Segregated Witness is just another way to centralize mining. I will explain that in the future when I am ready.
... but that is a small price to pay in order to increase the blocksize from 1 MB to an effective 1.6 MB accomplish - Malleability Fixes
- Linear scaling of sighash operations
- Signing of input values
- Increased security for multisig via pay-to-script-hash (P2SH)
- Script versioning
- Reducing UTXO growth
- Compact fraud proofs
 ftfy The technically-challenged will conflate features with don't require Segregated Witness with an argument for why we need Segregated Witness. Segwit is an elegant way for Bitcoin to gain those benefits. I never said segwit was the only way, but it's good enough and it's happening. Other coins (like Monero) enjoyed second/late mover advantages by being designed for those features from the beginning. Frankly I haven't yet studied SegWit in great detail, because I will wait until they have finished it, so I am not losing time studying a moving target. I have no influence on the Bitcoin community's decisions, thus studying it now is of no significant advantage in the holistic priorities. Conceptually I understand that SegWit enables outsourcing validation and retains hashes of the validated data on the block chain. Afaics, this is centralizing for at least three reasons: 1. Those with preferential access/propagation to validators can earn more with the same hashrate by mining on the correct block slightly sooner. Over time this moves ROI and thus hashrate concentration to those who have these political connections. However, this is not much different than the same effect that can exist now where miners with significant hashrate (even a cooperating set of them) can validate their block announcements sooner than the rest of the network. Afaik, the salient worsening due to SegWit is that validation concentration can now be political, not only by hashrate concentration, so it amplifies the vectors towards centralization. 2. Afaik, SegWit relies on trust enforced by voluntary fraud proofs to insure that the validation is correct for each hash on the block chain. Afaics, the game theory around these voluntary fraud proofs drives more centralization. But this is not something I want to detail now. It is a complex discussion and I am busy on more urgent priorities. 3. Afaik the new versioning capability that will be introduced with SegWit, basically hands the power to Blockstream to drive forks any time they want to. Again this is another game theory discussion which I don't wish to elaborate on at this time. Note Monero's periodic forks as a protocol also seems to a form of centralized control. One can argue that miners can vote, but it is fairly impossible to stop the political clout of the lead developers especially when that control is hardwired into the protocol. Satoshi's design was that it should be nearly impossible to hard fork, because that is the only way you truly have decentralization.
3. Afaik the new versioning capability that will be introduced with SegWit, basically hands the power to Blockstream to drive forks any time they want to. Again this is another game theory discussion which I don't wish to elaborate on at this time. Note Monero's periodic forks as a protocol also seems to a form of centralized control. One can argue that miners can vote, but it is fairly impossible to stop the political clout of the lead developers especially when that control is hardwired into the protocol. Satoshi's design was that it should be nearly impossible to hard fork, because that is the only way you truly have decentralization.
Regarding [3], if miners/exchanges/merchants don't agree with the lead developers they can just remain on an old(er) version. I said it is a complex game theory discussion. Seems you want to force me to have that discussion when I said I am busy on other more urgent priorities. Because I can't just leave your afaics incorrect assumption there unrefuted. You can't retain an older version, because soon the new features will become intertwined in everything and soon you won't be able to function in the network. The complexity of failure modes with an older version are beyond the scope of the discussion I want to have now. That will be a technical discussion. Just remember what happened the last time I got into a technical discussion with gmaxwell on Ogg streaming format indexing, a topic that he thought he was more expert on (and he should have been since he was the co-inventor of one of the Ogg codecs). |
|
|
|
Segregated Witness is just another way to centralize mining. I will explain that in the future when I am ready.
