Pages:
Author

Topic: rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 78. (Read 387491 times)

hero member
Activity: 630
Merit: 500
Bitgoblin
August 21, 2014, 08:39:41 AM
If it wasn't valuable then the work wouldn't be done in the first place.
If it wasn't profitable, it would likely not be done in the first place.
Quite different.

Profitable doesn't imply valuable.

PoW is an unsustainable ever escalating arms race.
Even during the cold war USA vs. USSR managed to understand that it wasn't a great idea.

(not implying PoS is a good idea. Just that PoW is leagues far from perfect)
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
August 21, 2014, 08:35:17 AM
Money cannot have an issuer that must be trusted.

Bingo.

And currency can't all end up in the hands of the power-law distributed savers. It also has to be continuously debased so that spenders can spend. Savers and spenders are symbiotic.

You can claim that investors send the money back to spenders via wages, but the fact is they don't. They pool their money in usury interest bearing bonds, which is a form of mutual bondage (slavery) for both the lender and the borrower. That is a deeper, detailed mathematical analysis that I don't have time to reexplain right now. Refer to my older writings on the Hommel forum. There is a reason the Bible says you can only lend at interest to a stranger, not to one of your own.

In other words, savers will destroy themselves if left to their own natural behavior. Don't just look down on spenders, look down on savers too.

Money cannot have an issuer that must be trusted.

However could a genuine trustless system even be possible?

Based on designs I've explored, I believe yes. Except for adding new features, you need to trust a developer to take control. Once you are willing to lock the features into stone, it can run on autopilot if the features are resilient enough. When it eventually fails, you design a new currency learning from the past mistakes.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 260
August 21, 2014, 08:05:32 AM
what do you guys think of the idea of using a digital token as a collateral to lend "dollars" into existence?

This idea might work in the future, when/if tokens have more trust and credit worthiness than dollars.
hero member
Activity: 742
Merit: 500
August 21, 2014, 07:10:48 AM
500k+ of volume and no comments on BitSharesX?  Seems people are getting in before the market peg features are rolled.

Quote from bytemaster:

Quote
In practice BitShares isn't a distributed system, it is more like coordinated synchronized time shared centralized system.  

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5402.msg72829#msg72829

I'll let others form their opinions.


despites that (and their cultish behaviour)- what do you guys think of the idea of using a digital token as a collateral to lend "dollars" into existence?

From an economists perspective I still have questions if bytemasters mechanism works well, it is a semi-prediction market But in case it works I see an IMMEDIATE coverage for "bitUSD", which will lead to massive liquidity. I think bitcoin should look very closely to this development; in my opion it would be the killerapp for cryptocurrencies.

That said there are a ton of uncertainties but let us wait for the development
hero member
Activity: 795
Merit: 514
August 21, 2014, 05:04:46 AM
PoW is an expression of value transfer (the expense of one resource to create another). I realize this is a major simplification, but if PoS can't represent some measure of GDP than it's security is irrelevant. It fails the most basic test.

With POW though is a true resource even being create to which the value is being transferred?
Funny thing about so many people in the western world is they perceive their work has to be worth something even when they create nothing of value.

If it wasn't valuable then the work wouldn't be done in the first place.

PoW is an expression of value transfer (the expense of one resource to create another). I realize this is a major simplification, but if PoS can't represent some measure of GDP than it's security is irrelevant. It fails the most basic test.

My CPoS scheme will directly test this hypothesis and will certainly fail if you are right. In contrast, perhaps cryptocurrencies are valuable solely because some people think they are valuable.

That would be nice, but fiat only works because it's centralized and policed. In a decentralized free market you cannot establish value out of thin air. I could be wrong.
donator
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1036
August 21, 2014, 02:29:43 AM
Money cannot have an issuer that must be trusted.

However could a genuine trustless system even be possible?

Welcome to the forum!  Cheesy
donator
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1036
August 21, 2014, 02:29:01 AM
at the moment we may be forming a very well structured cup-with-handle in XMR, with a buy point of 0040.

