New Casper concept contains an artificial incentive cap and a wait time ( not seen that yet ). Wonder if that helps...
Casper cannot work as designed - you can't use transactions to create a consensus when those very transactions rely on consensus in the first place due to double spends. That s another issue. I was thinking about better sharing incentives between miners and I saw that new stuff in Casper. I wonder if there are better models to share like lottery / randomizing.... |
|
|
|
It's a shame nobody has thought of a way to stop pow mining eventually always being taken away from the small miner by the larger mining corps.
I guess it's because it's not possible to do that else they would have. .
If you pay miners, the best miners always have an advantage and that tends to compound over time. If you don't pay miners, there is no incentive to behave in favour of the network instead of just trying to double spend each other and fork the chain to oblivion. New Casper concept contains an artificial incentive cap and a wait time ( not seen that yet ). Wonder if that helps... |
|
|
|
well its's halving year, Bitcoin needs a strong support or face a supply-side consolidation. It all depends on the way Ethereum bursts. Slowly over time, or abruptly.
Markets normally do what majority NOT expect, its already priced in. |
|
|
|
The error is here on slides 11 & 12: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1CjD0W4l4-CwHKUvfF5Vlps76fKLEC6pIwu1a_kC_YRQ/edit?pref=2&pli=1#slide=id.gd284b9333_0_39As I predicted: When will the design details of the new PoS system be shared so we know how they plan to scale?
The plans are sufficiently shared already in the numerous presentations and YouTube videos. I know the limits of the range of choices they can possibly choose from. So I know they are stuck up river without a paddle. They will eventually realize this, and then either they will try to shoehorn some crap that creates a Prisoner's Dilemma and breaks Nash equilibrium ( such as "transaction receipts") and/or [...] Again a receipt instead of every validator validating breaks the Nash equilibrium and creates a Prisoner's Dilemma: I will repeat again for the 10th time in this thread. Every validator must be able to validate the entire history of the lineage of transactions for the shard that validator is responsible for. Otherwise that validator can't be sure it is not going to lose its funds (i.e. electricity for PoW or deposit for the proposed consensus-by-betting) because it approved an invalid transaction due to some lie in the history as trusted but not validated. Combine this with the impossibility of sharding the gas as explained already to you.
Using a receipt is lowering security by orders of magnitude,correct? |
|
|
|
Would you care to explain since you did the research?
I can't explain all the technicals aspects because I'm not a developer, but you clearly don't know anything if you are saying that 1 ETH should be 1 USD or something low like that when there are only 72 millions and the ultimate goal is to be adopted by mainstream corporations and institutions. I remind you that BTC is unheard of in the mainstream world, no one actually uses it and got to $1300. Now you do your math and think how much it could be 1 ETH if it's actually useful and is as if not more divisible than BTC. Why do you think big corps or instis will adopt it? I rather see they fork or copy the thing as is, thats why R3 hired Hearn.... Banks cannot just work on open stuff, forget it. The problem is that this technology doesn't really work like that, it needs to be decentralized to work, just look at Augur for example. A blockchain adopted by Barclay could be just a fork of BTC, that's it, it's nothing too complicated. They can actually do a fork of Ethereum (although it's not as easy as it sounds) but what is the benefit of that? If we are pushing AI, decentralized servers, massive data collection, the only way to go is using a standard platform, similar to the internet which it's somehow decentralized except for its server and services. This would improve not only security (which is not minor...) but the possibilities are endless. PoS is working fine just for a multi bank intra net and security will be higher. That s exactly the max grade of decentralization banks might finally accept, not more. |
|
|
|
Would you care to explain since you did the research?
I can't explain all the technicals aspects because I'm not a developer, but you clearly don't know anything if you are saying that 1 ETH should be 1 USD or something low like that when there are only 72 millions and the ultimate goal is to be adopted by mainstream corporations and institutions. I remind you that BTC is unheard of in the mainstream world, no one actually uses it and got to $1300. Now you do your math and think how much it could be 1 ETH if it's actually useful and is as if not more divisible than BTC. Why do you think big corps or instis will adopt it? I rather see they fork or copy the thing as is, thats why R3 hired Hearn.... Banks cannot just work on open stuff, forget it. |
|
|
|
The bottom line is people are investing in ETH because of Bitcoin same as NXT.
In General, people are buying Altcoins because of BTC they are not buying because they can use it on something or somewhere.
At least this is what i have seen going on here and we are all doing the same trick. Lol
ETH made a big fuss in the banking sector, so I expect some related whales or traders go long and play, what they never d do with BTC, because of its history and latent attack against banks. They will in case it works fork & short, otherwise just short. Same is for industry, MSFT guys. And miners that need some minimum stake for the planned PoS. Not forget all BTC dev frustrated that now vote with their feet, like a Hearn.... |
|
|
|
Very nice and informal graph, hopefully an agreement is reached soon to increase the blocksize limit. It's
not good for the health of the Bitcoin that everybody keeps fighting over it and nothing is being done at
the ever increasing confirmation times when normal fees are being used.
Best would be to have a moving agerage + 50% or so size limit, than its dynamic. |
|
|
|
 Just found... No Space left for the poor or any safety... |
|
|
|
It has halved since yesterday, and I hope the attacker runs out of funds soon.
It is a very nice stress Test and shows the limit of the actual tech is very close. What it shows is that any system that has a low cost to be abused, can get abused. Near-zero cost txs = near-zero cost abuse.If the fees were higher, the cost of attacking the system would have been higher and the risk of attacks much lower. I'd rather say the system is so close to it's Limit that makes it attractive for attackers. Just for the social freedom you claim there should be always a way (some Space) for near zero cost txs . |
|
|
|
they raised $18 million and spent it. they ran out of funds and started pumping the stock price in order to raise more funds Forget all the other drama going on. Let's face it - 18 mil was one hellava lot of money to burn through for what was produced. Price manipulation since is a given. Eth may turn out to be the best thing since sliced bread but it started out tainted. The big problems come when positive Momentum turns into negative . |
|
|
|
If you think my points are irrelevant, then please stop being a hypocrite and have a TECHNICAL discussion with me, as I'm starting to get the feeling I'm just being trolled here...
Okay - well when (even) one of the devs says that your idea is a good one then I'll admit that I should have not rejected your idea. Fair? Fair. I think, you are just too early with this, since they is no urge. Look at how the scaling or the decentralization issue is treated, or is it an issue....hm. |
|
|
|
It has halved since yesterday, and I hope the attacker runs out of funds soon.
It is a very nice stress Test and shows the limit of the actual tech is very close. How would you chose your CPU for a risk sensitive machine? Sure at some level where you normally use only a small fraction and for a standard stress tests it should still work fine .... |
|
|
|
|
Getting really paradox now - so pls stop that.
|
|
|
|
Great, need to test that ....  |
|
|
|
You won't have any problems if you pay high enough fee. The problem is that the fees are constantly moving up!
You can always pay much more than is recommended for fast confirmation, though the fees could skyrocket even faster if more people do this... So - pls DEVs + miners count 1 + 1 together, ETH skyrocks BTC stalls - extrapolate to 2017 - goodbye BTC! Really? Meh don't think so buddy! Eth is down 7% right now and out of fuel.Expect even more dumping the next coming days. Furthermore Bitcoin will progress and scale. I have no doubt about that.Like it or not.  Tried to put some pressure on ... June 2017 is just a joke sorry. |
|
|
|
So now we know stoat refuses to provide proof and thus is a low life lying scammer who has to beg for funds while lying about a friend in need.
.. or he made some fortune with ETH and is not willing to share ... |
|
|
|
|
First Ponzi on top of ETH ?
|
|
|
|
So in terms of script limitation I guess there is a massive need for re-dimensionizing what is really possible at current state - in blockchain world (not just ETH). As you know best, even a 'simple' solution for a decentralized exchange is not just DONE straight forwad at all (OK - here are two blockchains inwolved, but complexity grade looks rather low).
It is I think undecideable to prove what Turing-complete scripting can't do. But since the particular vulnerability I discovered when investigating DE requires the ability to multi-sig to any destination one could just place a limit on multi-sig destinations, but this would highly limit what multi-sig can be used for I think. And that doesn't guarantee there aren't other security holes. It's pretty obvious that you are talking in circles. You haven't made "a breakthrough" or found an achilles heel as you would like people to believe. You are merely building a strawman out of ideas in your own head and attacking that. You can't know what ethereums solution to scaling will be because it hasn't been released yet. This whole thread is merely a pathetic attempt at FUD against something you are sour graping. Stop doing it and stop being a fugitive pedophile. Hand yourself in to the local police station in Davao and apologise to the philipino people for being a predatory sex tourist. ....still waiting for stoat to refute anything TPTB_need_war has stated about Ethereum's weaknesses, my guess is I'll be waiting a long, long, long time--meanwhile I can enjoy his theater of distraction. Next he'll be claiming I killed Kennedy and cryptohunter went back in time and fathered Hitler. There is nothing to refute you moron. He is putting forth arguments against something that doesn't exist yet. There is no way anyone can form a logical argument against it.
Because no one can think theoretically? Yeah, I'm the moron. ... it's better than putting money on things that doesn't exist yet ... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
