The consensus dead end.

[philipma1957]

DOGE can handle some aspects of being a dollar bill so to speak. Its inflationary nature is much like that of a Dollar bill.

It's very different from fiat, as it is disinflationary. And not that much different from Bitcoin, as I argue in

https://john-tromp.medium.com/a-case-for-using-soft-total-supply-1169a188d153

It just has a much slower emission, taking 81 years to reach 1% inflation, compared to 16 years with Bitcoin.

Interesting argument.  Have to agree with you that down the road the flat 1 block per minute add very little new coins percentage wise.


Disagree a bit with the BTC lost coin concept as I suspect much like abandoned bank accounts there will be claw back on abandoned coins.

Maybe 2059 or 2049 Any 2009 abandoned address will kick back into awards pool.

But I do like the idea that 1 year of added Doge Coins in 100 years is just 1 % inflation compared to 1 year of added Doge coins now is over 12% (A quick estimate  off top of my head)

[tromp]

But I do like the idea that 1 year of added Doge Coins in 100 years is just 1 % inflation

That's the case for Grin, with its pure linear emission of 1 per second forever.

compared to 1 year of added Doge coins now is over 12% (A quick estimate  off top of my head)

Not the case for Dogecoin, which had a 20x bigger reward in its first year, so that inflation was down to 5% for the 2nd year and is now closer to 3%.

[Wind_FURY]

NANO does not limit inflation like Bitcoin Cash does. Another poster here seems to think decentralization is all good, but that may make reaching consensus more difficult and be a problem. Bitcoin Cash is better able to evolve from consensus without that difficulty.

Decentralization in the context that it’s better for the network to scale out to overshoot security, and strengthen Bitcoin’s main value proposition. Censorship-resistance.

Despite Bitcoin Cash's being less decentralized no major security problems have been found to prove it is a problem in the short term. The long term future of all decentralized coin is in question in reality.

Because attackers probably think it’s not worth to attack it.

If decentralization is so important why is nobody mentioning Cardano? Cardano claims to be the most decentralized coin, contrary to what Black hat stated. Is it a false claim or is Bitcoin not really the most decentralized coin?

Laughable.

[Metal Brain]

Bitcoin Cash overtook Litecoin in market cap for 10th place.
As it moves up to 9th and then 8th maybe the people here engaging in "group think" will see I am right.
Hypothetical vulnerabilities are far from convincing. That is true of all cryptocurrencies.

I'll let Bitcoin Cash's performance speak for itself. While most people on here will let themselves be fooled by their confirmation bias support group the smart people will buy Bitcoin Cash before it moves up to the top 5 in market cap and eventually #2

Are you all waiting for it to be too late? Every transaction leads to an increase in market cap. Low transaction fees lead to more transactions. Hello! Ignore flawless logic at your own risk of losing out on a great deal.

Bitcoin Cash is NOT centralized. It is merely less decentralized than Bitcoin. The lying and the condoning of that lie says a lot about the lack of honesty from Bitcoin loyalists on here. You can resume your groupthink or you can buy Bitcoin Cash and get a great price. You all like money, right?

[BlackHatCoiner]

I don't have anything to respond you. It seems that you're prejudiced about Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash. Although, I'll have to inform you that there's something unique on Bitcoin. That something is what makes it special and different from any other cryptocurrency. It has everyone's agreement.

[tromp]

I think Bitcoin Cash is not sustainable as the block subsidy keeps halving and there's not enough low-fee transactions to compensate, making the block reward too low to provide the necessary security...

[aliashraf]

I think Bitcoin Cash is not sustainable as the block subsidy keeps halving and there's not enough low-fee transactions to compensate, making the block reward too low to provide the necessary security...

Good point and it needs to be understood in the lights of centralization problem.

BCH folks could argue that it can handle more transactions and once it is adopted, there would be enough fees accumulated for miners to compensate for higher difficulties and more security which is a wrong argument because more transactions means larger blocks and large blocks are not feasible for consensus to be reached unless the number of parties involved is reduced properly. The fact that currently BCH is not experiencing a considerable force towards centralization compared to Bitcoin is merely a result of another fact: its blockchain is not loaded.

So, for BCH it is the dilemma:
As a coin with capped supply and halving, it desperately needs more transactions to survive while due to its basic design flaw as a big block coin it is doomed to centralization once it achieves high transaction levels.

[tromp]

Indeed. I believe a capped supply PoW chain can only survive by developing a fee market, which requires constraining the block size. This also help decentralization as smaller chains require fewer resources to run a full node.

A simple tail emission allows a chain to remain secure without the challenge of developing a fee market.

[Wind_FURY]

Indeed. I believe a capped supply PoW chain can only survive by developing a fee market, which requires constraining the block size. This also help decentralization as smaller chains require fewer resources to run a full node.

A simple tail emission allows a chain to remain secure without the challenge of developing a fee market.

Which forces the Bitcoin Cash miners to mine smaller blocks, but the worse situation is, the mining cartel controls what size of blocks to mine, which could become an attack vector. It was smart for the Core developers to keep the limit, and keep the block size regulated.

[Metal Brain]

Bitcoin has the same problem once there is no more coin to mine. Transaction fees have to increase with both bitcoin and bitcoin cash in the long term. The other posters are continuing to be dishonest in calling bitcoin cash centralized. It is not completely centralized. Why are other posters on here so eager to lie about bitcoin cash? Can't they defend bitcoin without lying?

If people continue to lie they have already lost the debate. If they want to compare how decentralized bitcoin is relative to bitcoin cash that is fine, but falsely claiming bitcoin cash is centralized amounts to propaganda. Lying is an admission of failure and desperation.

Small transactions with bitcoin are impractical. It is a problem that will not go away. More decentralization also makes changes to correct that problem less likely to happen. The notion that consensus will solve everything in the future is a guess at best. Can enough people agree? Bitcoin hard forking into bitcoin cash is an example of the difficulty of bitcoin consensus to be reached.

Bitcoin was the first created cryptocurrency based on crude guesswork. Bitcoin cash was an improvement on the flaws of Bitcoin, although not perfection as tradeoffs are necessary. The assertion that bitcoin is more stable in the long term than bitcoin cash is ridiculous nonsense. The success of both in the long term is dependent on adjustment of transaction fees. Too many people here seem to be in deep denial of that.

It all comes down to which can evolve with the necessary changes better. A less centralized coin is probably the best bet. Decentralized sounds good until we find out consensus fails to be reached in the future. That is NOT a trivial issue, no matter how much bitcoin loyalists downplay it.

[aliashraf]

Bitcoin has the same problem once there is no more coin to mine. Transaction fees have to increase with both bitcoin and bitcoin cash in the long term.

False argument. Once fresh coin supply ends, Bitcoin Cash with its big block structure either loses hash rate or saturates blocks with cheap transactions, in the later case it eliminates small miners and falls in the centralization hole.
For bitcoin, it is a whole different story as it needs to develop its fee market for high value transactions for surviving without escalating the centralization problem.

Don't get me wrong, it is not good news for Bitcoin to lose the small transaction market segment, but it is not a catastrophic threat, and we have time for dealing with it, actually, this trend enforces more scaling solutions to emerge either minor improvements like Taproot and Schnorr signatures or more disruptive and radical ones (hopefully).

On the other side of the island, in BCH camp they do not feel any pressure for smart scalability solutions because they are ok with large blocks and small fees, totally ignoring the centralization consequences of this scenario.

[DooMAD]

Bitcoin cash was an improvement on the flaws of Bitcoin, although not perfection as tradeoffs are necessary.

How is implementing an emergency difficulty adjustment because the network was too weak to survive its own launch an improvement?  Having to cheat to hit the difficulty target is effectively an admission of failure.

How is a miner tax to fund development an improvement?  I suppose if they are incapable of attracting sufficient developer talent with ethos and principles alone, it stands to reason money is the only avenue open to them.

How is falling victim to a successful hashrate attack by voluntarism.dev an improvement?  I don't understand how anyone could still have faith in a chain that has proven it cannot maintain its alignment of incentives.

These aren't "tradeoffs".  More like a cheap knockoff.  These are signs of a compromised and vulnerable chain.  

[Metal Brain]

What is your source of information?

Excuse my skepticism, but assertions are not evidence that what you are saying is true. You could have been misinformed for all I know.

[Metal Brain]

If anybody here had the desire to buy cannabis seeds from a foreign country for $100 dollars and you had the choice between spending bitcoin or using a Mastercard which would you choose? And don't give me an irrelevant lecture about how Mastercard is not decentralized, it is a stupid point. You cannot buy Mastercard coin. DUH!

All that matters here is how much it is going to cost you above that $100 to make the transaction to a foreign country. I think I paid about a 3% fee to Mastercard because it was a foreign country.

 This is about buying stuff, not speculating. Which would you all choose? Be honest.
Is it starting to sink in yet? Leave your "group think" behind for a minute and think about saving money.

[BlackHatCoiner]

All that matters here is how much it is going to cost you above that $100 to make the transaction to a foreign country. I think I paid about a 3% fee to Mastercard because it was a foreign country.

I once paid 1 satoshi for a LN transaction oversea. One! Can you do this with Mastercard?

[aliashraf]

@Metal Brain,
You need to study more about what cryptocurrency is and what it is not. Unlike what you think it is not about low fees, never ever, it has nothing to do with cheap transactions, cryptocurrency is about immutability and censorship resistance, i.e. security.
A shitcoin with zero fees can't compete with bitcoin, it just can't because it is not secure, period.

[DooMAD]

What is your source of information?

You can find two of the three, the EDA and the miner fees, within the BCH open source code itself.  If you can't read code, you're going to have to take someone's word for it.

[Metal Brain]

No source of information then.

To the last poster: You could find a source of information written by a reputable computer scientist. Your unwilling to do so is suspect. Perhaps people are just making up crap to obfuscate.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Black hat told me different.

“Black hat” had also told you to read what is the Lightning Network. Did you?

[DooMAD]

No source of information then.

To the last poster: You could find a source of information written by a reputable computer scientist. Your unwilling to do so is suspect. Perhaps people are just making up crap to obfuscate.

I've told you where you can find it.  If you're incapable of locating the code repositories for the very project you claim to be knowledgeable about, that looks far more suspect.  

EDA:  https://github.com/Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc/search?q=emergency+difficulty+adjustment&type=
Miner tax/IFP:  https://github.com/Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc/search?q=infrastructure+funding&type=