... but that is a small price to pay in order to increase the blocksize from 1 MB to an effective 1.6 MB accomplish - Malleability Fixes
- Linear scaling of sighash operations
- Signing of input values
- Increased security for multisig via pay-to-script-hash (P2SH)
- Script versioning
- Reducing UTXO growth
- Compact fraud proofs
ftfy The technically-challenged will conflate features with don't require Segregated Witness with an argument for why we need Segregated Witness. Segwit is an elegant way for Bitcoin to gain those benefits. I never said segwit was the only way, but it's good enough and it's happening. Other coins (like Monero) enjoyed second/late mover advantages by being designed for those features from the beginning. Frankly I haven't yet studied SegWit in great detail, because I will wait until they have finished it, so I am not losing time studying a moving target. I have no influence on the Bitcoin community's decisions, thus studying it now is of no significant advantage in the holistic priorities. Conceptually I understand that SegWit enables outsourcing validation and retains hashes of the validated data on the block chain. Afaics, this is centralizing for at least three reasons: 1. Those with preferential access/propagation to validators can earn more with the same hashrate by mining on the correct block slightly sooner. Over time this moves ROI and thus hashrate concentration to those who have these political connections. However, this is not much different than the same effect that can exist now where miners with significant hashrate (even a cooperating set of them) can validate their block announcements sooner than the rest of the network. Afaik, the salient worsening due to SegWit is that validation concentration can now be political, not only by hashrate concentration, so it amplifies the vectors towards centralization. 2. Afaik, SegWit relies on trust enforced by voluntary fraud proofs to insure that the validation is correct for each hash on the block chain. Afaics, the game theory around these voluntary fraud proofs drives more centralization. But this is not something I want to detail now. It is a complex discussion and I am busy on more urgent priorities. 3. Afaik the new versioning capability that will be introduced with SegWit, basically hands the power to Blockstream to drive forks any time they want to. Again this is another game theory discussion which I don't wish to elaborate on at this time. Note Monero's periodic forks as a protocol also seems to a form of centralized control. One can argue that miners can vote, but it is fairly impossible to stop the political clout of the lead developers especially when that control is hardwired into the protocol. Satoshi's design was that it should be nearly impossible to hard fork, because that is the only way you truly have decentralization.
3. Afaik the new versioning capability that will be introduced with SegWit, basically hands the power to Blockstream to drive forks any time they want to. Again this is another game theory discussion which I don't wish to elaborate on at this time. Note Monero's periodic forks as a protocol also seems to a form of centralized control. One can argue that miners can vote, but it is fairly impossible to stop the political clout of the lead developers especially when that control is hardwired into the protocol. Satoshi's design was that it should be nearly impossible to hard fork, because that is the only way you truly have decentralization.
Regarding [3], if miners/exchanges/merchants don't agree with the lead developers they can just remain on an old(er) version. I said it is a complex game theory discussion. Seems you want to force me to have that discussion when I said I am busy on other more urgent priorities. Because I can't just leave your afaics incorrect assumption there unrefuted. You can't retain an older version, because soon the new features will become intertwined in everything and soon you won't be able to function in the network. The complexity of failure modes with an older version are beyond the scope of the discussion I want to have now. That will be a technical discussion. Just remember what happened the last time I got into a technical discussion with gmaxwell on Ogg streaming format indexing, a topic that he thought he was more expert on (and he should have been since he was the co-inventor of one of the Ogg codecs). |
|
|
|
Segregated Witness is just another way to centralize mining. I will explain that in the future when I am ready.
... but that is a small price to pay in order to increase the blocksize from 1 MB to an effective 1.6 MB accomplish - Malleability Fixes
- Linear scaling of sighash operations
- Signing of input values
- Increased security for multisig via pay-to-script-hash (P2SH)
- Script versioning
- Reducing UTXO growth
- Compact fraud proofs
ftfy The technically-challenged will conflate features with don't require Segregated Witness with an argument for why we need Segregated Witness. Segwit is an elegant way for Bitcoin to gain those benefits. I never said segwit was the only way, but it's good enough and it's happening. Other coins (like Monero) enjoyed second/late mover advantages by being designed for those features from the beginning. Frankly I haven't yet studied SegWit in great detail, because I will wait until they have finished it, so I am not losing time studying a moving target. I have no influence on the Bitcoin community's decisions, thus studying it now is of no significant advantage in the holistic priorities. Conceptually I understand that SegWit enables outsourcing validation and retains hashes of the validated data on the block chain. Afaics, this is centralizing for at least three reasons: 1. Those with preferential access/propagation to validators can earn more with the same hashrate by mining on the correct block slightly sooner. Over time this moves ROI and thus hashrate concentration to those who have these political connections. However, this is not much different than the same effect that can exist now where miners with significant hashrate (even a cooperating set of them) can validate their block announcements sooner than the rest of the network. Afaik, the salient worsening due to SegWit is that validation concentration can now be political, not only by hashrate concentration, so it amplifies the vectors towards centralization. 2. Afaik, SegWit relies on trust enforced by voluntary fraud proofs to insure that the validation is correct for each hash on the block chain. Afaics, the game theory around these voluntary fraud proofs drives more centralization. But this is not something I want to detail now. It is a complex discussion and I am busy on more urgent priorities. 3. Afaik the new versioning capability that will be introduced with SegWit, basically hands the power to Blockstream to drive forks any time they want to. Again this is another game theory discussion which I don't wish to elaborate on at this time. Note Monero's periodic forks as a protocol also seems to a form of centralized control. One can argue that miners can vote, but it is fairly impossible to stop the political clout of the lead developers especially when that control is hardwired into the protocol. Satoshi's design was that it should be nearly impossible to hard fork, because that is the only way you truly have decentralization. |
|
|
|
At the moment, they don't really have any competition or at least any that markets their services very well.
Potentially another manipulated market such as the argument about Mt.Gox bubble upthread. We could be witnessing a cashing out from recent altcoin bubbles while buying from himself to create the illusion of a rising price while doing so as they ostensibly did for the ETH bubble, e.g. Vitalik using Coinbase to cash out from ETH -> BTC -> USD. Free markets = decentralized markets. When you have whales and most volume going through 1 or 2 exchanges, you don't have decentralized markets.
Re: [POLL] Should Alternative Currencies Have Their Own Forum Section ?Although philosophically I'd like to vote "yes", I voted "no" because the reality is the scams are the BTC economy: Any way, I'd like to not see altcoins dominated only by get quick rich and not some serious attempts to fix Bitcoin's flaws and create a large adoption market. But the more I think about this, the more I realize if that ever happens it will be largely outside of this forum. This forum is a gambler's paradise. I need to remind myself that I we here are in an enclave. At the moment, they don't really have any competition or at least any that markets their services very well.
Potentially another manipulated market such as the argument about Mt.Gox bubble upthread. We could be witnessing a cashing out from recent altcoin bubbles while buying from himself to create the illusion of a rising price while doing so as they ostensibly did for the ETH bubble, e.g. Vitalik using Coinbase to cash out from ETH -> BTC -> USD. Free markets = decentralized markets. When you have whales and most volume going through 1 or 2 exchanges, you don't have decentralized markets. Nobody invests into BTC or mining equipment anymore. When did you bought ASICs valued 10.000 USD last time? Aren't those USD you now use to buy BTC just been taken from former BTC sales?
Bitcoin cannot do without Alts, both built up a complete whole economy. Remember people are not buying/selling anything using BTC, they just gamble on Alts. Basically I do agree on BTC up causing Alts going down and vice verse. Enclosed system like two water tanks with a flexible tube connecting them.
I agree the two go hand in hand. Since alt coins are really the biggest thing you can purchase with BTC, ... This is true. Most people don't want to trade their BTC for a non-CC asset, because this their gambling money. They can't buy mining equipment with BTC to increase their holdings of crypto-currency. This is why ICOs have become more popular than mined distribution, with the ASIC resistant Monero as an exception. ASICs killed the mining ecosystem. This has been r0ach's point, that if the coins don't circulate, then the ecosystem dies. Bitcoin is dying. Only the altcoin circulation kept Bitcoin alive. |
|
|
|
You need to learn macroeconomics. thanks for your opinions ... if they were rare ( or even correct) they might be worth something, indeed you are prolific. You're welcome to try to refute Michael Pettis (PhD professor in China) who has been consistently correct in his predictions on China while being the skeptic that everyone thought should be ignored. Now he is respected because he was correct all along. Read his blog so you won't be so ignorant...or remain blissfully Dunning-Kruger as it is your prerogative. |
|
|
|
At the moment, they don't really have any competition or at least any that markets their services very well.
Potentially another manipulated market such as the argument about Mt.Gox bubble upthread. We could be witnessing a cashing out from recent altcoin bubbles while buying from himself to create the illusion of a rising price while doing so as they ostensibly did for the ETH bubble, e.g. Vitalik using Coinbase to cash out from ETH -> BTC -> USD. Free markets = decentralized markets. When you have whales and most volume going through 1 or 2 exchanges, you don't have decentralized markets.
Re: [POLL] Should Alternative Currencies Have Their Own Forum Section ?Although philosophically I'd like to vote "yes", I voted "no" because the reality is the scams are the BTC economy: Any way, I'd like to not see altcoins dominated only by get quick rich and not some serious attempts to fix Bitcoin's flaws and create a large adoption market. But the more I think about this, the more I realize if that ever happens it will be largely outside of this forum. This forum is a gambler's paradise. I need to remind myself that I we here are in an enclave. At the moment, they don't really have any competition or at least any that markets their services very well.
Potentially another manipulated market such as the argument about Mt.Gox bubble upthread. We could be witnessing a cashing out from recent altcoin bubbles while buying from himself to create the illusion of a rising price while doing so as they ostensibly did for the ETH bubble, e.g. Vitalik using Coinbase to cash out from ETH -> BTC -> USD. Free markets = decentralized markets. When you have whales and most volume going through 1 or 2 exchanges, you don't have decentralized markets. Nobody invests into BTC or mining equipment anymore. When did you bought ASICs valued 10.000 USD last time? Aren't those USD you now use to buy BTC just been taken from former BTC sales?
Bitcoin cannot do without Alts, both built up a complete whole economy. Remember people are not buying/selling anything using BTC, they just gamble on Alts. Basically I do agree on BTC up causing Alts going down and vice verse. Enclosed system like two water tanks with a flexible tube connecting them.
I agree the two go hand in hand. Since alt coins are really the biggest thing you can purchase with BTC, ... This is true. Most people don't want to trade their BTC for a non-CC asset, because this their gambling money. They can't buy mining equipment with BTC to increase their holdings of crypto-currency. This is why ICOs have become more popular than mined distribution, with the ASIC resistant Monero as an exception. ASICs killed the mining ecosystem. This has been r0ach's point, that if the coins don't circulate, then the ecosystem dies. Bitcoin is dying. Only the altcoin circulation kept Bitcoin alive. |
|
|
|
At the moment, they don't really have any competition or at least any that markets their services very well.
Potentially another manipulated market such as the argument about Mt.Gox bubble upthread. We could be witnessing a cashing out from recent altcoin bubbles while buying from himself to create the illusion of a rising price while doing so as they ostensibly did for the ETH bubble, e.g. Vitalik using Coinbase to cash out from ETH -> BTC -> USD. Free markets = decentralized markets. When you have whales and most volume going through 1 or 2 exchanges, you don't have decentralized markets.
Re: [POLL] Should Alternative Currencies Have Their Own Forum Section ?Although philosophically I'd like to vote "yes", I voted "no" because the reality is the scams are the BTC economy: Any way, I'd like to not see altcoins dominated only by get quick rich and not some serious attempts to fix Bitcoin's flaws and create a large adoption market. But the more I think about this, the more I realize if that ever happens it will be largely outside of this forum. This forum is a gambler's paradise. I need to remind myself that I we here are in an enclave. At the moment, they don't really have any competition or at least any that markets their services very well.
Potentially another manipulated market such as the argument about Mt.Gox bubble upthread. We could be witnessing a cashing out from recent altcoin bubbles while buying from himself to create the illusion of a rising price while doing so as they ostensibly did for the ETH bubble, e.g. Vitalik using Coinbase to cash out from ETH -> BTC -> USD. Free markets = decentralized markets. When you have whales and most volume going through 1 or 2 exchanges, you don't have decentralized markets. Nobody invests into BTC or mining equipment anymore. When did you bought ASICs valued 10.000 USD last time? Aren't those USD you now use to buy BTC just been taken from former BTC sales?
Bitcoin cannot do without Alts, both built up a complete whole economy. Remember people are not buying/selling anything using BTC, they just gamble on Alts. Basically I do agree on BTC up causing Alts going down and vice verse. Enclosed system like two water tanks with a flexible tube connecting them.
I agree the two go hand in hand. Since alt coins are really the biggest thing you can purchase with BTC, ... This is true. Most people don't want to trade their BTC for a non-CC asset, because this their gambling money. They can't buy mining equipment with BTC to increase their holdings of crypto-currency. This is why ICOs have become more popular than mined distribution, with the ASIC resistant Monero as an exception. ASICs killed the mining ecosystem. This has been r0ach's point, that if the coins don't circulate, then the ecosystem dies. Bitcoin is dying. Only the altcoin circulation kept Bitcoin alive. |
|
|
|
At the moment, they don't really have any competition or at least any that markets their services very well.
Potentially another manipulated market such as the argument about Mt.Gox bubble upthread. We could be witnessing a cashing out from recent altcoin bubbles while buying from himself to create the illusion of a rising price while doing so as they ostensibly did for the ETH bubble, e.g. Vitalik using Coinbase to cash out from ETH -> BTC -> USD. Free markets = decentralized markets. When you have whales and most volume going through 1 or 2 exchanges, you don't have decentralized markets.
I sincerely wish for him to be the first fiat BILLIONAIRE in the altcoin universe! He deserves it. He made invaluable contributions to crypto-currencies in general !
You're drunk on the Ethereum Paradox Koolaid. Do you know what a drunk looks like to the sober observers. Afaics, he didn't contribute an iota of technology that is important. |
|
|
|
At the moment, they don't really have any competition or at least any that markets their services very well.
Potentially another manipulated market such as the argument about Mt.Gox bubble upthread. We could be witnessing a cashing out from recent altcoin bubbles while buying from himself to create the illusion of a rising price while doing so as they ostensibly did for the ETH bubble, e.g. Vitalik using Coinbase to cash out from ETH -> BTC -> USD. Free markets = decentralized markets. When you have whales and most volume going through 1 or 2 exchanges, you don't have decentralized markets.
Seems they got wind of my posts about the legality of ICOs and disclosure.
You think this has anything to do with you, a random stranger on the Internet just like me and the next guy? Wow, this is pretty intense You need to read the Ethereum Paradox and " The altcoin topic everyone wants to sweep under the rug" threads to understand I am not a random stranger. Didn't you know I am alleged to be Satoshi? |
|
|
|
At the moment, they don't really have any competition or at least any that markets their services very well.
Potentially another manipulated market such as the argument about Mt.Gox bubble upthread. We could be witnessing a cashing out from recent altcoin bubbles while buying from himself to create the illusion of a rising price while doing so as they ostensibly did for the ETH bubble, e.g. Vitalik using Coinbase to cash out from ETH -> BTC -> USD. Free markets = decentralized markets. When you have whales and most volume going through 1 or 2 exchanges, you don't have decentralized markets. |
|
|
|
Segregated Witness is just another way to centralize mining. I will explain that in the future when I am ready.
... but that is a small price to pay in order to increase the blocksize from 1 MB to an effective 1.6 MB accomplish - Malleability Fixes
- Linear scaling of sighash operations
- Signing of input values
- Increased security for multisig via pay-to-script-hash (P2SH)
- Script versioning
- Reducing UTXO growth
- Compact fraud proofs
ftfy The technically-challenged will conflate features with don't require Segregated Witness with an argument for why we need Segregated Witness. Give them respect at your own peril. I rather enjoy the humor of it though. |
|
|
|
Current streak 0 days
Last contributed 5 months ago Shelby is on the march; the universe trembles.  Hahaha. Keep your eyes there where the magician wants you to look, while he is warming up something with his other hand which you are oblivious to, lol. Come on man, make me laugh harder. That is why I love you.
Edit: iCEBREAKER has an interesting theory of the world of work. In iCEBREAKER's delusional world, the only valid job is uploading code to github. Imagine living in iCEBREAKER's world, where no food is grown, no research is performed, no marketing is developed, no business plans are written. And especially nothing is done in a way that isn't obvious to iCEBREAKER. I am imagining this world of his, and all I see is starvation and misery. I'll let the reader estimate iCEBREAKER's intelligence quotient.
Segregated Witness is just another way to centralize mining. I will explain that in the future when I am ready.
... but that is a small price to pay in order to increase the blocksize from 1 MB to an effective 1.6 MB accomplish - Malleability Fixes
- Linear scaling of sighash operations
- Signing of input values
- Increased security for multisig via pay-to-script-hash (P2SH)
- Script versioning
- Reducing UTXO growth
- Compact fraud proofs
ftfy The technically-challenged will conflate features with don't require Segregated Witness with an argument for why we need Segregated Witness. Give them respect at your own peril. I rather enjoy the humor of it though. |
|
|
|
When TPTB blow their load in your mouth, do you quietly cry or savor the experience?
Look at my username. I am the TPTB. I don't suck cock, especially not my own. (Art of War: respond to a strawman with a strawman) |
|
|
|
There is another possibility which is that States like Texas become more prosperous and don't need any additional socialism. The Federal government may try to force prosperous States to pay for failing States such as Illinois. So we might have the Millennials saying "hell yeah, I don't want to pay for those in Illinois".
I so often seem to write Armstrong's blog posts a few days before he writes them: So on this subject, it is a VERY SERIOUS ISSUE. I have reported on “lobbying” efforts that have been taking place behind the curtain from my direct sources. There are states looking for Congress to create some sort of mandatory contribution that would take from people’s private savings to bail out state workers. Nothing has been decided as of yet. However, I would expect this to become more forceful next year when Social Security goes bust.
|
|
|
|
Smells like a lot of hurt white Western butt in here because they couldn't build computer hardware better, faster, cheaper than the chinese. Western white males measure themselves on technological success and they are getting pasted on the bitcoin hardware stakes so far ... time to up their game if they want to stay competitive. Harden up dudes.
Is this technology or more manufacturing brute force. China is leading as they can turnover and make the cheapest hardware fastest which leads them to immediately use it for mining advantages. But yes the West has lost of its great past in skilled manufacturing Saw this posted, seemed a very well balanced discussion on progression of the bitcoin difficulty vs miners etc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieP8kxaklUkThe technology of mass-production manufacturing is THE race, for now anyway. Who knows bitcoin itself may have originated out of an Asian mind ... not that it matters. You need to learn macroeconomics. Pegging the Yuan to the dollar, they were able to steal from their citizen's savings to subsidize a negative profit manufacturing industry. Read China expert Michael Pettis. China bit off the dying Industrial Age. However there are network effects that come from this, such as moving up to developing software, etc.. But their manufacturing domination and oversupply (making the rest of the world uncompetitive by artificially depressing the international value of their own wages via the peg) was due to corruption and will cause China to have a meltdown until 2020, when they have finished rebalancing. I agree with not whining. Compete. Hard to compete in manufacturing when China was gobbling up debt by repressing savings deposit interest rates and otherwise subsidizing their oversupply in manufacturing capacity. The reason Singapore exists is to hide profits offshore for these well connected fatcats who own the State SOCs (state owned enterprises). |
|
|
|
...organic demand is high and there is no leveraging bubble.
What is the volume on Coinbase right now? Can't people use Coinbase to move from fiat to BTC to move the BTC to bet margin at other margin sites with the BTC? So can't it be a precursor? Who uses Coinbase and why? |
|
|
|
Zcash appears to be demonstrating their lack of technical expertise on block chain related matters: Additionally I was thinking that this Equihash can be trivially sped up on an ASIC because the Equihash algorithm is not memory latency bound and thus is bound on the sorting and computation speed and/or the memory bandwidth, which can be optimized with specialized hardware.
There is no publicly available optimized code for Equihash, so we don't really know to what extent it is bandwidth or latency bound. There may be subtle trade offs between the two. We really need to see the memory behaviour of actual running optimized code. 1. You didn't address my electrical efficiency point, which I think is probably the most damning. I very much doubt that the memory power consumption will be even 1/10 of the computational power consumption. Thus an ASIC will be at least 10 times more power efficient, Don't I remember pointing out the same issue with your Cuckoo hash? What was your retort again? 2. I also very much doubt it will be latency bound (even after the 10X speed up of the computation), because optimized sorting doesn't have to be random access. For any memory bandwidth bound, there is this: Out of interest. Why does it matter for a coin which is currently in the alpha stage and only running on the test net? Isn't the whole point of this stage to weed out issues like this and work on a more sustainable architecture before it ever goes live? If it goes live with these issues then I would find it worrisome and quite comical, but I don't understand the point of complaining about a alpha stage. Ostensibly you do not understand the technical distinction I noted. The issue here is not one of ferreting out bugs and optimization, which is what an alpha and beta stage release are for. Rather, I am noting they didn't even mention (nor anticipate) in their research paper all the factors that are relevant, so it may exemplify they are not very expertise in this particular area of ASIC resistant proof-of-work technology. |
|
|
|
Okay thanks. I should have checked that (my mind off in YouTube, lol). I'll delete both our posts (and keep this one) to cut down on clutter. The original was not deleted. Maybe they just didn't like the crosspost for whatever reason. Does anyone have any clue why the mods would delete this factual post  A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted. How does Monero propose to resolve the fact that it's blockchain is growing faster than Moores Law and pruning is so limited?
Human populations don't grow faster than Moore's law. Duh. Disk arrays scale to anything we can fathom. The issue is that no block chain consensus can maintain decentralization of validation, not because of scaling problems but because of the fundamental economic reality that not every miner can have an equal share of the hashrate, thus verification costs are not shared equally. The creates an asymmetry where economies-of-scale will maximize profit and grow hashrate the fastest thus centralizing mining. The solution requires some clever innovation on proof-of-work. |
|
|
|
|
Did Vitalik sell for fiat or for BTC?
|
|
|
|
|
I sold 1BTC @ $460. Dollar cost averaging what I believe to be a deadcat bounce.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
