Bitcoin Forum
December 12, 2017, 03:28:35 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 »
  Print  
Author Topic: The Ethereum Paradox  (Read 84120 times)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
March 07, 2016, 01:17:08 PM
 #561

Ethereum's financial success

What financial success? P&D scams are not success. They pull in the losers and greater fools.

$18 million wasted, still vaporware, and now doing illegal securities manipulation on illegal unregistered securities (that were offered to US citizens) to raise more money to waste because they are out-of-funds and don't have a fucking clue about the technology.



What's scammy about it?

$18 million wasted and still vaporware. Follow the relevant links...

In order to beat Bitcoin, you much provide something that Bitcoin can't do which is more popular and has greater network effects.

Bitcoin for the moment owns the store-of-value and slow-large medium-of-exchange functions of crypto currency, and that is unlikely to change unless Bitcoin so screws up the block size issue that the market is forced to choose a new block chain for these properties of money.

However, the instant-micro medium-of-exchange function of crypto currency is still wide open. Ditto on chain privacy and anonymity, which appears to be a two horse race between Monero and Z(ero)cash, but I have my doubts as to how popular/practical overt privacy and anonymity will be. Bitcoin is hoping for Lightning Networks (<-- click the Reddit link at the linked post) but LN requires large block sizes for garbage collections spikes and it realistically can't allow anyone to pay anyone, plus it is a centralization paradigm to be owned by large corporate servers. V(anilla)Cash is pitching some insecure Zero Time shit that can't scale. Bitshares and Dash are pitching some more flawed shit, and even I discovered that InstantX's white paper had a high school level math error in its security calculation which made it seem much more secure than it is.

Ethereum has no users, no chance of scaling decentralized, and no one has even shown that any Dapps are important and/or can't be done in another way. I pointed out the prior day that Augur is insecure.

Market cap is irrelevant if it is not sustained, because P&Ds are easy for whales to conduct by buying from themselves, including constructing fake buy walls.

So yes I think Bitcoin can be beat. But it won't be easy. And the chances are slim. You actually have to have a plan for stimulating instant microtransactions medium-of-exchange adoption. It won't just happen by magic and you won't be able to just employ the mass media to dazzle the gullible tinfoil speculator junkies for the userbase since Bitcoin already captured them.



on hype alone it will make a lot of people very rich; in the short term

It will make most of the speculators very poor by definition of a P&D.

1513049315
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513049315

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513049315
Reply with quote  #2

1513049315
Report to moderator
1513049315
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513049315

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513049315
Reply with quote  #2

1513049315
Report to moderator
1513049315
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513049315

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513049315
Reply with quote  #2

1513049315
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513049315
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513049315

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513049315
Reply with quote  #2

1513049315
Report to moderator
1513049315
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513049315

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513049315
Reply with quote  #2

1513049315
Report to moderator
1513049315
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513049315

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513049315
Reply with quote  #2

1513049315
Report to moderator
hv_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672


View Profile
March 07, 2016, 01:27:36 PM
 #562

Next Paradox:

Rootstock comes up with smart contacts using bitcoin: ( I do not see any Casper in yet... and no PoS  :-)   )

https://medium.com/@CryptoIQ.ca/rootstock-smart-contracts-on-the-bitcoin-blockchain-e52b065421a8#.npkfpas4w

Carpe diem  -  cut the down side  -  be anti-fragile
A feature that needs more than one convincing argument is no and Satoshi owes me no proof.
My coding style is legendary but limited to 1MB, sorry but cannot come much over my C64, Bill Gates and Tom Bombadil
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
March 07, 2016, 01:31:26 PM
 #563

Next Paradox:

Rootstock comes up with smart contacts using bitcoin: ( I do not see any Casper in yet... and no PoS  :-)   )

https://medium.com/@CryptoIQ.ca/rootstock-smart-contracts-on-the-bitcoin-blockchain-e52b065421a8#.npkfpas4w

Side-chains are insecure. DOA.

hv_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672


View Profile
March 07, 2016, 01:34:00 PM
 #564

Next Paradox:

Rootstock comes up with smart contacts using bitcoin: ( I do not see any Casper in yet... and no PoS  :-)   )

https://medium.com/@CryptoIQ.ca/rootstock-smart-contracts-on-the-bitcoin-blockchain-e52b065421a8#.npkfpas4w

Side-chains are insecure. DOA.

To the BTC chain itself? IMO it lowers the complexity,...

Carpe diem  -  cut the down side  -  be anti-fragile
A feature that needs more than one convincing argument is no and Satoshi owes me no proof.
My coding style is legendary but limited to 1MB, sorry but cannot come much over my C64, Bill Gates and Tom Bombadil
hv_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672


View Profile
March 07, 2016, 01:44:57 PM
 #565

Next Paradox:

Rootstock comes up with smart contacts using bitcoin: ( I do not see any Casper in yet... and no PoS  :-)   )

https://medium.com/@CryptoIQ.ca/rootstock-smart-contracts-on-the-bitcoin-blockchain-e52b065421a8#.npkfpas4w

Side-chains are insecure. DOA.

To the BTC chain itself? IMO it lowers the complexity,...

The security is reduced to that of the weakest side chain.

So the pegging needs to be transient !

from their Whitepaper:

• Two-way pegging using sidechains (currently a federated peg, fully automatic peg
subject to Bitcoin improvements)

Carpe diem  -  cut the down side  -  be anti-fragile
A feature that needs more than one convincing argument is no and Satoshi owes me no proof.
My coding style is legendary but limited to 1MB, sorry but cannot come much over my C64, Bill Gates and Tom Bombadil
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
March 07, 2016, 01:47:54 PM
 #566

Next Paradox:

Rootstock comes up with smart contacts using bitcoin: ( I do not see any Casper in yet... and no PoS  :-)   )

https://medium.com/@CryptoIQ.ca/rootstock-smart-contracts-on-the-bitcoin-blockchain-e52b065421a8#.npkfpas4w

Side-chains are insecure. DOA.

To the BTC chain itself? IMO it lowers the complexity,...

The security is reduced to that of the weakest side chain.

So the pegging needs to be transient !

I have no idea what you mean. Chain reorganizations in the weaker chain can cause people to lose their Bitcoins. The chains can get out-of-sync. There is no way for a block chain to securely reference any data point outside of itself. This is fundamentally why Augur and BitUSD can't function without centralization.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
March 07, 2016, 01:52:36 PM
 #567

Basically all block chain projects have decided to abandon decentralization and just pretend (whether they realize it or not)[1]. So they can do features that don't work without centralization.

Come-from-Beyond say people are happy with that, and the sheep usually are happy to be lead to their slaughter.

[1] Note Monero has the most ASIC-resistant hash released thus far. They haven't solved the economic centralization issue, but for the time being afaik I presume mining is reasonably decentralized.

Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792

Newbie


View Profile
March 07, 2016, 02:01:14 PM
 #568

Basically all block chain projects have decided to abandon decentralization and just pretend (whether they realize it or not). So they can do features that don't work without centralization.

Come-from-Beyond say people are happy with that, and the sheep usually are happy to be lead to their slaughter.

I'm sorry that I didn't wrap that post into <subtleSarcasm> tags. I'm flattered that you use my posts as argumentum ad verecundiam.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
March 07, 2016, 02:02:39 PM
 #569

Basically all block chain projects have decided to abandon decentralization and just pretend (whether they realize it or not). So they can do features that don't work without centralization.

Come-from-Beyond say people are happy with that, and the sheep usually are happy to be lead to their slaughter.

I'm sorry that I didn't wrap that post into <subtleSarcasm> tags. I'm flattered that you use my posts as argumentum ad verecundiam.

