you miss the point even if BTC was broken, then another crptocoin would swiftly take its place, and BTC core would likely update to that tech. Eg POS if miners failed.
So yes BTC coin as a crypto, the idea is unbreakable. Go and take a look in alts if you doubt this.
Topic: Is Bitcoin really unbreakable? - page 6. (Read 5559 times)
Hmm those are some good points. Technically, the Fed runs on "consensus" too by means of who people vote for, but they vote on other issues too and then there are levels of appointments from Yellen on down. The main advantage I suppose is the transparency, so that were a large percentage of miners to attempt to increase their mining (which would decrease the overall value of bitcoin but increase *their* percentage of it, much like the gov't printing money), it would instantly be public news and the bitcoin market would factor it in quickly. Nodes that don't generate blocks might not accept the changes, but what if all the miners did? Then there would be no other alternative blockchain for the full nodes to use.
At least two group of people won't change their stance: Austrian economic school supporters and libertarian
In fact many miners are still learning theories about money creation (What they do is money creation), and I think many of them will realize that limited supply is the only way for a consensus based, voluntarily participated currency to succeed. Without this property, bitcoin does not stand any chance before the competition of fiat money (If both currency are inflative, then most of the people would rather use FED's notes instead of a group of greedy miners' coin, at least FED's coin is backed by the US national debt
)Heh. I think that that fiat being backed by the national debt is an argument FOR bitcoin. Plus the ease of use.
I think what OP is trying to say is... If changes could be made to increase the 21 000 000 Bitcoins and a majority of the nodes accept that, like the Chinese miner pools just did, for a while... could that break Bitcoin?
Well, I guess it's not impossible... but the incentive to add more coins would negate the advantage of doing it. More coins being released, would push the price down. {The more coins that are available, will push the supply up, and IF the demand is not enough, the price will decrease}
So there is no incentive to do that.... The miners benefit from the scarcity of the coin too.
Well, I guess it's not impossible... but the incentive to add more coins would negate the advantage of doing it. More coins being released, would push the price down. {The more coins that are available, will push the supply up, and IF the demand is not enough, the price will decrease}
So there is no incentive to do that.... The miners benefit from the scarcity of the coin too.
It wouldn't completely negate the advantage. That is why the gov't prints money. Say that the miners (collectively) decide to double the number of bitcoins to 42 000 000. And just for the sake of example, let's suppose the value of a bitcoin starts out at $1 (the value itself is irrelevant). After doubling the number of bitcoins, a bitcoin is now worth only $.50, but the miners have $10,500,000 that they didn't have before. Actually, at the real price of $250 per bitcoin, that's $2.5 billion for the miners. That's why I say the incentive is rather large.
Miners are the new bankers.
Hmm those are some good points. Technically, the Fed runs on "consensus" too by means of who people vote for, but they vote on other issues too and then there are levels of appointments from Yellen on down. The main advantage I suppose is the transparency, so that were a large percentage of miners to attempt to increase their mining (which would decrease the overall value of bitcoin but increase *their* percentage of it, much like the gov't printing money), it would instantly be public news and the bitcoin market would factor it in quickly. Nodes that don't generate blocks might not accept the changes, but what if all the miners did? Then there would be no other alternative blockchain for the full nodes to use.
At least two group of people won't change their stance: Austrian economic school supporters and libertarian
In fact many miners are still learning theories about money creation (What they do is money creation), and I think many of them will realize that limited supply is the only way for a consensus based, voluntarily participated currency to succeed. Without this property, bitcoin does not stand any chance before the competition of fiat money (If both currency are inflative, then most of the people would rather use FED's notes instead of a group of greedy miners' coin, at least FED's coin is backed by the US national debt
)legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
if 51% agree(actually i read that you need 90% for that, i don't know if it is wrong or what) then it mean that the majority want bitcoin to be changed and so it will be, the point is that there isn't a single entity that can change everything as he wants, that's the beauty of bitcoin
It's 51% for usual fork, and 90% for xt fork, since it has that limit for activation in code.
Bitcoin is safe, but it's not immune to attacks, but then again, neither are other alternatives. Considering how much one would need to "attack" the network, it's safe to say that it's futile.
The biggest problem is the client-side security, where most people get infected by mallware of all sorts, and don't know how to protect their coins from theft.
cheers
I'm not sure why there is so much confusion about consensus.
~90% is more accurate than 51%. 51% is just the amount of hashing power needed to consistently mine the longest chain, which is consensus WITHIN the protocol. But you need everyone on board for consensus of the protocol itself.
If "the majority want Bitcoin changed", well you have to consider that 1) this means the majority of EVERYONE using Bitcoin, including users, investors, and merchants, not just miners and 2) unless there is an overwhelming supermajority, the substantial minority left behind will continue running Bitcoin in its previous state.
i believe that those that are running a full node should have the same power, and should be rewarded too
Who will reward them and for what? 
Are you crazy?
There is no free beer! Every bottle is paid by somebody else!
well it could be done that instead of sending all the fees, from any transactions, to the miners only, you send a portion to who is running a full node
maybe something like 1k satoshi, 10% of the default fee
well as i said above you can tweak it to have an appropriate reward, if 10% is still too high you can reduce it a bit, for example i doubt that mining activity is worth more than x20 in comparison to running a full node
the point is that running a full node should be incentivated, they could help against sybil attack and reinforce the network, therefore they need something as a reward
I think what OP is trying to say is... If changes could be made to increase the 21 000 000 Bitcoins and a majority of the nodes accept that, like the Chinese miner pools just did, for a while... could that break Bitcoin?
Well, I guess it's not impossible... but the incentive to add more coins would negate the advantage of doing it. More coins being released, would push the price down. {The more coins that are available, will push the supply up, and IF the demand is not enough, the price will decrease}
So there is no incentive to do that.... The miners benefit from the scarcity of the coin too.
Well, I guess it's not impossible... but the incentive to add more coins would negate the advantage of doing it. More coins being released, would push the price down. {The more coins that are available, will push the supply up, and IF the demand is not enough, the price will decrease}
So there is no incentive to do that.... The miners benefit from the scarcity of the coin too.
maybe something like 1k satoshi, 10% of the default fee
OK, 1000 satoshi per txThere are 100k daily transactions
And 6k fullnodes
The daily revenue for each node is 16667 satoshi = $0.04 - great results
That's considering that people are using default transaction fee per size, but it should be much more if the number of transactions continues to grow with time i think.
imho the reward process should both include reward to nodes and PR efforts through some organ, but then it would make it more centralized, which most people don't want,
although it would make bitcoin itself much more spread out and therefore more secure.
cheers
maybe something like 1k satoshi, 10% of the default fee
OK, 1000 satoshi per txThere are 100k daily transactions
And 6k fullnodes
The daily revenue for each node is 16667 satoshi = $0.04 - great results
That's considering that people are using default transaction fee per size, but it should be much more if the number of transactions continues to grow with time i think.
imho the reward process should both include reward to nodes and PR efforts through some organ, but then it would make it more centralized, which most people don't want,
although it would make bitcoin itself much more spread out and therefore more secure.
cheers
maybe something like 1k satoshi, 10% of the default fee
OK, 1000 satoshi per txThere are 100k daily transactions
And 6k fullnodes
The daily revenue for each node is 16667 satoshi = $0.04 - great results
That's considering that people are using default transaction fee per size, but it should be much more if the number of transactions continues to grow with time i think.
imho the reward process should both include reward to nodes and PR efforts through some organ, but then it would make it more centralized, which most people don't want,
although it would make bitcoin itself much more spread out and therefore more secure.
cheers
i believe that those that are running a full node should have the same power, and should be rewarded too
Who will reward them and for what? Are you crazy?
There is no free beer! Every bottle is paid by somebody else!
well it could be done that instead of sending all the fees, from any transactions, to the miners only, you send a portion to who is running a full node
maybe something like 1k satoshi, 10% of the default fee
maybe something like 1k satoshi, 10% of the default fee
OK, 1000 satoshi per txThere are 100k daily transactions
And 6k fullnodes
The daily revenue for each node is 16667 satoshi = $0.04 - great results
well you are not taking into account the potential of bitcoin, and the much greater number of TX per sec and the price, for the future,. that 0.04 could be 40
also it was only an example, you can tweak it to suit it better, but bears in mind that it isn't something that aim at replace your job....
maybe something like 1k satoshi, 10% of the default fee
OK, 1000 satoshi per txThere are 100k daily transactions
And 6k fullnodes
The daily revenue for each node is 16667 satoshi = $0.04 - great results
if 51% agree(actually i read that you need 90% for that, i don't know if it is wrong or what) then it mean that the majority want bitcoin to be changed and so it will be, the point is that there isn't a single entity that can change everything as he wants, that's the beauty of bitcoin
It's 51% for usual fork, and 90% for xt fork, since it has that limit for activation in code.
Bitcoin is safe, but it's not immune to attacks, but then again, neither are other alternatives. Considering how much one would need to "attack" the network, it's safe to say that it's futile.
The biggest problem is the client-side security, where most people get infected by mallware of all sorts, and don't know how to protect their coins from theft.
cheers
i believe that those that are running a full node should have the same power, and should be rewarded too
Who will reward them and for what? Are you crazy?
There is no free beer! Every bottle is paid by somebody else!
well it could be done that instead of sending all the fees, from any transactions, to the miners only, you send a portion to who is running a full node
maybe something like 1k satoshi, 10% of the default fee
i believe that those that are running a full node should have the same power, and should be rewarded too
Who will reward them and for what? Are you crazy?
There is no free beer! Every bottle is paid by somebody else!
what if, for some kind of calamity, most of the bitcoin private key owners die and so the value they hold is gone forever?
In this scenario only people would die but network would be still up.
There would be very small quantities bitcoin available around the world.
In that case bitcoin would litteraly disappear within few hours.
In this scenario only people would die but network would be still up.
There would be very small quantities bitcoin available around the world.
In that case bitcoin would litteraly disappear within few hours.
if 51% agree(actually i read that you need 90% for that, i don't know if it is wrong or what) then it mean that the majority want bitcoin to be changed and so it will be, the point is that there isn't a single entity that can change everything as he wants, that's the beauty of bitcoin
Yes. But 51% of whom? Think about it. Do you have a voice?
no probably, but at least you can vote, with fiat you cannot do anything really
maybe the problem with consensus is that only miners and merchants but mostly miners, have the real consensus, instead i believe that those that are running a full node should have the same power, and should be rewarded too
so the bitcoin consensus is good enough, but they way it works right now, could have been better
if 51% agree(actually i read that you need 90% for that, i don't know if it is wrong or what) then it mean that the majority want bitcoin to be changed and so it will be, the point is that there isn't a single entity that can change everything as he wants, that's the beauty of bitcoin
Yes. But 51% of whom? Think about it. Do you have a voice?
if 51% agree(actually i read that you need 90% for that, i don't know if it is wrong or what) then it mean that the majority want bitcoin to be changed and so it will be, the point is that there isn't a single entity that can change everything as he wants, that's the beauty of bitcoin
Jump to: