Topic: IOTA - Permissioned ledger Russian extortion scheme - page 8. (Read 20175 times)

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

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.

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.

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).

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).

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've been hinting at that for months and finally an astute reader articulates it.

If you are wondering who created Bitcoin though, I think more likely the globalist DEEP STATE funded by the $trillions Black Budget and knowing full well they could hide their capture of Bitcoin blaming it on the "enemy". Nick Rockefeller (the one who warned Aaron Russo about 9/11 before it happened) has been spending most of his time in China.

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.

But as it pertains to this thread, we are obviously missing those elements here, and Come from Beyond, who is supposed to have a 4000 IQ, is unable to come up with any sort of argument whatsoever.

Real world example

Let's say North Korea is sanctioned by every nation on earth for smoking too much marijuana.  They're now cut off from all international trade and economically suffering.  If Bitcoin is the world reserve currency, they can use their technological know how to start mining Bitcoins because it's a permissionless system.  They now have a currency they can use to buy food and supplies from a semi-friendly but not complete ally proxy nation like China.

If IOTA was the world reserve currency, they do not have a permissionless entry point into the system at all because Bitcoin is a system of permanent coin turnover and IOTA isn't because it's a permissioned ledger.  They're now forced to attempt to trade something with China to acquire IOTAs, but maybe they don't have anything China wants so they can acquire no coins at all and they're completely locked out (obviously not a permissionless decentralized currency).  

Their best case scenario is, since China only sees them as useful idiots and not a real ally, they will then charge them with a markup for coins, along with another markup for whatever proxy goods they want through them.  Let's not forget the Come from Beyond day 0 extortion tax either since he cornered the market by design at release.  Thus, you have now been extorted three times in this chain of command due to it being a permissioned ledger and not a real decentralized currency.

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).

Whoa... Hold on!  Are you telling us that it is entirely possible, if not extremely likely, that the Chinese Communists are in fact subsidizing PoW mining in an effort to undermine the decentralization of Bitcoin and control the currency in the hopes of applying capital controls to the digital economy through underhanded tactics which will further solidify their hegemony?

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).

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.

Right now the pumpers and scammers are locked into this iota project. They should not exit with the huge returns whilst others hold the bags this time.

Unless you believe that David Sonstebo was BCNext (which is totally implausible), he had nothing to do with NXT.  Please stop comparing this IOTA garbage to NXT.  Don't drag NXT into this ridiculous charade.  CfB might have been hired by BCNext, but according to his own statements, he wasn't BCNext either.

5. Yes it is run by the NXT people