Why not 0035?  Wink
legendary
Activity: 1876
Merit: 1000
August 21, 2014, 02:14:24 AM
PoW is an expression of value transfer (the expense of one resource to create another). I realize this is a major simplification, but if PoS can't represent some measure of GDP than it's security is irrelevant. It fails the most basic test.

With POW though is a true resource even being create to which the value is being transferred?
Funny thing about so many people in the western world is they perceive their work has to be worth something even when they create nothing of value.
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1030
Sine secretum non libertas
August 21, 2014, 02:10:33 AM
at the moment we may be forming a very well structured cup-with-handle in XMR, with a buy point of 0040.
legendary
Activity: 1876
Merit: 1000
August 21, 2014, 02:10:06 AM
Money cannot have an issuer that must be trusted.

However could a genuine trustless system even be possible?
legendary
Activity: 2282
Merit: 1050
Monero Core Team
August 21, 2014, 01:49:42 AM
Proof of cold can be used to at least mitigate if not eliminate the environmental cost and in fact to increase decentralization in a POW system. In a POW system if a use is found for the "waste" heat, and that use is only of value if decentralized, then the security of the network is still maintained. Proof of cold means putting the waste heat from proof of work to good use by displacing the energy otherwise used for space heating in cold climates. So for example a transaction in Melbourne, Australia where it is say 30C in January gets secured in Winnipeg, Canada where it is -30C in January.

Industrial mining appears to be concentrating in locations with the least expensive power and passive cooling. Increasingly, ASIC manufacturers are vertically integrating with industrial miners. The fact that mining equipment rapidly becomes obsolete means that an ASIC space heater will offset electrical heating costs for one  season at most. Then the rig is simply not worth running at all, e.g. too noisy. I have three GPU mining rigs ready to heat my Colorado mountain home should GPU-algorithm coins ever again be profitable to mine, but I doubt that I will ever take them out of storage.

PoW secures a blockchain that only needs securing because anonymous, possibly malicious, peers compete. Conventional financial networks are secured at much less expense, and the block rewards of PoW coins should be better spent elsewhere.

It does not need to offset 100% of the heating cost even if it only offsets say 10% of the heating cost the the effective energy cost of securing the network is still actually zero. Furthermore the industrial miners have the same problem of obsolescence, and more importantly are still treating the heat produced as waste. This is frame of mind question. Rather than think of an ASIC that produces waste heat we think of a space heater that uses crypto-currency mining to offset part of its operational cost. As for the noise that is a design question. There are also many conventional space heaters that are noisy.
donator
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1036
August 21, 2014, 01:32:40 AM
Money cannot have an issuer that must be trusted.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
August 21, 2014, 01:23:36 AM
It will turn out that PoW is absolutely essential. Everyone will go "a ha" and that will be the end of the debate.

(I might be a bit too optimistic...we'll see...)
This is not optimistic, this is very pessimistic.

PoW requires unbounded use of resources, which can and will scale up very much...

We might end up realising PoW is the one and only "way to do that" (though I hope not), but that would be a very grim discovery.

PoS is environmentally safe...

I hope all of you who believe this Malthusian delusion are willing to read irrefutable logic (and there are a lot of you who have been mind programmed by Rockefeller's funding of the environmentalism propaganda such as his creation of the 1978 UN Conference on Human Environment in Brazil).

Without 'wasting' (ahem consuming) energy to produce outputs of higher value, we would all still be living without fire shivering in caves.

For example, you could analogously claim that consuming too much airconditioning (turning the thermostat down too low) is wasteful, yet fact is that the colder it is (down to a reasonable threshold), the more mentally focused productive humans can typically be.

And before 2015, you will have the opportunity to learn that there is something of incredibly high value that we can do with PoW that we can't do with PoS. But I expect most of you won't even realize the observed outcome is because of PoW, even if I told you (well I already told you upthread but I assume most can't decipher what I wrote upthread) you wouldn't grasp it and you'd just attribute it to 'jibberish'.

I'm not only talking about the energy used, but also about the old miners produced and thrown away.

That can be fixed.
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1030
Sine secretum non libertas
August 21, 2014, 01:06:53 AM
I have three GPU mining rigs ready to heat my Colorado mountain home should GPU-algorithm coins ever again be profitable to mine, but I doubt that I will ever take them out of storage.
It is profitable to mine XMR.
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 501
Stephen Reed
August 21, 2014, 12:41:40 AM
PoW is an expression of value transfer (the expense of one resource to create another). I realize this is a major simplification, but if PoS can't represent some measure of GDP than it's security is irrelevant. It fails the most basic test.

My CPoS scheme will directly test this hypothesis and will certainly fail if you are right. In contrast, perhaps cryptocurrencies are valuable solely because some people think they are valuable.
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 501
Stephen Reed
August 21, 2014, 12:31:32 AM
Proof of cold can be used to at least mitigate if not eliminate the environmental cost and in fact to increase decentralization in a POW system. In a POW system if a use is found for the "waste" heat, and that use is only of value if decentralized, then the security of the network is still maintained. Proof of cold means putting the waste heat from proof of work to good use by displacing the energy otherwise used for space heating in cold climates. So for example a transaction in Melbourne, Australia where it is say 30C in January gets secured in Winnipeg, Canada where it is -30C in January.

Industrial mining appears to be concentrating in locations with the least expensive power and passive cooling. Increasingly, ASIC manufacturers are vertically integrating with industrial miners. The fact that mining equipment rapidly becomes obsolete means that an ASIC space heater will offset electrical heating costs for one  season at most. Then the rig is simply not worth running at all, e.g. too noisy. I have three GPU mining rigs ready to heat my Colorado mountain home should GPU-algorithm coins ever again be profitable to mine, but I doubt that I will ever take them out of storage.

PoW secures a blockchain that only needs securing because anonymous, possibly malicious, peers compete. Conventional financial networks are secured at much less expense, and the block rewards of PoW coins should be better spent elsewhere.
hero member
Activity: 547
Merit: 502
August 20, 2014, 10:01:17 PM
500k+ of volume and no comments on BitSharesX?  Seems people are getting in before the market peg features are rolled.
hero member
Activity: 795
Merit: 514
August 20, 2014, 09:56:36 PM
PoW is an expression of value transfer (the expense of one resource to create another). I realize this is a major simplification, but if PoS can't represent some measure of GDP than it's security is irrelevant. It fails the most basic test.
legendary
Activity: 2534
Merit: 1129
August 20, 2014, 07:08:58 PM
If the majority of work is controlled by honest nodes then the chain is safe. Not done by honest nodes, controlled by honest nodes.
With PoW an attacker might produce new miners and gain control of the network.
With PoS unless enough people sell to him their money, a "new" attacker just can't do anything.

(not implying there might not be other attack vectors)


Yes.... Also, other attack vectors and unexpected vulnerabilities are constantly turning up as algorithms and systems evolve. That is one reason for the 'newer' coins being more in demand (in general), because there is a constant search for 'fixes'.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
August 20, 2014, 06:55:20 PM
If the majority of work is controlled by honest nodes then the chain is safe. Not done by honest nodes, controlled by honest nodes.
With PoW an attacker might produce new miners and gain control of the network.
With PoS unless enough people sell to him their money, a "new" attacker just can't do anything.

(not implying there might not be other attack vectors)



1) Exchanges can and will be hacked if its worth it, see Vericoin and NXT just for an example of the last weeks.
2) Exchanges don´t even need to be hacked, a drunken worker there might just do it for fun and profit.
3) If exchanges get a nice letter from certain 3 letter agencies or just a visit and servers confiscated they have your coins too.

Both of those are nearly zero cost attacks and some people might just do it for the sake of it, because they can do it.

In case of PoW coins there would be value lost, in case of a PoS coin the whole network is endangered.
Pages:
Jump to: