Shouldn't be too much of a shock considering they already know bitcoin can not scale for mainstream adoption due to a decentralized nature. Scaling also comes with more dangers and downsides. It's logical to grow slow but steady.
I think the boom of ICO hurt Bitcoin and we are still recovering from the sudden influx of people because those people have now panic sold their bitcoin and caused the crash. I think we are starting to show signs of recovery but atm I think we need to focus on growing steadily and not push for a bull run. A bull run is likely if the confidence goes up enough and I am worried about it shooting back up and then having a correction again which will hurt Bitcoin again for the next 6 months. 
Topic: Issues with Proof-of-Work (Read 874 times)
I would just like to say that it's quite shocking that a paperless currency like this hasn't been affected by the dangers of censorship. It is a major security flaw in the system and if they ever want to go main-stream they need to find a way to solve this issue because right now it is not built for the real world, it's built for a utopian society that can still reap the benefits of anonymity.
Shouldn't be too much of a shock considering they already know bitcoin can not scale for mainstream adoption due to a decentralized nature. Scaling also comes with more dangers and downsides. It's logical to grow slow but steady.
I would just like to say that it's quite shocking that a paperless currency like this hasn't been affected by the dangers of censorship. It is a major security flaw in the system and if they ever want to go main-stream they need to find a way to solve this issue because right now it is not built for the real world, it's built for a utopian society that can still reap the benefits of anonymity.
If we are honest then most people do not pay attention to what the developers are doing and instead of watching the price of btc and eth. The problem for many people with btc is they cannot get past not owing 1 btc and ethereum in their opinion is easier to get into because they can afford to purchase 1 but not with btc. I do not think that the developers have any impact on most people investing because they would have to go out of their way to find the devs discussion which they do not they are investors not people who care about the development of btc. Any one that cares about the development will pick btc every time because its a more careful process and considers the whole picture before making decisions.
Well that's most people. We however are privy to what developers do and so we care more about those kinds of things than the average user.
I got to say, adding features is not always the best solution. First you have to asses whether there is demand for those features you want to implement to avoid wasting your own time, and creating protocol bloat that cannot be removed without expensive (in terms of time) hardforks.
I believe PoS is bad because you can rewrite the chain without having to invest the work again.
Intuitively, I would agree. But how far have these penalizing algorithms (Casper, Slasher etc.) evolved that are supposed to prevent people from publishing the rewritten chains? Can they achieve any stable consensus on which one of the competing chains is actually the one to follow?
I believe PoS is bad because you can rewrite the chain without having to invest the work again.
Meaming that if 51% doesn't like something they can go back and rewrite XX hours in a few seconds. Hence sending any amount of ETH to B instead of A (as A's original transaction won't be included and won't work as re-transmit as the original balance is gone).
With PoW same group would have to re-mine the blocks which means this is practically impossible as the original chain is progressing too.
You can try to avoid rolling back too many blocks, but that is an artificial and only locally enforcable rule. As far as I know there is no such rule today on ETH.
Meaming that if 51% doesn't like something they can go back and rewrite XX hours in a few seconds. Hence sending any amount of ETH to B instead of A (as A's original transaction won't be included and won't work as re-transmit as the original balance is gone).
With PoW same group would have to re-mine the blocks which means this is practically impossible as the original chain is progressing too.
You can try to avoid rolling back too many blocks, but that is an artificial and only locally enforcable rule. As far as I know there is no such rule today on ETH.
Honestly speaking, I just think that each algorithm has something special to it and some problems as well. You just have to find which one works best for you and how you can make the most out of each one.
I don't think it's about whether or not the community is "open" to a new consensus method. I think it's more about what has withstood the test of time. PoW has, that's why it is still used today. If there are new consensus methods that do truly outweigh it, only time will show them as better alternatives...It will take a lot of time before something can truly be concluded as better than PoW.
Time alone won't suffice as long as the self-claimed alternatives don't have to store value on a comparable scale. You can always claim whatever protocol you invented can replace PoW as long as there is not much at stake.
Honestly speaking, I just think that each algorithm has something special to it and some problems as well. You just have to find which one works best for you and how you can make the most out of each one.
