IOTA - Permissioned ledger Russian extortion scheme

[smooth]

Most people don't even realize Bitcoin has it's own decentralized exchange, but it does.

Which only 0.001% of the population can participate in profitably. And it ceases roughly 2033 or unless transaction fees scale up but there is a Tragedy of the Commons dilemma there as well.

It doesn't really even matter if it's profitable or not.  You can define Bitcoin in one sentence:

The purpose of mining is to create a permanent two way peg, decentralized exchange, which thus results in a permissionless system.

The economic incentives are a side issue, but seem to work thus far.  It's designed to bounce back and forth between profitable and unprofitable.  The fact that it's deflationary creates a time opportunity cost reward to generally remain profitable over the long haul.

You missed the point entirely. Only 0.001% have the economies-of-scale to mine Bitcoin profitably. Sorry your argument fails on the economics of proof-of-work hash functions, unless you can argue there is one that can't be significantly optimized for an ASIC and economies-of-scale for cheaper electricity located next to utility scale hydropower (even free electricity perhaps if you do a handshake and wink in China with a Communist Party official).

R0ach's argument is valid, to a point. Even if only 0.001% can mine (hypothetical number of course) then 70000 can mine (importantly, as independent entities), enough to create a competitive market. If you believe the number is even much smaller than that, as I suggest has been the case with ASIC mining, then there may not be a competitive market and his argument fails (with respect to Bitcoin at least).

Satoshi's design makes the marginal miner lose relative share of the hashrate over time due to reinvest of profits, because they are less profitable, so the ultimate end game is only the miners with the lowest costs.

In a normal market, the marginal producers are more nimble and can respond to changes in the market more quickly and thus they are always regenerated.

But Satoshi's design is static and the marginal miners have no competitive advantage in order to sustain their existence.

QED.

As r0ach correctly pointed out, it is dynamic and there is always give and take. A particular marginal miner my drop out but another will take his place. Costs are always changing. Even political connections with a corrupt local official in China can disappear at a moments notice with one bullet. Nor does China have a monopoly on corruption, so cheap electricity appears elsewhere. The cycle continues.

[1714953012]

1714953012

[TPTB_need_war]

As r0ach correctly pointed out, it is dynamic and there is always give and take. A particular marginal miner my drop out but another will take his place. Costs are always changing. Even political connections with a corrupt local official in China can disappear at a moments notice with one bullet. Nor does China have a monopoly on corruption, so cheap electricity appears elsewhere. The cycle continues.

This belies understanding that costs can't exceed income.

As the lowest cost producers scale up, they drive income to the level of their costs (thus no profit for any marginal miners). Otherwise they form an oligarchy to raise income (e.g. transaction fees), but then they can exclude the other miners.

The coinbase along with the price being driven by speculation is a short-term mitigating factor but that diminishes as the coin matures and becomes widely used. Then transaction fees dominate and coin exchange price becomes stable.

Sorry my QED was a strong one.

Also I think we were originally talking about the breadth of distribution of the coinbase, and 0.001% is even worse than a typical power law distribution of wealth. (Note Monero apparently has a CPU friendly hash and thus probably had better distribution percentage participation, but limited to those who know about mining it, which is unfortunately a very small number of people)

As you know, I am adamant about this, because I am intending to create a token that I believe can have very broad distribution and also defend against long-term centralization.

[TPTB_need_war]

Perhaps IOTA is not trying to be Bitcoin. And why should it as Bitcoin already exists.

They have a right to do that within the confines of the law. We have a right to analyze their technology and their distribution methodology.

Some investors/speculators may prefer an ICO. Apparently society has some laws about not fooling lunch money investors, but other than adhering to law then I would have no qualms with anyone experimenting with other methods of distribution. I am of the opinion for example that Ethereum specifically located in Switzerland in order to escape SEC regulation, but my IANAL understanding is that is not sufficient and thus they have broken the law by issuing and selling unregistered investment securities to non-accredited USA investors. But again, IANAL, so readers consult your own attorney.

So what I am saying is that I was fairly open minded about Iota. I don't think the technology will solve the centralization issue though. And I don't think a limited distribution ICO can scale persmissionless, decentralized, network effects and thus adoption. But it is not my role to decide for them. I shared my opinion.

