCHs increased block size the chain can grow much larger than BTCs. BTC has an effective 4Mb block size due to Segwit (some even claim 1.6 mb - 2 mb). if BCH had constant full blocks at 16mb or even 32mb its blockchain would grow significantly faster and cause centralization due to the requirements of running a full node. BTC would be at 4 MB and everything else would take place off chain, Thus retaining BTCs decentralization at the base layer. |
|
|
|
|
I have used this service, here is my review!
The design of the site is very user friendly, I do like how it gives step by step directions. It has a sleek design and loads quickly. I also enjoy the privacy and anonymity by not needing to create an account to use the website. It did seem like it took a little long to get my deposit back, but nothing major. I have already received my Litecoin back! The site was very easy to use and clean looking and my coins have been returned and successfully mixed! At a very good price too, there was a minimal fee.
EDIT: Payment received on the same day I posted the review! Thank you!
|
|
|
|
It does seem like satoshi has envisioned second layer technology for scaling. He also does mention Bigger blocks, but I don't think satoshi forsaw the centralization of mining like it is today. So the Bigger blocks would have further increased centralization and Satoshi may not have realized that at the time. Thanks for sharing this, definitely does seem like he was talking about a second layer in that email correspondence.
The Bigger Block increasing centralization is a myth, LN Hubs will cause a greater centralization than anything on the onchain network. If you want a better understanding read the following: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3378014.msg36005734#msg36005734What would be interesting is when/if LN is ever safe to use, and actually has people making thousands of transactions per minute, why does everyone act like the Hub Database and memory requirements are not going to grow exponentially. Has anyone actually calculated at what rate LN Hub Data requirements will increase per transaction. Also any LN HUBs that transact in the US will be required to hold all data for 5 years past where a person no longer used that hub. So if the LN hubs think they can just delete a channel records after closing , they are going to be in for a rude awaking. This is interesting, I was under the impression that Bigger blocks require more specialized hardware and bandwidth requirements. While I do agree that LN Increases centralization, I don't think that is a problem, as long as the base layer is still decentralized. You wouldn't necessarily need a decentralized network to pay for coffee, although it would be nice, but blockchains inherently do not scale. As you can see the Bitcoin Core Blockchain is ~33GB bigger now than the Bitcoin Cash Blockchain. Bitcoin Cash just raised the upper limit possible so they have no fear of transactions congestion for years to come. Bitcoin Core was congested for many months with insanely high fees, Bitcoin Cash will not have to worry about it. As you can see here : https://www.blocktrail.com/BCCBitcoin Cash is using on average less than 100kb per block, so the fact it is taking less resources to run than Bitcoin Core. So the worry that Bitcoin Cash will be more expensive to run is a pure Myth at the present time. This part is what I'm confused about. Isn't BTCs blockchain growing more than BCHs because on Bitcoins blockchain there are significantly more transactions taking place? Theoretically, if everyone were to suddenly stop using BTC and start using BCH, and it had say 5 million transactions per day on chain, wouldn't the blockchain be growing faster than BTCs ever has? Making the bandwidth and resource requirements very very high making full nodes limited to centralized server farms? I admit I have a limited understanding of how the blocks and transactions propagate through the network, so if you could clarify this for me I would appreciate it! Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
If there is an extension to this campaign, I would also be interested in participating. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
it takes about 2 months for bitcoin to drop from all time high ($ 20k) to the lowest point (about $ 5k). Within 2 months it is enough to give big trauma for most traders. This is because the bitcoin drops to about -70% of its peak value. Even today, there are still many people who are still in a loss because buying bitcoin above $ 10k. Surely this will affect the process of recovering from bitcoin.
Yeah, many people are at losses. Gotta hodl out the crashes and just ride the roller coaster. I do think Bitcoin will recover long term, but I am surprised to see how much it has gone up recently. |
|
|
|
i feel that this is just trying to make LN seem like it was always part of bitcoin. even though the concept is actually
part of blockstreams 'liquid' concept 2013+.
EG multisig was not part of bitcoin in 2009-2011
EG CLTV /CSV was not part of bitcoin in 2009-2011 No this is not about the Lightning Network, but the concept of offchain transactions. Blockstream did not say anything about the concept back in those days. Was Blockstream already alive during that time? It was Satoshi who said it and clearly expressed that the blockchain can become a "settlement layer". "Only the final outcome gets recorded by the network". Said Satoshi. but lets be devils advocate
the 2009-2011 nlocktime would be used by people (real world analogy) in a poker game, players writing their own cheques to 'the house' dated 10 days in the future,
(the house does not counter sign nor has a joint bank account with the poker player)
while the poker game is in play, the house never hands th cheques to the bank to clear/settle.
then if the player needed to buy more poker chips. the player would write out a new cheque dated in 9 days. and the old cheque gets destroyed as its now useless. because the house would obviously prefer to cash a cheque that is dated sooner and for a larger amount
there was no revocation keys. no house having a joint bank account with the poker player to hand funds back inhouse
it would be just a one way payment system.. like a bartab..
satoshi envisioned a small private bartab concept for a small group of people that knew each other.. not a full pupulation co-signing offchain bank branch concept
in no way was it mentioning a single offchain NETWORK for everyone to use because bitcoins blockchain is limited and not able to scale. it was a concept of small parties (friends/family in a room) signing away from the payment system so they can (play poker for instance) without waiting for confirmed funds to get their poker chips
so trying to say satoshi/hearne invented LN or said LN is the acceptable/endorsed as a sole solution is really trying too hard to hide that LN is actually a 2013+ concept by blockstream(liquid)
LN is by magnitudes meandered away from private small group concept
LN is by magnitudes meandered away from the whole purpose of blockchain peer community validation
LN is by magnitudes over promoting but under delivering promises of limitless trustless fast payments.
i have used offline signing concepts and even multisigs between me and family/friends/business partners. i have seen the flaws and limitations
i have run scenarios about the funding of multisigs and replenishing funds and how often it would be required to do so.
i have run scenarios about how centralised the offchain network would need to become to be reliable and well funded and not an obstacle to average joe.
so far all LN devs have done is ensure node A connects to node B to connect to node C to ensure payment gets from a-c.
they have not yet done the long term multiple spending scenarios to see A raids B's holdings when routing a-c and/or B closes the route causing issues between a-c.
EG to use LN you need to have a certain amount just to be an acceptable channel partner, cover punishments and other fee's and then reserve part of that for use of routing. and splitting those funds over a couple 'accounts' just to be a reliable route.
meaning forget a third world user having just $2 and having all the utopian promises so he can buy 20 loaves of bread for the next month+ without hassle.
the devs have not seen that LN is not a scaling solution for everyone. because there are limitations. they have over promised, over promoted and under delivered.
and so there is a requirement to expand the blockchain scaling. NOT stiffling onchain scaling to force people into using limited use LN because of fee wars caused by stiffling onchain scaling.
But Satoshi did say that offchain transactions is one of the ways to help scale the network, did he not? I am not talking entirely about the implementation of the Lightning Network, but the concept behind offchain transactions. It does seem like satoshi has envisioned second layer technology for scaling. He also does mention Bigger blocks, but I don't think satoshi forsaw the centralization of mining like it is today. So the Bigger blocks would have further increased centralization and Satoshi may not have realized that at the time. Thanks for sharing this, definitely does seem like he was talking about a second layer in that email correspondence. |
|
|
|
|
I mean, Bitcoin has had some very strange price action this last two weeks. I would think we would be in the $7k range by now but I guess not. I think one final pump to $10k will happen, but the bear market is bound to continue I think.
|
|
|
|
|
I seriously think we would be continuing the bear trend by now. Surprised to see the prices are still up, so I do also think one final pump to $10k - $11k could be possible. Guess I'll buy some just in case...
|
|
|
|
|
As time goes on fewer and fewer Bitcoin will be lost as people are extra careful with their holdings. In the early days, people didn't take Bitcoin seriously, which is why there are millions lost already. It would likely take 1000s of years before people losing their holdings become a problem.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is an asset
no bitcoin is a currency. and all the value that it has comes from it being a currency. if you remove that part of it and turn it into what bitcoin.org people was pushing (ie store of value) then you will be killing its value. it is good to see this nonsense has stopped! It does look like more and more people are recognizing Bitcoin as a store of value instead of a currency. Could it be that Bitcoin being used as a currency is what initially gave it value, and now it being a store of value/alternative to gold is what will sustain and increase its value? |
|
|
|
|
They haven't said that they will definitely launch an exchange, the CEO just said they would be open to the idea once more regulation is in place. I think I heard something about Gemini partnering up with the NASDAQ in 2018, but I'm not sure exactly what they will be doing. Regardless, it would be fantastic news to have these coins listed on the nasdaq. Bitcoin would surely blow up in price, as once this happens, adoption would be in full swing.
|
|
|
|
Can this make Bitcoin price increase in future, because there are only 24M Bitcoin as i know. Many miner will move to other coins. There are actually going to be a total of 21 million coins. Currently, we are at 17 million, it will take 120 years for the last 4 million to be mined. It is possible for miners to switch coins yes, but the more miners who leave, the more the remaining miners will be incentivized to stay, as they are more likely to find the next block. Miners also won't only be mining for the Block reward, they will also be mining for fees. When Bitcoin first launched, the block reward was very high (50 BTC) as there weren't anybody making transactions really, so the fee incentive was Nil. As the block halving took place we moved down to 25 BTC every 10 mins. a lot more people were transacting Bitcoin at this time, but the fees still weren't that big of a deal for the miners. 25 BTC per block was still a very high reward. Now we are sitting at 12.5 every 10 mins and More and more people are transacting, and today the fees miners receive from the blocks are actually worth something. As the block halvings continue, transactions should increase due to adoption, and the fees miners are paid should be more substantial. So Bitcoin is designed to initially have the miner's main incentive be the block rewards, and slowly shift the incentive to the tx fees as the block reward continues to decline. It will keep this equilibrium for the miners, and its just one of the many brilliant Bitcoin design choices. So yes while miners could switch to a different coin, the incentive for mining on the Bitcoin network actually increases. Remaining miners are more likely to find the next block, and even if the block reward is 3.125 BTC (2024 block halving) the miners will be mining for the fees. |
|
|
|
|
Its great to see some progress in the sharding tech! A question I have is does anyone know how significant the improvement would be for ethereums throughput once sharding is put into effect? In terms of TPS? Also how exactly would Sharding effect decentralization? I was under the impression it could potentially increase centralization, but I am not too keen on the sharding technology.
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't want to deal with the guilt of exposing the real Satoshio Nakamoto. Imagine the extortion risk this person would face.
Exactly, we all should respect him by giving him his privacy. He created something wonderful for us all, leave him be I say. |
|
|
|
|
Many have already posted on this thread, but I do want to voice my opinion on this subject. It really depends on the market and sentiment at the time Bitcoin hits that price. I would preferably hold out for $250k, but it likely would never hit that. To be safe, I say if Bitcoin were to hit $100,000, that is the price I would sell at. I don't have enough Bitcoin to make me a millionaire, but at that price, I would be able to buy a nice house for me and my family. I want to accumulate some more Bitcoin in the meantime, but $100k could very well be my price.
|
|
|
|
“Bitcoin cash is an alt-coin that has its fans just like many alt-coins. I don't think anyone who uses bitcoin's name and applies it to an alt-coin like bitcoin cash does is adhering to acceptable business practices. In other words, bitcoin's brand is being stolen by a competitor that calls itself bitcoin cash and this is outright fraud in my opinion, just like it's fraudulent to use Coca-Cola and Nike's name to sell soft drinks or shoes,” said Max Keiser
Even Linux distributions forks have their own names.
bitcoin is also an altcoin it depends on the perspective. and weather the media system still supports it, which i doubt it will, since the cryptomedia is completely different then the fiat media, there is no banking system that sustainably supports then, everything is different now. "Bitcoin is also an altcoin"? Lol I want to smoke what you're smoking. Bitcoin is not an altcoin, Everything other than that is. Roger should give up, He can't keep fooling people, Bcash will crash hard. Yeah Bitcoin itself can in no way be considered an altcoin, from any perspective. It is the main chain originating from the genesis block. Bitcoin Cash is forked off of the main chain and is running its own version of the blockchain now. Bitcoin cash is the altcoin, Bitcoin is still the original chain with the original consensus rules. While I can't say Ver getting hit with a lawsuit is a good thing, I do think it could be the only way of showing him it's not cool trying to hijack Bitcoins brand. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
