Topic: Fork off - page 12. (Read 37677 times)

Yes.  It means that to attack Bitcoin one must only make the reward higher to do so.  And if the reward for supporting Bitcoin tends toward zero the cost of doing so is fairly minimal.

This in the best of worlds when the valuations are fairly steady (or their derivatives are.)  In the real world we can expect a fair amount of sha256 being idle for significant amounts of time due to mining being a money loser.  With luck it would shift to supporting the next scam-coin but sooner or later a sha256 scam-coin will realize that their best chance is to nuke Bitcoin and try to siphen off some of the userbase.  In fact here's an idea for scam-coin designers that I just thought of:  'merge-demining'.  That is, mine the scam-coin and fuck with Bitcoin at the same time.

In reality, as I mentioned, someone wishing to attack Bitcoin by better rewarding the failing miners will probably find themselves up against some money who wishes to exploit other aspects of the Bitcoin network which they alone can monetize.  That's the same thing as Bitcoin dieing to me, but probably not to everyone.  Many sheep would probably welcome it.  Probably they'll get 'cash back' for using Bitcoin...just need to authenticate through the right framework...

Sidechains base their value on (being) Bitcoin so they have every reason to keep it healthy.  They actually need no real POW (or other such device) because the backing role is taken by Bitcoin and the peg...as long as Bitcoin remains solid.  They do need to interface with Bitcoin and that is done through mining which is needed to exercise their peg (maybe?)  This is how I visualize sidechains at least, but I'm not the designer of them.  I do see such a thing as the best hope for Bitcoin in a form I appreciate though.

No, it's not. But payout to miners are way too high in this very first example here. Miners rule the market and shortsellers riding it down - with no end to it.
It's not the POW, it's the high rewards. But totally OT now.

Agree on: 'Bitcoin is broken on the fundamental level' (evidence in the charts)

It's even ultra bizarre to read this BS thread about the useless fork and how far out everyone is with their pipedreams, when i think about how in comparison the markets and direct reality fare currently...

You have no scalability issue because in 6 months there is nothing left worth scaling. This thread is a waste of time imo. How did it get here?





sure. Next he preaches to buy Bitshares or Cinnicoin or something...

A blatant attempt to push PoS

PoW is economically broken because the margins tend towards zero? Seriously?

There are actually two distinct constructs at play here, they are not equivalent. Consider:

Me.

You.

You either have a transaction rate which induces transaction fees or a transaction rate which does not.  Either option is a 'central plan' just as was the 21x10^6 maximum circulation.

Fact is that it doesn't matter what the transaction fees are or the coinbase reward is.  If you don't factor in alternative monetization Bitcoin is economically broken at the fundamental level with respect to support reward for POW.  This because it will always approach net zero no matter what.  It will just do it faster when the volatility increases the price and mining is more profitable (then fall below zero when the price reverses.)  The situation is aggravated because Bitcoin is horribly inefficient making it very non-competitive as and exchange currency for buying skittles.  That's why the 1MB block size has been fine and looks like it will be for a while yet.

So, let's consider alternative monetization streams, shall we?  They come in two basic flavors:

 1)  Gathering user intelligence data.  Very high value in the case of a monetary system.  Most currently gathered data is just a proxy for who spends what where while transactions data is the real McCoy.  Google-class players play this game and are much better at it than anyone reading this will ever be.  Uncorking the transaction rate will merely ensure that they have no real competition (though they may choose to isolate themselves by buying the data from a third-party anyway.)

 2)  Subsidization from entities who need Bitcoin to be autonomous, reliable, and trusted.   That would be entities running sidechains.

So you prefer central planning over selfregulation and free market when it comes to transactionfees?

I have to ask myself: Does Gavin have no real problems to solve or why is he solving hypthetical problems that aren't even confirmed to exist beyond doubt? Is this the way a chief scientist should be operating?

Union Organizer is only an ad hominem for people that are uneducated.

I wasn't the one to start using ad hominem.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

indeed it is.. "outahere" used to have "aka cbeast" in place of "zoom out!".. LOL as if no one would notice he removed it..

Oh shit, is that cbeast? No wonder.

Haha, I'm not the only one who noticed that ex-cbeast loves to use ad-hominems...

Whether you like the truth or not doesn't it make any less true.



Still not an argument. Try harder, if you can.

Haha, very weaselly

There are no barriers to create an offchain transaction clearing service.



That's an ad-hominem, not an argument. Try harder.

Admit it, you are a Union Organizer. You don't want to increase productivity, but you want to be paid more so you try to convince others to go on strike. You can be replaced.

So you favor the maintenance of artificial barriers to create rent situations?

Thing is, there's no problem to fix.
It is the redditards that will have to fix their expectation of being able to transact their fraction-of-a-penny spamtips on the blockchain for fractions-of-fractions-of-a-penny.
Offchain are good enough for them.



Except the burden of making a convincing argument doesn't lie with those who are perfectly happy with Bitcoin as it is.



That's dumb, for there can hardly be any viable rent situation without serious barriers, of which the regulatory ones are the most obvious ones.

It's difficult to separate the social problems from the engineering problems. It's much easier to ignore the social issues and just improve technology. Either way, society will find the worst way to exploit it.

Although I'd expect anyone with investment or rent seeking ambitions from off chain infrastructure to deliberately want to damage the ability of the chain to quickly process transactions, in the expectation that it would (probably temporarily) provide them the high return they "deserve" for being "smart" enough to see things in such a kleptocratic way.

That way they get to operate an insular "company town" where there is no limit to what they can charge for various necessities because everyone is practically held hostage there, by the low speed/limited capacity of the infrastructure that serves it.

However in the real world this tends eventually to encourage external entrepreneurial development of transport links for trade, it's expensive to get there, but you can undercut the local tyrant and still make good money.... which would tend towards the tyrant protecting his monopoly with violence.