Satoshi didn't solve the Byzantine generals problem

[r0ach]

It doesn't matter if mining profit trends towards zero, it happens in the real metals market all the time yet miners don't cease to exist.  The function of mining in that case is solely futures market.  The function of mining in Bitcoin is identical, solely a futures market with no guarantees about profit.

[1715010653]

1715010653

[1715010653]

1715010653

[1715010653]

1715010653

[kiklo]

The better retort would be to argue that the as the adoption increases, the price will rise so the fixed size (in coins) tail reward has an adaptive valuation.

But I will retort that the value of shorting also scales up accordingly.

Shorting can't erase the cost due to PoW (burning energy). It can only erase a cost from loss of value of a holdings (PoS and other methods that claim to turn holding coins into "virtual miners").

If attacking a coin causes its price to decline, shorting can return a profit. If that profit exceeds the cost due to PoW, then it erased it. Cover the short, stop the attack. Repeat if the price rises again.

Yes but if the attack doesn't succeed, the energy burn cost is still there (i.e. risk of failure)

If, by contrast, you try to attack a coin almost costlessly via PoS exploits and if your attack doesn't succeed then your your coins nor your short loses value. Then you can just try again, until you succeed...

I agree that "coins will go down in value" does not enhance the security of PoW; that would attempting to impute a some sort of stake-based incentive to mining, as some do, and that is flat out wrong, or at best, very weak security.

Your Term costlessly is exaggerated , IMO.

The usual way to short a currency is to use a currency pair—something like EUR/USD, the value of a euro denominated in dollars—which trades as a single unit. For example, if the euro was trading at $1.3000, you would “borrow” a currency pair from your broker, which you have to return within a certain period of time, and sell it on the open market, pocketing $1.30. If after an hour EUR/USD is trading at $1.2950, you can buy the currency pair at that price and return it to your broker, making a profit of $0.0050. (If you’re wrong, you lose out.)

1.  If Shorting is so Easy as you guys like to pretend, why are'nt all of you rich from Shorting Coins & Stocks?
You Have to Fund Your Margin Account which holds Collateral used to Secure Loans used in Margin Trading.

But if you have a short position, there’s no limit to how much money you can lose if the shares rise. If the share price increases soon after you place a short position, you could quickly “cover” by buying back the shares and returning them to the investor you borrowed them from. If you’re lucky, you might not lose very much.

But an investor named Joe Campbell was not so lucky when he placed a $37,000 short position on KaloBios Pharmaceuticals Inc. US:KBIO  earlier this month, only to find out a day later that the shares had shot up about 800% after Turing Pharmaceuticals CEO Martin Shkreli gained control of a majority of KaloBios’ shares.

If you have not received insider info (which is illegal by the way),
then you are a sucker and will learn the below term very quickly.

What Is a Forced Liquidation?

A forced liquidation is when all or part of your positions are closed automatically to prevent further loss and ensure you do not default on your loans. Forced liquidations are executed using one or more market orders; as such, order book liquidity at the time of these orders will affect the extent of the losses you incur from the liquidation. Forced liquidations occur when your Current Margin dips below your Maintenance Margin. It is strongly advised that you check the markets and your open positions regularly, mitigating your risk as necessary by reducing the size of your positions or transferring additional collateral into your margin account. Markets can change very quickly, and no guarantee can be made that you will receive a Margin Call warning in time for you to prevent a forced liquidation.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=17141.0

Hey guys,
Just have an interesting case study of my trading experience on Poloniex last week.  I traded on Poloniex's margin trading platform and was margin called on June 15th 17:15 when the prices went from .000029 BTC per BTS to .000014 BTC per BTS back to .000028 BTC per BTS in a ten minute span. (Down 50% in less than 10 minutes!) I didn't realize the liquidity was so low on Poloniex, but it's interesting to know what can happen.  I lost a chunk of money.
I think someone or some bot just ran down the book on all the buy orders and got the price really low to trigger all the margin calls and bought back at low prices, but not sure of the exact mechanics.

2. Even your claims of creating Online Wallets will have a cost involved , VPS & Internet & Marketing costs .
Plus the fact is that your amount of coins will fluctuate , and in no way guarantee your staking power stays high, and that is only if you actually get alot of coins, which will be doubtful as most PoS users distrust online wallets.

3. Buy or Create an Exchange , do I really need to point out the costs there.  

 

[Come-from-Beyond]

Which I do not see as a solution due to my criticism of IOTA...

"Criticism"? After you ruined your reputation by producing tons of bullshit (which you admitted by refusing to put your money where your mouth was) it's not longer a criticism, you behave like a kid who knows that thing he did were wrong but he can't stop doing them because others will see that he regrets of doing them in the past. "Criticism" haha, keep playing the role of joker blabbing words you don't understand.

[r0ach]

Which I do not see as a solution due to my criticism of IOTA...

"Criticism"? After you ruined your reputation by producing tons of bullshit (which you admitted by refusing to put your money where your mouth was) it's not longer a criticism, you behave like a kid who knows that thing he did were wrong but he can't stop doing them because others will see that he regrets of doing them in the past. "Criticism" haha, keep playing the role of joker blabbing words you don't understand.

Please, spare me the garbage.  If anyone has a bad reputation it's all you IPO scammers.  Lol, you think I have a bad reputation beause I didn't want to send 50 btc to some random Russian mafia member so he can escrow an ambiguous terms bet you wanted that no 3rd party could possibly even fairly decide the outcome of.  Then need to trust that the escrow is not only a cryptocurrency expert, but also non-biased at the same time.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Please, spare me the garbage.  If anyone has a bad reputation it's all you IPO scammers.

So, ad hominem is the only counterargument you have? Or you are saying that it's acceptable to post nonsensical phrases (that you refuse to support with money) without getting your reputation ruined? The latter is not a rhetorical question...

[TPTB_need_war]

The better retort would be to argue that the as the adoption increases, the price will rise so the fixed size (in coins) tail reward has an adaptive valuation.

But I will retort that the value of shorting also scales up accordingly.

Shorting can't erase the cost due to PoW (burning energy). It can only erase a cost from loss of value of a holdings (PoS and other methods that claim to turn holding coins into "virtual miners").

If attacking a coin causes its price to decline, shorting can return a profit. If that profit exceeds the cost due to PoW, then it erased it. Cover the short, stop the attack. Repeat if the price rises again.

Yes but if the attack doesn't succeed, the energy burn cost is still there (i.e. risk of failure)

Agreed, I also acknowledged that in the past, that the market might simply ignore the attack since it knows if the price doesn't drop there may be no way to sufficiently monetize the attack to offset the hashrate cost.

However there are other more certain ways to profit on an attack of PoW, and that is to do the attack on behalf of the world government and charge the cost to the collective (i.e. to the people of the world). This is essentially my greatest fear for the future of Satoshi's design if it doesn't otherwise fail due to being a cartel:

Regarding the future of Bitcoin and its Tragedy of the Commons economic design:

At best one would see the type of cartel that TPTB_need_war  has suggested; however my take is that this kind of cartel would only last for a short time before collapsing. Just witness what is currently happening in the crude oil market.

Cartels form in power vacuums. They must align with the greater power vacuums in order to sustain their market inefficiency (top-down control can't anneal maximum fitness). So the only way such a cartel would not fail, would be to become a fiat of the world government and be sustained by the Iron Law on Political Economics which is the perennial, inimitable power vacuum.

If, by contrast, you try to attack a coin almost costlessly via PoS exploits and if your attack doesn't succeed then your your coins nor your short loses value. Then you can just try again, until you succeed...

Agreed one of the major reasons PoS(hit) is insecure— there is no ongoing expenditure.

I agree that "coins will go down in value" does not enhance the security of PoW; that would attempting to impute a some sort of stake-based incentive to mining, as some do, and that is flat out wrong, or at best, very weak security.

Agreed.

Security of a coin will be very tied to its transaction rate × average transaction size, i.e. velocity adoption and wealth of the velocity. The problem I have with the fixed size tail reward as compared to the design I am contemplating is that tail reward only captures those metrics indirectly through exchange price appreciation. I am not sure if the two models are equally powerful. I will need to think more deeply about it. My design also has an orthogonal tail reward.

Edit: some aspects of Monero's tail reward and block size adjustment algorithm are analogous to aspects of my design. There are some other things I didn't mention. I will need to really take the time to distil this into a carefully written white paper. So I would caution readers not to form any concrete conclusions (either for or against any design mentioned here) from these vague discussions.

[kiklo]

Agreed one of the major reasons PoS(hit) is insecure— there is no ongoing expenditure.

Hmm,  disagree with that for the following reasons, (Especially your cute (hit) slander)
Just because PoS is Substantially cheaper to run than PoW does not mean their is not an increasing expenditure required.

There is always an increasing expenditure of required Disk Space as the Blockchain expands.
Additionally also an increasing requirement of Ram , as the Memory requirements grow.
As the Number of Wallets increase competition for Stakes, there is an increasing Time requirement to be online and staking.
(And with the above increased requirements, a slight increase in the electricity draw on the PCs.)  

 

[shenkeng]

Any good news causes the price up?

[TPTB_need_war]

Nonsense.

[r0ach]

Yea, I'm locking this thread now that the Shamwow Zeitcoin salesmen has shown up.  It will just turn into 10 pages of jibberish with him trying to sell you his $20,000 market cap PoS coin.  That and the fact that we have no better alternative to the current PoW implementation so this topic is kind of pointless until we do.