I'm sorry I didn't emphasize that I know you were being sarcastic. But you are also being pragmatic, as you've always astutely been. I don't fault you for that! Even Satoshi failed at decentralization.

Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792

Newbie


View Profile
March 07, 2016, 02:03:51 PM
 #570

I'm sorry I didn't emphasize that I know you were being sarcastic.

Your reply has reminded me of Mark Twain.
hv_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672


View Profile
March 07, 2016, 02:06:28 PM
 #571

Next Paradox:

Rootstock comes up with smart contacts using bitcoin: ( I do not see any Casper in yet... and no PoS  :-)   )

https://medium.com/@CryptoIQ.ca/rootstock-smart-contracts-on-the-bitcoin-blockchain-e52b065421a8#.npkfpas4w

Side-chains are insecure. DOA.

To the BTC chain itself? IMO it lowers the complexity,...

The security is reduced to that of the weakest side chain.

So the pegging needs to be transient !

I have no idea what you mean. Chain reorganizations in the weaker chain can cause people to lose their Bitcoins. The chains can get out-of-sync. There is no way for a block chain to securely reference any data point outside of itself. This is fundamentally why Augur and BitUSD can't function without centralization.

Yes - agreed, but I mean rather it has no negative effect to the main chain, if you don't care using the side chain.

Carpe diem  -  cut the down side  -  be anti-fragile
A feature that needs more than one convincing argument is no and Satoshi owes me no proof.
My coding style is legendary but limited to 1MB, sorry but cannot come much over my C64, Bill Gates and Tom Bombadil
hv_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672


View Profile
March 07, 2016, 02:21:20 PM
 #572

Basically all block chain projects have decided to abandon decentralization and just pretend (whether they realize it or not)[1]. So they can do features that don't work without centralization.

Come-from-Beyond say people are happy with that, and the sheep usually are happy to be lead to their slaughter.

[1] Note Monero has the most ASIC-resistant hash released thus far. They haven't solved the economic centralization issue, but for the time being afaik I presume mining is reasonably decentralized.

Some yummy for you on page 15:

"
RSK aims to be a better payment network. To achieve fast payments, several solutions have
been developed:

- Use of competition-free block selection (e.g. Hyperledger, Ripple, closed-loop systems)
- Use of hub-and-spoke networks (e.g. Bitcoin lightning network)
- Use of high PoW block rates


Hub-and-spoke networks add new centralization nodes, and require a complete adaptation
of client wallets to a new, completely different payment model. Although so this alternative
can be easily implemented on RSK, is not the native system for fast payments. RSK adopts
the DECOR+ and FastBlock5 protocols, which allow reaching a 10 seconds average block
rate that does not create incentives for mining centralization, is selfish-mining free and
incentive compatible.

"

https://uploads.strikinglycdn.com/files/90847694-70f0-4668-ba7f-dd0c6b0b00a1/RootstockWhitePaperv9-Overview.pdf

Carpe diem  -  cut the down side  -  be anti-fragile
A feature that needs more than one convincing argument is no and Satoshi owes me no proof.
My coding style is legendary but limited to 1MB, sorry but cannot come much over my C64, Bill Gates and Tom Bombadil
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
March 07, 2016, 02:44:34 PM
 #573

Next Paradox:

Rootstock comes up with smart contacts using bitcoin: ( I do not see any Casper in yet... and no PoS  :-)   )

https://medium.com/@CryptoIQ.ca/rootstock-smart-contracts-on-the-bitcoin-blockchain-e52b065421a8#.npkfpas4w

Side-chains are insecure. DOA.

To the BTC chain itself? IMO it lowers the complexity,...

The security is reduced to that of the weakest side chain.

So the pegging needs to be transient !

I have no idea what you mean. Chain reorganizations in the weaker chain can cause people to lose their Bitcoins. The chains can get out-of-sync. There is no way for a block chain to securely reference any data point outside of itself. This is fundamentally why Augur and BitUSD can't function without centralization.

Yes - agreed, but I mean rather it has no negative effect to the main chain, if you don't care using the side chain.

I think the insecurity of the side chain can wreck the Bitcoin block chain. If I am mistaken, I request someone to point out why.

Please see pages 8, 9, and 12 of the Blockstream side chains white paper. It says that the coins on the Bitcoin block chain can be unlocked by presenting a proof-of-work from the side chain, but that this can be invalidated by a longer proof-of-work. So this means that a lie-in-wait attack on the side chain could allow someone to unlock coins on Bitcoin's block chain, spend them, let others spend them in a fanout of derivative transactions, then reverse the Bitcoin transactions by presenting a longer proof-of-work from the side chain invalidating all those Bitcoin block chain transactions. In short, it seems to me a chain reorganization on the side chain can cause a chain reorganization on the Bitcoin block chain.

I am ready to go to sleep, so I am just skimming quickly with my re-reading of that white paper, so perhaps I missed something?

tromp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 505


View Profile
March 07, 2016, 02:45:39 PM
 #574

[1] Note Monero has the most ASIC-resistant hash released thus far.

Ethash appears more ASIC resistant as it is more memory bound and needs at least 8x more memory.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
March 07, 2016, 02:51:01 PM
 #575

[1] Note Monero has the most ASIC-resistant hash released thus far.

Ethash appears more ASIC resistant as it is more memory bound and needs at least 8x more memory.

The original version that I reviewed for Charles Hoskinson before he formed Ethereum with Vitalik could be easily parallelized and thus would have superior performance on GPUs. Whereas, Monero's hash includes AES-NI instructions and the CPU is roughly at parity with GPUs.

So I meant to imply that Monero has the most CPUs mining.

Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792

Newbie


View Profile
March 07, 2016, 02:53:23 PM
 #576

Ethash appears more ASIC resistant as it is more memory bound and needs at least 8x more memory.

Memory bounding doesn't look as a good feature in a world full of FPGAs.
tromp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 505


View Profile
March 07, 2016, 03:05:06 PM
 #577

Memory bounding doesn't look as a good feature in a world full of FPGAs.

On the contrary.

In a world where everybody has an FPGA, DRAM becomes the ideal mining ASIC,
with the FPGA making sure that DRAM access is saturated and thus the DRAM is the
actual bottleneck.
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792

Newbie


View Profile
March 07, 2016, 03:07:25 PM
 #578

On the contrary.

In a world where everybody has an FPGA, DRAM becomes the ideal mining ASIC,
with the FPGA making sure that DRAM access is saturated and thus the DRAM is the
actual bottleneck.

You seem to talk about replicating von Neumann architecture on those FPGAs, right?
tromp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 505


View Profile
March 07, 2016, 03:10:54 PM
 #579

On the contrary.

In a world where everybody has an FPGA, DRAM becomes the ideal mining ASIC,
with the FPGA making sure that DRAM access is saturated and thus the DRAM is the
actual bottleneck.

You seem to talk about replicating von Neumann architecture on those FPGAs, right?

The FPGA directly implements the memory bound PoW, just as an ASIC would,
except it doesn't need the ultimate speed/efficiency of an ASIC, since DRAM latency is
going to be the bottleneck.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
March 07, 2016, 03:16:01 PM
 #580

Readers aren't going to understand what we are referring to with this technobabble about latency bound hash algorithms.

Suffice it to say that afaik, Monero has the most CPU friendly hash function deployed. I think it is possible to do better though. Ethash unless they changed it significantly since before Ethereum was conceived is more GPU friendly than CPU friendly. So I presume CPU friendly would be more decentralized, given all other factors being equal.

A hash function being CPU-only would still not be sufficient to prevent the mining from centralizing, due to the other economic factors of economies-of-scale (e.g. more hashrate has lower validation and propagation costs).

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!