Visa’s top-secret Operations Center / Bitcoin is so much cooler & cheaper :)

[cunicula]

The incentives of a competitor to sabotage bitcoin are proportional to total market size, not the size of the largest individual txn. With that out of the way, let's return to substantive issues.

1) Proof-of-work distribution can be copied by a proof-of-stake system. Thus any perceived distributional advantages of proof-of-work could also be enjoyed by a proof-of-stake system. This is a non-issue.

2) Proof-of-work is secured through competitive consumption of external resources. External resource consumption requires a net input of resources. This must be supported through fees levied on the user base. The exact level of fees necessary is hard to say. I think a 5% tax on each send is a plausible prediction. This is not compatible with a competitive payment platform. VISA will not need to burn fossil fuels to process each payment, but bitcoin will. This will kill bitcoin.

Proof-of-stake is secured through competitive transfers of internal resources. These transfers are expensive from an individual's perspective and thus effective in securing the system. However, they are just transfers. Transfers do not require external input of resources and thus do not require the imposition of onerous fees. This is compatible with a competitive payment platform.

3) There is never any point at which a proof-of-work currency could be more secure than an otherwise identical proof-of-stake currency. If you assume rational behavior, as soon as the first block is mined proof-of-work currency will necessarily provide inferior security. If you like, I will post a mathematical argument supporting this.

Your argument that proof-of-work enables a jump to a high level of initial security is completely wrong. It is the block reward which does this. Proof-of-work has nothing to do with it. Proof-of-stake can also have block reward.
 

[1714139820]

1714139820

[1714139820]

1714139820

[1714139820]

1714139820

[Blinken]

Ooooooh, "Somewhere on the Eastern Seaboard"... right this place is so secret nobody knows where it is, right.

USA Today is bunch of asshats and idiots and so is their readership.

The VISA operations center east is located in Richmond, Virginia, at the intersection of Russell Branch Parkway and Loudon County Parkway. The gate can be reached also by taking Richfield Way off of Rt. 7. George Washington University is right on the other side of Route 7 from the VISA campus.

So much for super secrecy.

[DavinciJ15]

The incentives of a competitor to sabotage bitcoin are proportional to total market size, not the size of the largest individual txn. With that out of the way, let's return to substantive issues.

1) Proof-of-work distribution can be copied by a proof-of-stake system. Thus any perceived distributional advantages of proof-of-work could also be enjoyed by a proof-of-stake system. This is a non-issue.

2) Proof-of-work is secured through competitive consumption of external resources. External resource consumption requires a net input of resources. This must be supported through fees levied on the user base. The exact level of fees necessary is hard to say. I think a 5% tax on each send is a plausible prediction. This is not compatible with a competitive payment platform. VISA will not need to burn fossil fuels to process each payment, but bitcoin will. This will kill bitcoin.

Proof-of-stake is secured through competitive transfers of internal resources. These transfers are expensive from an individual's perspective and thus effective in securing the system. However, they are just transfers. Transfers do not require external input of resources and thus do not require the imposition of onerous fees. This is compatible with a competitive payment platform.

3) There is never any point at which a proof-of-work currency could be more secure than an otherwise identical proof-of-stake currency. If you assume rational behavior, as soon as the first block is mined proof-of-work currency will necessarily provide inferior security. If you like, I will post a mathematical argument supporting this argument.

Your argument that proof-of-work enables a jump to a high level of initial security is completely wrong. It is the block reward which does this. Proof-of-work has nothing to do with it.
 

I own a % of the Federal Reserve and the rest of the STAKE holders agree it should continue printing money and giving it to us.
Proof-of-stake works for for me and my crooked friends.
I don't like proof-of-work ether because it means if someone works harder they will beat me because they built a better mouse trap.

"Competition is a sin!" - John D. Rockefeller  <-- visionary!

FYI I am being sarcastic.

[BubbleBoy]

1) Proof-of-work distribution can be copied by a proof-of-stake system. Thus any perceived distributional advantages of proof-of-work could also be enjoyed by a proof-of-stake system. This is a non-issue.

Your commitment for proof of stake evangelism might be interfering with your ability to understand my position. What I'm saying is that neither Bitcoin nor POScoin solve the distribution problem - the major source of inefficiency for e-coins. Unless you solve the distribution issue without wasting resources, it doesn't really matter how byzantine consensus is achieved.

I am a fan of POS also, and in fact I've toyed with the idea even before I've seen it in one of the original proof of stake threads. It's probably the most straightforward way to implement a Bitcoin like system without Nakamoto POW chains (albeit with bandwidth scaling problems in a pure POS system). However when I'm talking about Bitcoin inefficiency I'm referring to the wasteful nature of minting coin by burning electricity in a non-reversible process. An altcoin based on POS will be equally wasteful if it also does minting by way of burning electricity.

The incentives of a competitor to sabotage bitcoin are proportional to total market size, not the size of the largest individual txn.
[...]
This must be supported through fees levied on the user base. The exact level of fees necessary is hard to say. I think a 5% tax on each send is a plausible prediction.

5% is implausibly high. Even allowing for competing payment processors attacking the network directly, they will likely won't be willing to spend more than the profit margin enabled by the new customers. How did you produce that number ?

[cunicula]

1) Proof-of-work distribution can be copied by a proof-of-stake system. Thus any perceived distributional advantages of proof-of-work could also be enjoyed by a proof-of-stake system. This is a non-issue.

Your commitment proof of stake evangelism might be interfering with your ability to understand my position. What I'm saying is that neither Bitcoin nor POScoin solve the distribution problem - the major source of inefficiency for e-coins. Unless you solve the distribution issue without wasting resources, it doesn't really matter how byzantine consensus is achieved.

I am a fan of POS also, and in fact I've toyed with the idea even before I've seen it in one of the original proof of stake threads. It's probably the most straightforward way to implement a Bitcoin like system without Nakamoto POW chains (albeit with bandwidth scaling problems in a pure POS system). However when I'm talking about Bitcoin inefficiency I'm referring to the wasteful nature of minting coin by burning electricity in a non-reversible process. An altcoin based on POS will be equally wasteful if it does minting via mining for a block reward.

Oh, okay. I agree with you then. I would prefer distribution by a centralized authority such as a government. The centralized authority would use distribution to provide incentives for merchant and consumer adoption. Essentially, you would try to monitor purchases that use bitcoin and then provide temporary "cash back" rewards to merchants that get consumers to make purchases with bitcoin. Merchants would then have an incentive to offer discounts for bitcoin purchases. Funding for the incentives comes from block reward.

I've given up on evangelizing this type of distribution because community resistance to any kind of pre-mine, centralized authority, or subsidization is even stronger than resistance to proof-of-stake.

[BubbleBoy]

Fat chance for the government to create such a system. The whole point of Bitcoin and friends is to circumvent government restrictions in a distributed fashion; if a friendly government exists, it is overkill to use such complex systems.

While some centralization is needed for ecologic minting, we don't need to go "full retard" and put the system into govt. hands. We simply need a trusted authority that can vouch a certain public key corresponds to a real life charity. The trusted authority will not have money creation privileges or any other control over the system. When the charity list is published and time has come to print some money, the charities receive the cash in a proportion democratically chosen by the holders of the currency; voting is done by proof of stake, a setting in your client that embeds your charity choice for all transactions you create.

The charity validation authority is needed since otherwise people will designate their own wallet as a charity and earn interest simply for holding money.

[DavinciJ15]

The incentives of a competitor to sabotage bitcoin are proportional to total market size, not the size of the largest individual txn. With that out of the way, let's return to substantive issues.

1) Proof-of-work distribution can be copied by a proof-of-stake system. Thus any perceived distributional advantages of proof-of-work could also be enjoyed by a proof-of-stake system. This is a non-issue.

2) Proof-of-work is secured through competitive consumption of external resources. External resource consumption requires a net input of resources. This must be supported through fees levied on the user base. The exact level of fees necessary is hard to say. I think a 5% tax on each send is a plausible prediction. This is not compatible with a competitive payment platform. VISA will not need to burn fossil fuels to process each payment, but bitcoin will. This will kill bitcoin.