I don't think it's about whether or not the community is "open" to a new consensus method. I think it's more about what has withstood the test of time. PoW has, that's why it is still used today. If there are new consensus methods that do truly outweigh it, only time will show them as better alternatives...It will take a lot of time before something can truly be concluded as better than PoW.
the comparisons of eth development and btc development is they are both centralised
vitalik is just like adam back with a few other notable sponsored devs below the leader that have main merge privileged
that said. ethereums wide community. is not wide at all they do not even have their own unique utility that offer users a separate sentiment of usefulness and desires to have a different price discovery sentiment
check out their price wiggles
about 98% following bitcoins market price discover, just at a dropped rate of 1:14
however because unlike lightning whose peg has no network wide audit or chain or mechanislm for accounting. and where lightning has MANY flaws and methods to fractional reserve, double spend msats and steal directly and indirectly from channel partners break commitments/promises/ious... people just dont trust lightning for useful amounts.. lightning is more so stuck in concept stage for 7 years of sandbox testing and playing around. rather than having a functional monetary security policy to make it a final ready to operate network.. which other subnetworks do have
so yea people are preference to lock btc up and then using that lock reference on other subnetwork bridges with better monetary security policy on other subnetwork bridges
.. as for the comparisons to ethereum and cores centralism
core play the music of shouting "open source" but with their hierarchy structure and moderation, their concept of "open source" means something else to them.. under their premiss. lets use an analogy of a newspaper that is open on a page, transparent to read the contents(source). but that does not mean anyone can become a newspaper editor with publisher rights
open source to core does not mean open gate/open door policy.
vitalik is just like adam back with a few other notable sponsored devs below the leader that have main merge privileged
that said. ethereums wide community. is not wide at all they do not even have their own unique utility that offer users a separate sentiment of usefulness and desires to have a different price discovery sentiment
check out their price wiggles
about 98% following bitcoins market price discover, just at a dropped rate of 1:14
however because unlike lightning whose peg has no network wide audit or chain or mechanislm for accounting. and where lightning has MANY flaws and methods to fractional reserve, double spend msats and steal directly and indirectly from channel partners break commitments/promises/ious... people just dont trust lightning for useful amounts.. lightning is more so stuck in concept stage for 7 years of sandbox testing and playing around. rather than having a functional monetary security policy to make it a final ready to operate network.. which other subnetworks do have
so yea people are preference to lock btc up and then using that lock reference on other subnetwork bridges with better monetary security policy on other subnetwork bridges
.. as for the comparisons to ethereum and cores centralism
core play the music of shouting "open source" but with their hierarchy structure and moderation, their concept of "open source" means something else to them.. under their premiss. lets use an analogy of a newspaper that is open on a page, transparent to read the contents(source). but that does not mean anyone can become a newspaper editor with publisher rights
open source to core does not mean open gate/open door policy.
im not suggesting ethereum is better(for many other reasons). but more users are preferring to avoid the offering by the core devs.. because core devs seem half assed in being devs and more inspired to be sponsored governors/moderators ensuring they stay in power
and yes you can do your own research and find the stats. its eye opening and may surprise you
If we are honest then most people do not pay attention to what the developers are doing and instead of watching the price of btc and eth. The problem for many people with btc is they cannot get past not owing 1 btc and ethereum in their opinion is easier to get into because they can afford to purchase 1 but not with btc. I do not think that the developers have any impact on most people investing because they would have to go out of their way to find the devs discussion which they do not they are investors not people who care about the development of btc. Any one that cares about the development will pick btc every time because its a more careful process and considers the whole picture before making decisions. and yes you can do your own research and find the stats. its eye opening and may surprise you
Is the crypto/blockchain community not open to new type of consensus? It seems like POW and POS just keep getting updated rather than addressing the real issue and switching base mechanisms. Do others just not see issues with POW or POS?
What other option is there currently, really?
In order to see whether another consensus algorithm will work out, it's gotta be shoved into a top 5 (not even 10) cryptocurrency on CoinMarketCap and then we see how the coin performs. Not in terms of price, but in activity. The problem with that is that most altcoins have too small of a userbase for any novel consensus to be truly seen under the microscope.
The only issues with proof of work is it will be attacked for polluting the environment and when more people are mining that will only increase the concern and attacks by the media.
media can attack all they like.. an asic does not read the newspaper
an asic also does not self power by eating a lump of coal.. its the power plant that are the issues
as long as an asic owner is living in a region within X miles of renewable. he has a case where he can defend that he is not polluting and just keep mining.
media can say whatever they like.
