pooya87
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3570
Merit: 10833
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 22, 2020, 04:17:20 AM |
|
i know the OP is just trying to promote a crappy proof of stake coin
i guess you didn't read the entire post. OP is comparing bitcoin with monero and last time i checked monero is using RandomX algorithm which is a proof of work type of algorithm. his arguments don't have much to do with PoW either, he is mostly focusing on anonymity which he refers to as "privacy"!
|
|
|
|
FreeStreamer (OP)
Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 15
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 22, 2020, 05:28:42 AM Last edit: July 22, 2020, 02:42:39 PM by FreeStreamer |
|
Are you some kind of Monero shill op?
Monero is not what Bitcoin was meant to be. Bitcoin was not made to be anonymous. Monero is fine, I have nothing against it but it's different than Bitcoin and may face its own problems like being banned from all regulated exchanges at some point.
Monero is on a path to becoming the coin of the deep web.
A shill is someone who gets paid to participate in a swindle. So "shill" and "fine" do not really make sense in the same argument. Bitcoin was indeed meant to be anonymous because cash is anonymous, but as a prototype it's insufficient in these features too. It can't be "cash" if it's not anonymous like cash. That's the whole point and concern with "digital cash". Dark web crypto is just bullshit propaganda. There is no such thing as "evil money and good money". All money is both good and evil, depending how you use it.
|
|
|
|
Wind_FURY
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1887
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 22, 2020, 06:49:39 AM |
|
i know the OP is just trying to promote a crappy proof of stake coin
i guess you didn't read the entire post. OP is comparing bitcoin with monero and last time i checked monero is using RandomX algorithm which is a proof of work type of algorithm. his arguments don't have much to do with PoW either, he is mostly focusing on anonymity which he refers to as "privacy"! He read it, but franky1 is a gaslighter. I believe he thinks that he can gaslight lurking newbies to be tricked into believing that Monero is POS. OP, you never replied. Full nodes secure Bitcoin.
|
| .SHUFFLE.COM.. | ███████████████████████ ███████████████████████ ███████████████████████ ███████████████████████ ███████████████████████ ███████████████████████ ███████████████████████ ███████████████████████ ███████████████████████ ███████████████████████ ███████████████████████ ███████████████████████ ███████████████████████ | ███████████████████████ ███████████████████████ ███████████████████████ ███████████████████████ ███████████████████████ ███████████████████████ ███████████████████████ ███████████████████████ ███████████████████████ ███████████████████████ ███████████████████████ ███████████████████████ ███████████████████████ | . ...Next Generation Crypto Casino... |
|
|
|
pooya87
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3570
Merit: 10833
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 22, 2020, 06:50:23 AM |
|
Bitcoin was indeed meant to be anonymous because cash is anonymous, but as a prototype it's insufficient in these features too. It can't be "cash" if it's not anonymous like cash. That's the whole point and concern with "digital cash"
no it did not. bitcoin's main focus has been decentralization and censorship resistance. it also offers you the chance to remain anonymous by making some effort which is more of privacy rather than anonimity but it is not the default setting and it was never promised. and anonymity has never been the "whole point and concern" ever.
|
|
|
|
FreeStreamer (OP)
Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 15
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 22, 2020, 07:02:04 AM |
|
i know the OP is just trying to promote a crappy proof of stake coin
i guess you didn't read the entire post. OP is comparing bitcoin with monero and last time i checked monero is using RandomX algorithm which is a proof of work type of algorithm. his arguments don't have much to do with PoW either, he is mostly focusing on anonymity which he refers to as "privacy"! Yes. I am saying that only large enough PoW blockchains are technically resistant to the 51% attack.
|
|
|
|
FreeStreamer (OP)
Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 15
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 22, 2020, 07:03:10 AM Last edit: July 22, 2020, 10:21:27 AM by FreeStreamer |
|
Bitcoin was indeed meant to be anonymous because cash is anonymous, but as a prototype it's insufficient in these features too. It can't be "cash" if it's not anonymous like cash. That's the whole point and concern with "digital cash"
no it did not. bitcoin's main focus has been decentralization and censorship resistance. it also offers you the chance to remain anonymous by making some effort which is more of privacy rather than anonimity but it is not the default setting and it was never promised. and anonymity has never been the "whole point and concern" ever. If not, so why doesn't the wallet contain a field for all your personal data?
|
|
|
|
MarioV
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 22, 2020, 09:07:45 AM |
|
So what makes bitcoin resistant to double spending? Isn't that computational and expensive (Po)Work that protects his ledger from breaking?
|
|
|
|
FreeStreamer (OP)
Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 15
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 22, 2020, 10:20:48 AM |
|
Bitcoin should be least secure cryptocurrency since another cryptocurrency have far bigger block size limit ![Tongue](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/tongue.gif) --snip-- Bitcoin should be least secure cryptocurrency since another cryptocurrency have far bigger block size limit ![Tongue](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/tongue.gif) --snip-- Monero has a dynamic blocksize. This eliminates the need for miners to merge into a centralized mining union. Image source : https://twitter.com/ryanthalion_/status/744601806114742272
Are you some kind of Monero shill op?
He pretend to be shill, but what he actually do is destroying Monero community reputation (whether it's intentional or not). Haha. Yeah Monero community is dark web crypto. We don't need your normie reputation anyway
|
|
|
|
FreeStreamer (OP)
Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 15
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 22, 2020, 12:17:01 PM Last edit: July 22, 2020, 12:35:10 PM by FreeStreamer |
|
So what makes bitcoin resistant to double spending? Isn't that computational and expensive (Po)Work that protects his ledger from breaking?
Yes, the PoW algorithm makes it resistant to double spending. This is what makes it not rely on any 3rd party as a trusted validator. That's basically the only thing that Bitcoin actually does. It's not that special and It's not a magic money machine that creates value out of thin air.
|
|
|
|
webtricks
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1918
Merit: 1728
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 22, 2020, 01:54:09 PM |
|
I had many comments saying that the Proof-of-Work algorithm is what makes Bitcoin secure and resist the 51% attack. This is not true. What makes Bitcoin practically resilient to the 51% attack is its size. Because of Bitcoins size it's extremely expensive to perform this attack and therefore nobody will likely do it.
You are contradicting yourself. At one side you are saying that Proof-of-Work doesn't make Bitcoin secure. While on the other side you are saying, size of Bitcoin network make it resilient to 51% attack. So why do you think Bitcoin's size is big enough to resist 51% attack? Simple! That's because of Proof-of-Work algorithm! Due to the huge number of miners over years, mining difficulty has reached to a very very high level. Now to mine block, miner has to use very high computing power in order to find the hash. So it's enormously costly for anyone to first manipulate existing block and then mine more on top of that to broadcast longest valid chain on network. So in short, PoW algorithm is the only thing making sure Bitcoin's blockchain is not getting easily manipulated.
|
|
|
|
FreeStreamer (OP)
Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 15
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 22, 2020, 02:39:09 PM |
|
I had many comments saying that the Proof-of-Work algorithm is what makes Bitcoin secure and resist the 51% attack. This is not true. What makes Bitcoin practically resilient to the 51% attack is its size. Because of Bitcoins size it's extremely expensive to perform this attack and therefore nobody will likely do it.
You are contradicting yourself. At one side you are saying that Proof-of-Work doesn't make Bitcoin secure. While on the other side you are saying, size of Bitcoin network make it resilient to 51% attack. So why do you think Bitcoin's size is big enough to resist 51% attack? Simple! That's because of Proof-of-Work algorithm! Due to the huge number of miners over years, mining difficulty has reached to a very very high level. Now to mine block, miner has to use very high computing power in order to find the hash. So it's enormously costly for anyone to first manipulate existing block and then mine more on top of that to broadcast longest valid chain on network. So in short, PoW algorithm is the only thing making sure Bitcoin's blockchain is not getting easily manipulated. I am not contradicting. It's not large because of Proof-of-Work algorithm. It's large because of the major pumps and hype that occurred 2017-2018. Proof-of-Work algorithm validates the transactions without the need of a trusted 3rd party. It's not a network security feature. It's the networks functionality. it's the only thing that Bitcoin actually does, which is not that special and it does not make Bitcoin a magical money making machine.
|
|
|
|
webtricks
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1918
Merit: 1728
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 22, 2020, 02:55:22 PM |
|
I had many comments saying that the Proof-of-Work algorithm is what makes Bitcoin secure and resist the 51% attack. This is not true. What makes Bitcoin practically resilient to the 51% attack is its size. Because of Bitcoins size it's extremely expensive to perform this attack and therefore nobody will likely do it.
You are contradicting yourself. At one side you are saying that Proof-of-Work doesn't make Bitcoin secure. While on the other side you are saying, size of Bitcoin network make it resilient to 51% attack. So why do you think Bitcoin's size is big enough to resist 51% attack? Simple! That's because of Proof-of-Work algorithm! Due to the huge number of miners over years, mining difficulty has reached to a very very high level. Now to mine block, miner has to use very high computing power in order to find the hash. So it's enormously costly for anyone to first manipulate existing block and then mine more on top of that to broadcast longest valid chain on network. So in short, PoW algorithm is the only thing making sure Bitcoin's blockchain is not getting easily manipulated. I am not contradicting. It's not large because of Proof-of-Work algorithm. It's large because of the major pumps and hype that occurred 2017-2018. Proof-of-Work algorithm validates the transactions without the need of a trusted 3rd party. It's not a network security feature. It's the networks functionality. it's the only thing that Bitcoin actually does, which is not that special and it does not make Bitcoin a magical money making machine. Now I am really interested in understanding your context of using the word 'size'. So far I was interpreting that you meant 'the difficulty of attacking network' as the size but after this post I think you are referring to the Bitcoin market and holders as the 'size'. Can you explain how the number of people holding bitcoins or the price of bitcoin make the Bitcoin network secure? Also, PoW is not just functionality. It is surely a security feature. It helps in keeping the process of recording transactions in blockchain decentralized as well as save Bitcoin Network from attack.
|
|
|
|
franky1
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4340
Merit: 4665
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 22, 2020, 06:29:05 PM |
|
i know the OP is just trying to promote a crappy proof of stake coin
i guess you didn't read the entire post. OP is comparing bitcoin with monero and last time i checked monero is using RandomX algorithm which is a proof of work type of algorithm. his arguments don't have much to do with PoW either, he is mostly focusing on anonymity which he refers to as "privacy"! He read it, but franky1 is a gaslighter. I believe he thinks that he can gaslight lurking newbies to be tricked into believing that Monero is POS. OP, you never replied. Full nodes secure Bitcoin. i guess you didnt read the OP's post history. he loves monero and other altcoins of different 'proofs'. which is a typical mindset of the PoS stake crowd try to imply bad things about PoW , which they dont understand.. just so they can advertise their favourite alt. he isnt limiting his admiration of altcoins to just being monero so you might want to realise that his sentiment and context is of the tradition PoS tactic to then advertise their favourite alt. so while you lot try to grammar check if i said W or S or B at the end of Po' your missing the point he doesnt understand bitcoin or how the PoW gives bitcoin underlying value. his main game is to advertise his favourite altcoin but hey. seems its the grammar NAZI's that had more reference to lighting gas
|
I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER. Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
|
|
|
FreeStreamer (OP)
Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 15
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 22, 2020, 07:34:50 PM |
|
I had many comments saying that the Proof-of-Work algorithm is what makes Bitcoin secure and resist the 51% attack. This is not true. What makes Bitcoin practically resilient to the 51% attack is its size. Because of Bitcoins size it's extremely expensive to perform this attack and therefore nobody will likely do it.
You are contradicting yourself. At one side you are saying that Proof-of-Work doesn't make Bitcoin secure. While on the other side you are saying, size of Bitcoin network make it resilient to 51% attack. So why do you think Bitcoin's size is big enough to resist 51% attack? Simple! That's because of Proof-of-Work algorithm! Due to the huge number of miners over years, mining difficulty has reached to a very very high level. Now to mine block, miner has to use very high computing power in order to find the hash. So it's enormously costly for anyone to first manipulate existing block and then mine more on top of that to broadcast longest valid chain on network. So in short, PoW algorithm is the only thing making sure Bitcoin's blockchain is not getting easily manipulated. I am not contradicting. It's not large because of Proof-of-Work algorithm. It's large because of the major pumps and hype that occurred 2017-2018. Proof-of-Work algorithm validates the transactions without the need of a trusted 3rd party. It's not a network security feature. It's the networks functionality. it's the only thing that Bitcoin actually does, which is not that special and it does not make Bitcoin a magical money making machine. Now I am really interested in understanding your context of using the word 'size'. So far I was interpreting that you meant 'the difficulty of attacking network' as the size but after this post I think you are referring to the Bitcoin market and holders as the 'size'. Can you explain how the number of people holding bitcoins or the price of bitcoin make the Bitcoin network secure? Also, PoW is not just functionality. It is surely a security feature. It helps in keeping the process of recording transactions in blockchain decentralized as well as save Bitcoin Network from attack. I mean size measured in hashrate. You see 51% attack means hijacking the majority of the networks hashrate and gaining control of the network that way. The hardware and electricity needed to perform this has to match 51% of the networks hashrate. So you would have to buy like a 100 000 ASIC miners that would consume a crazy amount of electricity just to perform the attack for one hour.
|
|
|
|
FreeStreamer (OP)
Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 15
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 22, 2020, 07:37:58 PM Last edit: July 22, 2020, 08:07:15 PM by FreeStreamer |
|
i know the OP is just trying to promote a crappy proof of stake coin
i guess you didn't read the entire post. OP is comparing bitcoin with monero and last time i checked monero is using RandomX algorithm which is a proof of work type of algorithm. his arguments don't have much to do with PoW either, he is mostly focusing on anonymity which he refers to as "privacy"! He read it, but franky1 is a gaslighter. I believe he thinks that he can gaslight lurking newbies to be tricked into believing that Monero is POS. OP, you never replied. Full nodes secure Bitcoin. i guess you didnt read the OP's post history. he loves monero and other altcoins of different 'proofs'. which is a typical mindset of the PoS stake crowd try to imply bad things about PoW , which they dont understand.. just so they can advertise their favourite alt. he isnt limiting his admiration of altcoins to just being monero so you might want to realise that his sentiment and context is of the tradition PoS tactic to then advertise their favourite alt. so while you lot try to grammar check if i said W or S or B at the end of Po' your missing the point he doesnt understand bitcoin or how the PoW gives bitcoin underlying value. his main game is to advertise his favourite altcoin but hey. seems its the grammar NAZI's that had more reference to lighting gas Why don't you read them little bit better before you start your slandering and smearing campaigns people with honorable intentions who just want to have an intellectual open minded conversation. I don't think it's a sacrilege to discuss new alternative proof algorithm. Personally I think they will take over because they actually produce value. Not only a self serving simple network functionality like Bitcoins ledger. Have a topic which says PoS is a scam.
|
|
|
|
aundroid
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1247
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 22, 2020, 08:41:29 PM |
|
I mean size measured in hashrate. You see 51% attack means hijacking the majority of the networks hashrate and gaining control of the network that way. The hardware and electricity needed to perform this has to match 51% of the networks hashrate. So you would have to buy like a 100 000 ASIC miners that would consume a crazy amount of electricity just to perform the attack for one hour.
Well, that is exactly what I told you on the first page. You might also want to look at sites like https://www.crypto51.app/ or https://www.exaking.com/51 to have a look at the theoretical costs of a 51% attack. Bitcoin: between $400,000 and $550,000 an hour. (no idea which side delivers the more exact value) Monero: $21,000 per hour I still don't understand what you are trying to tell us with this thread? You simply told us that PoW chains are vulnerable to 51% attacks and then you pointed to Monero, which is also PoW. ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif) Yes. I am saying that only large enough PoW blockchains are technically resistant to the 51% attack.
Then maybe you should take a closer look into Bitcoin. ![Cheesy](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif)
|
►►► MY TOPICS ◄◄◄ ➤ Blockchain Basics - FAQ DE ➤ [Guide] Protect your Crypto: Security tips for your home computer & network DE | EN ➤ Crypto SCAM - HowTo protect yourself EN ➤ [CHECKLISTE] zur Bewertung von ICOs DE ➤ [Overview] Exchanges, IEOs and their ROIs DE | EN ➤ [Howto] Use Ledger Nano as Security Key DE | EN ➤ [OVERVIEW] Recommended Crypto Telegram Bots DE | EN ➤ [Overview] GUI Miner DE | EN ➤ Activity, Merit und Ranganforderungen im Forum DE ➤ Alternativen zu Piggy's Notification Bot DE ➤ [Howto] Give Bitcoin as a gift DE | EN
|
|
|
FreeStreamer (OP)
Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 15
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 23, 2020, 08:37:33 AM |
|
I mean size measured in hashrate. You see 51% attack means hijacking the majority of the networks hashrate and gaining control of the network that way. The hardware and electricity needed to perform this has to match 51% of the networks hashrate. So you would have to buy like a 100 000 ASIC miners that would consume a crazy amount of electricity just to perform the attack for one hour.
Well, that is exactly what I told you on the first page. You might also want to look at sites like https://www.crypto51.app/ or https://www.exaking.com/51 to have a look at the theoretical costs of a 51% attack. Bitcoin: between $400,000 and $550,000 an hour. (no idea which side delivers the more exact value) Monero: $21,000 per hour I still don't understand what you are trying to tell us with this thread? You simply told us that PoW chains are vulnerable to 51% attacks and then you pointed to Monero, which is also PoW. ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif) Yes. I am saying that only large enough PoW blockchains are technically resistant to the 51% attack.
Then maybe you should take a closer look into Bitcoin. ![Cheesy](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif) Monero is also large enough and on top of that it's a decentralized peer-to-peer digital cash. Bitcoin is not. Bitcoin has not been consistent with Satoshis original vision since 2014 when Blockstream corporation was formed by Bitcoin miners.
|
|
|
|
aundroid
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1247
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 23, 2020, 09:30:40 AM |
|
Monero is also large enough and on top of that it's a decentralized peer-to-peer digital cash. Bitcoin is not. Bitcoin has not been consistent with Satoshis original vision since 2014 when Blockstream corporation was formed by Bitcoin miners.
Sorry but in the Monero network the two largest mining pools control 67% of the total Hashrate. sourceHow is that more decentralized than Bitcoin? Again: I have nothing against Monero, I just don't understand what you are trying to achieve here.
|
►►► MY TOPICS ◄◄◄ ➤ Blockchain Basics - FAQ DE ➤ [Guide] Protect your Crypto: Security tips for your home computer & network DE | EN ➤ Crypto SCAM - HowTo protect yourself EN ➤ [CHECKLISTE] zur Bewertung von ICOs DE ➤ [Overview] Exchanges, IEOs and their ROIs DE | EN ➤ [Howto] Use Ledger Nano as Security Key DE | EN ➤ [OVERVIEW] Recommended Crypto Telegram Bots DE | EN ➤ [Overview] GUI Miner DE | EN ➤ Activity, Merit und Ranganforderungen im Forum DE ➤ Alternativen zu Piggy's Notification Bot DE ➤ [Howto] Give Bitcoin as a gift DE | EN
|
|
|
FreeStreamer (OP)
Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 15
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 23, 2020, 03:28:28 PM |
|
Monero is also large enough and on top of that it's a decentralized peer-to-peer digital cash. Bitcoin is not. Bitcoin has not been consistent with Satoshis original vision since 2014 when Blockstream corporation was formed by Bitcoin miners.
Sorry but in the Monero network the two largest mining pools control 67% of the total Hashrate. sourceHow is that more decentralized than Bitcoin? Again: I have nothing against Monero, I just don't understand what you are trying to achieve here. Let me help you. A mining pool is not same as a miner merger. Pools are not static. It's still decentralized anonymous. The pools do not control the miners and the hashrate the miners control it and Moneros miners are independent anonymous people and not merged as a corporation with CEO like Blockstream.
|
|
|
|
NurAzizahhh
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 24, 2020, 02:30:16 AM |
|
So far I interpreted that what you mean is 'difficulty attacking the network' as a measure but after this post I think you are referring to the Bitcoin market, Can you explain how the number of people holding bitcoin or the price of bitcoin makes the Bitcoin network safe? Now I am really interested in understanding your context using the word 'size'. not just functionality. This is definitely a security feature. This helps maintain the decentralized transaction recording process in the blockchain
|
|
|
|
|