[TPTB_need_war]

I guess it's only a problem if you for some reason believe sha256 will not be commoditized.  The fact that energy costs keep becoming an ever higher percentage of the price per Bitcoin instead of hardware seems like it won't be a problem.

The greater proportion of mining costs that are due to electricity, then the more exclusive mining becomes. Because there are a finite number of slots next to hydropower plants. Not to mention, that the powers-that-be in government can probably provide the electricity for free and charge it to the collective. Utilities are one of the highest regulated, collectivist corruptions on earth.

Edit: even heating your home with the miners is not profitable because heat generated from electricity is much more expensive than from carbon fuels. And even micro-hydropower won't reach the 2 - 4 cents cost of large scale hydropower unless you can amortize the construction and capital cost over several years:

http://www.rockyhydro.com/Generators.php

And that doesn't even include the cost of the land and the rarer locations where there is enough flow and head drop to make it worth while.

[rtrtcrypto]

Just, for those interested in other ideas by thread starter ROACH:

It's always fun listening to your diversity nonsense when you don't seem to know anything about human sociology.  There's no such thing as a "majority" and "minority" within a nation.  Nations are always based on ethnocentric majorities.  Either the minority group integrates and essentially ceases to exist, one group is eliminated through war, or the nation splits and goes their separate ways.  Even with all the insane Marxist propaganda you and your people try to push on "the goy", the intermarriage rates between Caucasians and Africans is so miniscule, that integration is clearly a failure and not going to ever happen, even with coercion.  And why would the two groups integrate?  White genes are recessive, so by integrating, you would essentially be committing suicide on purpose.

But there's not a whole lot of benefit in Africans being unwilling participants in this forced collectivism either.  Since not all blacks are entirely puppets of Jewish, Marxist propaganda, used as tools to try and further different motives, they realized these facts as well.  Rather than being cattled into forced collectivism, which will obviously never work, people like Marcus Garvey wanted a "pans-africa" movement, or simply going back to Africa instead to live as the majority there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Garvey

Instead, what we really have going on today, is Jewish terrorists like George Soros funding "black lives matter" to use them as pawns.  When the majority of America notices the financial system imploding, George Soros knows exactly who we're going to come looking for.  He funds black lives matter with millions of dollars to try and create a buffer, or more immediate, tangible problem in front of you so you're too busy to go after people like him.  That's all "black lives matter" is, a buffer, a group being used as pawns.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/14/george-soros-funds-ferguson-protests-hopes-to-spur/?page=all

More on the life of people like George Soros:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2626002/posts

Good job "buffer" idiots!:

I suppose we should all buy more IOTA. Or, further, just do everything the OPPOSITE of what he suggests.

[r0ach]

Why not link to the entire post without parts selectively removed?  Since I'm probably the only honest man in crypto, you may as well see the whole thing it's glory:

It's always fun listening to your diversity nonsense when you don't seem to know anything about human sociology.  There's no such thing as a "majority" and "minority" within a nation.  Nations are always based on ethnocentric majorities.  Either the minority group integrates and essentially ceases to exist, one group is eliminated through war, or the nation splits and goes their separate ways.  Even with all the insane Marxist propaganda you and your people try to push on "the goy", the intermarriage rates between Caucasians and Africans is so miniscule, that integration is clearly a failure and not going to ever happen even with coercion.  And why would the two groups integrate?  White genes are recessive, so by integrating, you would essentially be committing suicide on purpose.

But there's not a whole lot of benefit in Africans being unwilling participants in this forced collectivism either.  Since not all blacks are entirely puppets of Jewish, Marxist propaganda, used as tools to try and further different motives, they realized these facts as well.  Rather than being cattled into forced collectivism, which will obviously never work, people like Marcus Garvey wanted a "pans-africa" movement, or simply going back to Africa instead to live as the majority there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Garvey

Instead, what we really have going on today, is Jewish terrorists like George Soros funding "black lives matter" to use them as pawns.  When the majority of America notices the financial system imploding, George Soros knows exactly who we're going to come looking for.  He funds black lives matter with millions of dollars to try and create a buffer, or more immediate, tangible problem in front of you so you're too busy to go after people like him.  That's all "black lives matter" is, a buffer, a group being used as pawns.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/14/george-soros-funds-ferguson-protests-hopes-to-spur/?page=all

More on the life of people like George Soros:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2626002/posts

Good job "buffer" idiots!:



What is there to gain by "young niggas inciting riots"?  Absolutely nothing.  You'll always be a second class citizen by being a minority in a majority country.  Just like a white person expects to be treated differently as a second class citizen by going somewhere like China.  You can either go after people like Soros instead and be a slightly wealthier second class citizen, or go somewhere where you're the majority and not be one.  You'll still likely have to deal with people like Soros first before leaving, because he will come wherever you go:

"Soros has at various times attacked the currencies of Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Mexico, coming into newly opened financial markets which have little experience with foreign investors, let alone ones with large funds like Soros. Soros begins buying stocks or bonds in the local market, leading others to naively suppose that he knows something they do not. As with gold, when the smaller investors begin to follow Soros, driving prices of stocks or whatever higher, Soros begins to sell to the eager new buyers, cashing in his 40% or 100% profits, then exiting the market, and often, the entire country, to seek another target for his speculation. This technique gave rise to the term "hit and run." What Soros always leaves behind, is a collapsed local market and financial ruin of national investors. "

[rtrtcrypto]

Sorry, you only added that end after the twitter after I quoted you - "honest" indeed.

[r0ach]

Sorry, you only added that end after the twitter after I quoted you - "honest" indeed.

Your "side channel" attack trying to villify the famous long r0ach silver of the high seas and Bitcoin with implications he can't be trusted due to not being politically correct (i.e. cultural marxism), probably doesn't work worth a flying shit in a thread inhabited almost entirely by Russians.

[rtrtcrypto]

I suppose that comment speaks for itself, lol.

Sorry, you only added that end after the twitter after I quoted you - "honest" indeed.

Your "side channel" attack trying to villify the famous long r0ach silver of the high seas and Bitcoin with implications he can't be trusted due to not being politically correct, probably doesn't work worth a flying shit in a thread inhabited almost entirely by Russians.

[r0ach]

It's just an externality that can change at any given time.  I guess it's only a problem if you for some reason believe sha256 will not be commoditized.  The fact that energy costs keep becoming an ever higher percentage of the price per Bitcoin instead of hardware seems like it won't be a problem.

I see no evidence of that. In the GPU mining era, there was no extraordinarily efficient mining as there is now with the most efficient ASICs.  All Bitcoins had approximately the same energy input. Now there a steep curve between the least efficient but still-viable ASICs and the most efficient. The area above that curve is missing energy. As far as I can tell the energy density of Bitcoin has decreased.

I calculated the upfront hardware costs vs energy costs as a percentage of 1 Bitcoin between when that big Spoondoolies unit was originally released and also around a year or so before it.  The hardware cost as a percentage of coin cost is going down while the energy cost goes up.  This would lead me to believe that SHA256 is in fact being commoditized.

[TPTB_need_war]

This would lead me to believe that SHA256 is in fact being commoditized.

Which I would expect to be the case. Improvements should stabilize at rate of Moore's law at best.

[smooth]

It's just an externality that can change at any given time.  I guess it's only a problem if you for some reason believe sha256 will not be commoditized.  The fact that energy costs keep becoming an ever higher percentage of the price per Bitcoin instead of hardware seems like it won't be a problem.

I see no evidence of that. In the GPU mining era, there was no extraordinarily efficient mining as there is now with the most efficient ASICs.  All Bitcoins had approximately the same energy input. Now there a steep curve between the least efficient but still-viable ASICs and the most efficient. The area above that curve is missing energy. As far as I can tell the energy density of Bitcoin has decreased.

I calculated the upfront hardware costs vs energy costs as a percentage of 1 Bitcoin between when that big Spoondoolies unit was originally released and also around a year or so before it.

You are citing as a data source a vaporware miner that was never shipped to customers and may not even exist.

With better analysis you will find that I am correct.

I do agree this it may happen at some time in the future. When I don't know, but not yet.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1390781.0

[kiklo]

It's just an externality that can change at any given time.  I guess it's only a problem if you for some reason believe sha256 will not be commoditized.  The fact that energy costs keep becoming an ever higher percentage of the price per Bitcoin instead of hardware seems like it won't be a problem.

I see no evidence of that. In the GPU mining era, there was no extraordinarily efficient mining as there is now with the most efficient ASICs.  All Bitcoins had approximately the same energy input. Now there a steep curve between the least efficient but still-viable ASICs and the most efficient. The area above that curve is missing energy. As far as I can tell the energy density of Bitcoin has decreased.

I calculated the upfront hardware costs vs energy costs as a percentage of 1 Bitcoin between when that big Spoondoolies unit was originally released and also around a year or so before it.

You are citing as a data source a vaporware miner that was never shipped to customers and may not even exist.

With better analysis you will find that I am correct.

I do agree this it may happen at some time in the future. When I don't know, but not yet.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1390781.0

Does either of your analysis, include the additional electricity costs of cooling the environment the ASICS are housed in?
As that will ad overhead especially when the outside temps are warmer.


 

[r0ach]

It's just an externality that can change at any given time.  I guess it's only a problem if you for some reason believe sha256 will not be commoditized.  The fact that energy costs keep becoming an ever higher percentage of the price per Bitcoin instead of hardware seems like it won't be a problem.

I see no evidence of that. In the GPU mining era, there was no extraordinarily efficient mining as there is now with the most efficient ASICs.  All Bitcoins had approximately the same energy input. Now there a steep curve between the least efficient but still-viable ASICs and the most efficient. The area above that curve is missing energy. As far as I can tell the energy density of Bitcoin has decreased.

I calculated the upfront hardware costs vs energy costs as a percentage of 1 Bitcoin between when that big Spoondoolies unit was originally released and also around a year or so before it.

You are citing as a data source a vaporware miner that was never shipped to customers and may not even exist.

With better analysis you will find that I am correct.

I do agree this it may happen at some time in the future. When I don't know, but not yet.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1390781.0

I wasn't aware that spoondoolies thing never shipped.  Regardless, there wasn't much difference in it and other top units at the time.

[r0ach]

An example of what happens with permissioned ledger, closed entropy systems in the market.  This NEM coin (standard PoS with some rube goldberg mechanisms on top of it) was pumped to a huge market cap.  Just like what happened with NXT, it now just kind of sits there with nobody really wanting to do anything with it.  This is crazy low volume compared to the 400-500 volume most altcoins have on the Bologniex casino nowadays:



These closed entropy systems where the entire coin supply was issued at genesis had their brief time in the sun because people were fascinated by the idea of not having their shares temporarily diluted through mining, but now there are so many of them, the novelty is gone and people are forced to re-examine what actually constitutes a decentralized currency in the first place.  It will be just like NXT.  The market cap will remain high, but the buy side will constantly wither away until the sum of the buy side is only 15 BTC (like NXT was a few months ago).  This makes them "roach motels" where you're theoretically wealthy, but nobody can actually exit the coin at all.

[TPTB_need_war]

r0ach, I quoted your post about NEM.

[r0ach]

Was looking at google search results.  It's hilarious how many bogus threads with similar names these Russians created to try and distract people from this thread.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Was looking at google search results.  It's hilarious how many bogus threads with similar names these Russians created to try and distract people from this thread.

I think you created them to make it hard to google for that case where you lost the face.

[r0ach]

Was looking at google search results.  It's hilarious how many bogus threads with similar names these Russians created to try and distract people from this thread.

I think you created them to make it hard to google for that case where you lost the face.

Those good old soviet tactics:

"One of two major Soviet counteroffensives which followed Stalingrad, Operation Mars was such an incredible disaster that the Soviet Union simply omitted it from subsequent histories."

[Come-from-Beyond]

Those good old soviet tactics:

"One of two major Soviet counteroffensives which followed Stalingrad, Operation Mars was such an incredible disaster that the Soviet Union simply omitted it from subsequent histories."

Just more bullshit. Noone expected anything different from you.