Proof-of-stake is secured through competitive transfers of internal resources. These transfers are expensive from an individual's perspective and thus effective in securing the system. However, they are just transfers. Transfers do not require external input of resources and thus do not require the imposition of onerous fees. This is compatible with a competitive payment platform.

3) There is never any point at which a proof-of-work currency could be more secure than an otherwise identical proof-of-stake currency. If you assume rational behavior, as soon as the first block is mined proof-of-work currency will necessarily provide inferior security. If you like, I will post a mathematical argument supporting this.

Your argument that proof-of-work enables a jump to a high level of initial security is completely wrong. It is the block reward which does this. Proof-of-work has nothing to do with it. Proof-of-stake can also have block reward.
 

I could not figure out why Krugmanites like yourself can not see what is obviously destructive ends of you ideas until I saw this video again today and now I SEE!

"To change the perception of reality, of every American, to such an extent that despite the abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions, in the interest of defending themselves their families, their community, and their country."
...
"A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him. Even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures. Even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show him concentration camp he will refuse to believe it until he is going to receive a kick in his fat bottom. When the military boot crashes his, then he will understand, but not before that. That's the tragic of the situation of demoralization." - Yuri Bezmenov

The banksters did the same to you so well that you are unable to see the destruction of your ideas even when you write it out yourself.  I have bow down to the banksters greatness and learn what school did you go to?   Now that I know there is no showing you the truth with facts I would like to learn more about how you got your education.

I apologize for my jokes and sarcasm, since there is no point in presenting facts to you I want to learn more about how you come to your conclusions.  Maybe you do understand that proof-of-stake is profitable in the short run but destructive in the long run? Do you agree that in the long run we are all dead so who cares?  Or do you believe its sustainable? Do you not agree that all centralized systems become compromised?  I am now fascinated with your thought process.

Send me your address I will send 2 BTC for answering my questions.


Regards

Davinci

[cunicula]

You do understand that proof-of-stake is profitable in the short run but destructive in the long run?

Hmmm... No, I don't understand this at all. My views are pretty damn clear, just check my post history. Perhaps it would be better for you to explain. Please use a logical argument to support your view that proof-of-stake has negative properties which are not also present in proof-of-work.

[DavinciJ15]

You do understand that proof-of-stake is profitable in the short run but destructive in the long run?

Hmmm... No, I don't understand this at all. My views are pretty damn clear, just check my post history. Perhaps it would be better for you to explain. Please use a logical argument to support your view that proof-of-stake has negative properties which are not also present in proof-of-work.

Sorry, wrong question it's clear you don't understand the duplicity.  I just want to understand your line of thinking, thus may I ask if HYPOTHETICALLY you solution was destructive in the long run would you still support it?

[cunicula]

Sorry, wrong question it's clear you don't understand the duplicity.  I just want to understand your line of thinking, thus may I ask if HYPOTHETICALLY you solution was destructive in the long run would you still support it?

You are not interested in a substantive, logical discussion, so I am not responding to this.

[DavinciJ15]

Sorry, wrong question it's clear you don't understand the duplicity.  I just want to understand your line of thinking, thus may I ask if HYPOTHETICALLY you solution was destructive in the long run would you still support it?

You are not interested in a substantive, logical discussion, so I am not responding to this.

Enough said, you answered my question.

[RSantana]

In case anyone is curious here is where the data center is located:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Ashburn,+VA+visa&hl=en&ll=39.048702,-77.444515&spn=0.012465,0.026436&sll=38.739319,-77.002254&sspn=0.012519,0.026436&t=h&hq=visa&hnear=Ashburn,+Loudoun,+Virginia&fll=39.050269,-77.44488&fspn=0.012465,0.026436&z=16

[Stephen Gornick]

In case anyone is curious here is where the data center is located:

And the satellite view of the building at that location:



Maybe they have a couple backups for redundancies, but they don't have the tens of thousands of backups like Bitcoin does:
 - http://www.weusecoins.com/globe
 - https://blockchain.info/nodes-globe

Incidentally, details on that data breach exposing data fro 1.5 million credit card and debit card accounts:
 - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=74744