but it becomes harder for a government to tell a renewable power plant to cut one of their customers off using a "green law" when that power plant is green so has no reason to cut off that customer with fake reasoning that said customer is polluting
.. yes if a miner is paying bills to a fossil plant then yes that miner can risk having their power supply cut
but for near on a decade(2014+) most mining farms set up near cheap renewable regions and bulk purchase via xxMW contracts units for 5-24months of electric from renewable power plants direct (rather than retail power "services/billing companies")
its only the home-hobby miners stuck with whatever residential power 'billing company' there is that might be told they cant mine if there was a "green law"
but that blame is more on the power plant that then lose possible income due to the power plant(real culprit) being non -green
@windfury
you are now showing you are doing some research along with the examples in the MAHF topic. seems you are gaining confidence to do your own research and break away/not rely on the social spoonfeeds of the madhatter group(doomad/blackhat)
so . for now. ill refrain from calling you a default idiot. as long as you keep up the confidence to do your own research
do it for no one else, not even me. do it for your own mental wellness and your own fact finding efforts
do not fear the time it takes to do the research because even though it takes time. its less time then the years wasted finding social drama reasons to refuse to do the research for yourself
Gaslighting again, franky-101? Don't make it look that I have just made all of "my research" recently. I, and some of the other more out-spoken people in the forum, have been informing, and telling what's technically true about Bitcoin when you were spreading disinformation about it.
Plus, I must thank you that you and Joland_Fyookball helped me learn THE HARD WAY about Bitcoin, after all of the technical disinformation that you did. That shouldn't happen to newbies, and plebs like me again. You mislead many people.
yep windfury is correct and its why vitalik decided to call the smallest eth unit a wei many years ago, as he was always favouring/inspired to go the PoS route and follow the path of wei-dai for years, he just had to use PoW for eth first to create a community of interest due to PoW's good value policy(which PoS doesnt have). so he had to snare greed/value interest of people first to build the community before converting the community to vitalik long plan wishes(wait for the market speculation correction DOWN when he finally allows the code to un-stake)
Part of the reason (maybe the main reason) is that Ethereum copied a lot of its ideas and implementations from bitcoin, which means the mining algorithm (PoW) was also part of it. In fact Vitalik was once hanging out in bitcoin circles trying to convince us to destroy bitcoin's smart contract protocol and make it vulnerable like how ethereum's is today. He failed so he created the shitcoin we know today as ethereum.correct he was part of bitcoin but found out early on that butting heads against the core roadmap and treated like an attacker rather than a proposal suggester. is where the centralisation was first spotted and the clan cultish mindsets began
funny part is.. ethereum has its subnetwork bridges and more people are preferring to lock bitcoin. and use as reference point to then play on ethereum subnetwork bridges. more so then using the failing subnetwork bridge that was promised as the solution to bitcoin scaling
the bitcoin scaling solution of a sub network bridge promise made 7 years ago. has less users less liquidity, but more flaws than a ethereum subnetwork bridge which is only 15 months old
(funny sidenote. the snake oil sales men of bitcoins scaling solution was offramping to subnetwork bridge,, are now this year saying how its not the solution its just a side effect niche for small utility(took them long enough))
im not suggesting ethereum is better(for many other reasons). but more users are preferring to avoid the offering by the core devs.. because core devs seem half assed in being devs and more inspired to be sponsored governors/moderators ensuring they stay in power
and yes you can do your own research and find the stats. its eye opening and may surprise you
bitcoin devs(not just core) need to catch up and do something to really help utility and usability rather than just promote "wait patiently"(conservatively)
core devs promote to their noisy hounds to suggest that devs are migrating away from bitcoin because devs are being critiqued by node users and trying to say node users should not have a say in dev review critique.. yet the actual dev migration away from bitcoin is due to sponsored devs in core being in moderation control to want to only enforce a core roadmap rather than a decentralised "bitcoin roadmap" of multiple brands united in byzantine generals effect, uniting via true consensus without hierarchy
yep windfury is correct and its why vitalik decided to call the smallest eth unit a wei many years ago, as he was always favouring/inspired to go the PoS route and follow the path of wei-dai for years, he just had to use PoW for eth first to create a community of interest due to PoW's good value policy(which PoS doesnt have). so he had to snare greed/value interest of people first to build the community before converting the community to vitalik long plan wishes(wait for the market speculation correction DOWN when he finally allows the code to un-stake)
Part of the reason (maybe the main reason) is that Ethereum copied a lot of its ideas and implementations from bitcoin, which means the mining algorithm (PoW) was also part of it. In fact Vitalik was once hanging out in bitcoin circles trying to convince us to destroy bitcoin's smart contract protocol and make it vulnerable like how ethereum's is today. He failed so he created the shitcoin we know today as ethereum. im a bitcoin maximalist so no interest in using altcoins. but if you want me to review and critique and find the flaws (bug review) to help you mitigate problems and reduce attack vectors, sure
smart devs actually want to have people that search for holes. have an outside point of view of finding worse case scenarios. rather than some ass kissing group that only deal with best case scenarios and ignore the obvious flaws
I would love to take you up on that offer. we will speak soon
..
as for your assumptions that "the network" you envision will self mitigate its own method. no code is needed meaning you ned to write it. you ned to come up with the methodology where it avoids certain peers from grouping up into clusters good luck funding a method to identify that certain nodes are not just 1 guy with 1000 nodes or where your node only has 100 connections and most of them are from a common peer cluster that gossiped(seeded) a list of known 100 nodes thus form their own cluster/echo chamber of only hearing each other first
(its more about the peer IP connection/identity decider. rather then the latter block reward split mechanism thats the problem when it comes to trying to mitigate pooling/clustering)
as for your assumptions that "the network" you envision will self mitigate its own method. no code is needed meaning you ned to write it. you ned to come up with the methodology where it avoids certain peers from grouping up into clusters good luck funding a method to identify that certain nodes are not just 1 guy with 1000 nodes or where your node only has 100 connections and most of them are from a common peer cluster that gossiped(seeded) a list of known 100 nodes thus form their own cluster/echo chamber of only hearing each other first
(its more about the peer IP connection/identity decider. rather then the latter block reward split mechanism thats the problem when it comes to trying to mitigate pooling/clustering)
I am currently in the midst of testing the reference client
The system is designed to provide no advantage to utilizing multiple nodes(slight disadvantage as more gas will be required to consolidate rewards). Additionally, peer information is contained network-wide within the network state to prevent a cluster/echo chamber of peers.
Local sims are looking good just need to start testing the waters for market demand to plan initial distribution.
I can message you when I start the topic if you are interested
im a bitcoin maximalist so no interest in using altcoins. but if you want me to review and critique and find the flaws (bug review) to help you mitigate problems and reduce attack vectors, sure
smart devs actually want to have people that search for holes. have an outside point of view of finding worse case scenarios. rather than some ass kissing group that only deal with best case scenarios and ignore the obvious flaws
..
as for your assumptions that "the network" you envision will self mitigate its own method. no code is needed meaning you ned to write it. you ned to come up with the methodology where it avoids certain peers from grouping up into clusters good luck funding a method to identify that certain nodes are not just 1 guy with 1000 nodes or where your node only has 100 connections and most of them are from a common peer cluster that gossiped(seeded) a list of known 100 nodes thus form their own cluster/echo chamber of only hearing each other first
(its more about the peer IP connection/identity decider. rather then the latter block reward split mechanism thats the problem when it comes to trying to mitigate pooling/clustering)
as for your assumptions that "the network" you envision will self mitigate its own method. no code is needed meaning you ned to write it. you ned to come up with the methodology where it avoids certain peers from grouping up into clusters good luck funding a method to identify that certain nodes are not just 1 guy with 1000 nodes or where your node only has 100 connections and most of them are from a common peer cluster that gossiped(seeded) a list of known 100 nodes thus form their own cluster/echo chamber of only hearing each other first
(its more about the peer IP connection/identity decider. rather then the latter block reward split mechanism thats the problem when it comes to trying to mitigate pooling/clustering)
I am currently in the midst of testing the reference client
The system is designed to provide no advantage to utilizing multiple nodes(slight disadvantage as more gas will be required to consolidate rewards). Additionally, peer information is contained network-wide within the network state to prevent a cluster/echo chamber of peers.
Local sims are looking good just need to start testing the waters for market demand to plan initial distribution.
I can message you when I start the topic if you are interested
The only issues with proof of work is it will be attacked for polluting the environment and when more people are mining that will only increase the concern and attacks by the media.
media can attack all they like.. an asic does not read the newspaper
an asic also does not self power by eating a lump of coal.. its the power plant that are the issues
as long as an asic owner is living in a region within X miles of renewable. he has a case where he can defend that he is not polluting and just keep mining.
media can say whatever they like.
but it becomes harder for a government to tell a renewable power plant to cut one of their customers off using a "green law" when that power plant is green so has no reason to cut off that customer with fake reasoning that said customer is polluting
.. yes if a miner is paying bills to a fossil plant then yes that miner can risk having their power supply cut
but for near on a decade(2014+) most mining farms set up near cheap renewable regions and bulk purchase via xxMW contracts units for 5-24months of electric from renewable power plants direct (rather than retail power "services/billing companies")
its only the home-hobby miners stuck with whatever residential power 'billing company' there is that might be told they cant mine if there was a "green law"
but that blame is more on the power plant that then lose possible income due to the power plant(real culprit) being non -green
Jump to: