Topic: [SDC] ShadowCash | Welcome to the UMBRA - page 31. (Read 1289635 times)
Oh man, only 108k coins for sale on Poloniex. Go go SDC !
Update from last week, don't see it mentioned on here:
https://blog.shadowproject.io/2016/10/14/empowering-the-community-dev-update-15-october/
...
From the Cryptiplier Team.
Please note: Cryptiplier and ShadowCash are not directly affiliated.
From the Cryptiplier Team.
Please note: Cryptiplier and ShadowCash are not directly affiliated.
Scammers gonna scam. Look at his trust. People already complaining about losing money.
It seems to me that anyone offering double return on investment in only 100 days seems rather dubious imo. How exactly would the company stay above water paying out that much ROI?
...
From the Cryptiplier Team.
Please note: Cryptiplier and ShadowCash are not directly affiliated.
From the Cryptiplier Team.
Please note: Cryptiplier and ShadowCash are not directly affiliated.
Scammers gonna scam. Look at his trust. People already complaining about losing money.
extremistan: Incorrect. The top one is not poloniex, and in order to do a 51% attack you'd need well over 1.3 million coins. To acquire that much (only 220,000 are even for sale...) it would cost you over $10,000,000+. What's the point?
Quote from: vtr99
I suspect there already aren't enough coins in one place to make this type of attack possible. The largest SDC wallet is less than 7% of the total.
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/sdc/#!rich
I can think of a few PoW wallets that are around 60%.
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/sdc/#!rich
I can think of a few PoW wallets that are around 60%.
Rich list provides addresses, but if you take a look at largest wallets Top 1 could be Poloniex. That amount could be enough to gain 51 % of network weight on a "good day".
Besides the stake grinding mentioned above and other attacks that only PoS is vulnerable to, another issue is if there are only one or two exchanges controlling volume, and then an exchange gets hacked. If a hacker gets his hands on 10-50% of a PoW currency it sucks, and it's bad, but he can't attack the chain just by virtue of holding coins. This isn't the case with PoS currencies, where a hacker can basically control the blockchain if they get their hands on a large portion of the supply, either through an exchange or some other means. This led to the Vericoin/Mintpal rollback fiasco a while ago, and almost led to NXT rolling back their chain as well in one of the (many) Bter "hacks".
That's true, but if a person had control of that many PoS coins and corrupted the blockchain he would instantly make his own holdings worthless because nobody would want the coin anymore. Once a hack of that size was announced he wouldn't even have to attack the chain, people would be dumping like crazy until it's dead once they realized it was possible. if he were to buy enough coins to do this he would drive the price to the moon with his demand, very expensive for him and then what, turn it all into a shitcoin with forged blocks? Yes he could destroy the coin but he would destroy himself too, only someone very rich and insane could do it and everyone else who sold to him would profit from his loss before it happened. So I don't think that would ever happen.
Meanwhile you can get control of 50% of the BTC hash with 864165 TH. Miners are about $125/TH now, so for $108M you can control a network with a market cap of $10B. That's a 100:1 leverage, I like the odds of that happening a lot better.
Except you couldn't market buy that many miners. You'd have to like have your own chips fabbed, packaged, and setup your own warehouses to run them in, which may or may not cost more than 108M USD. But, your same logic applies, why would someone spend that much money to gain control over something that will then crash in value? Personally I think it's a helluva lot more likely to occur when some hacker can do it for (practically) free by hacking an exchange compared to someone spending hundreds of millions or more dollars creating the infrastructure to 51% Bitcoin, or in the case of other leading PoW coins like Litecoin or Monero or something maybe millions to tens of millions, still a lot more than what it costs to hack a website.
If you were Bitmain you could get that many miners, and they mine too. A PoW attacker has the advantage of not actually holding the coin, so if he destroys it he loses only his investment, which he can then use to mine something else or he can hold the blockchain hostage and make demands. A website hacker could attack PoS much more cheaply, but he would also make more money selling the coins than trashing the blockchain and ending up holding something he can't sell.
Also the community can do their part to prevent PoS attacks by staking their coins and not using the exchanges for storage. When the use of SDC exceeds the trading of SDC that will happen and there won't be enough coins in any one place to do what you are talking about.
I suspect there already aren't enough coins in one place to make this type of attack possible. The largest SDC wallet is less than 7% of the total.
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/sdc/#!rich
I can think of a few PoW wallets that are around 60%.
Besides the stake grinding mentioned above and other attacks that only PoS is vulnerable to, another issue is if there are only one or two exchanges controlling volume, and then an exchange gets hacked. If a hacker gets his hands on 10-50% of a PoW currency it sucks, and it's bad, but he can't attack the chain just by virtue of holding coins. This isn't the case with PoS currencies, where a hacker can basically control the blockchain if they get their hands on a large portion of the supply, either through an exchange or some other means. This led to the Vericoin/Mintpal rollback fiasco a while ago, and almost led to NXT rolling back their chain as well in one of the (many) Bter "hacks".
That's true, but if a person had control of that many PoS coins and corrupted the blockchain he would instantly make his own holdings worthless because nobody would want the coin anymore. Once a hack of that size was announced he wouldn't even have to attack the chain, people would be dumping like crazy until it's dead once they realized it was possible. if he were to buy enough coins to do this he would drive the price to the moon with his demand, very expensive for him and then what, turn it all into a shitcoin with forged blocks? Yes he could destroy the coin but he would destroy himself too, only someone very rich and insane could do it and everyone else who sold to him would profit from his loss before it happened. So I don't think that would ever happen.
Meanwhile you can get control of 50% of the BTC hash with 864165 TH. Miners are about $125/TH now, so for $108M you can control a network with a market cap of $10B. That's a 100:1 leverage, I like the odds of that happening a lot better.
Except you couldn't market buy that many miners. You'd have to like have your own chips fabbed, packaged, and setup your own warehouses to run them in, which may or may not cost more than 108M USD. But, your same logic applies, why would someone spend that much money to gain control over something that will then crash in value? Personally I think it's a helluva lot more likely to occur when some hacker can do it for (practically) free by hacking an exchange compared to someone spending hundreds of millions or more dollars creating the infrastructure to 51% Bitcoin, or in the case of other leading PoW coins like Litecoin or Monero or something maybe millions to tens of millions, still a lot more than what it costs to hack a website.
If you were Bitmain you could get that many miners, and they mine too. A PoW attacker has the advantage of not actually holding the coin, so if he destroys it he loses only his investment, which he can then use to mine something else or he can hold the blockchain hostage and make demands. A website hacker could attack PoS much more cheaply, but he would also make more money selling the coins than trashing the blockchain and ending up holding something he can't sell.
Also the community can do their part to prevent PoS attacks by staking their coins and not using the exchanges for storage. When the use of SDC exceeds the trading of SDC that will happen and there won't be enough coins in any one place to do what you are talking about.
Besides the stake grinding mentioned above and other attacks that only PoS is vulnerable to, another issue is if there are only one or two exchanges controlling volume, and then an exchange gets hacked. If a hacker gets his hands on 10-50% of a PoW currency it sucks, and it's bad, but he can't attack the chain just by virtue of holding coins. This isn't the case with PoS currencies, where a hacker can basically control the blockchain if they get their hands on a large portion of the supply, either through an exchange or some other means. This led to the Vericoin/Mintpal rollback fiasco a while ago, and almost led to NXT rolling back their chain as well in one of the (many) Bter "hacks".
That's true, but if a person had control of that many PoS coins and corrupted the blockchain he would instantly make his own holdings worthless because nobody would want the coin anymore. Once a hack of that size was announced he wouldn't even have to attack the chain, people would be dumping like crazy until it's dead once they realized it was possible. if he were to buy enough coins to do this he would drive the price to the moon with his demand, very expensive for him and then what, turn it all into a shitcoin with forged blocks? Yes he could destroy the coin but he would destroy himself too, only someone very rich and insane could do it and everyone else who sold to him would profit from his loss before it happened. So I don't think that would ever happen.
Meanwhile you can get control of 50% of the BTC hash with 864165 TH. Miners are about $125/TH now, so for $108M you can control a network with a market cap of $10B. That's a 100:1 leverage, I like the odds of that happening a lot better.
Except you couldn't market buy that many miners. You'd have to like have your own chips fabbed, packaged, and setup your own warehouses to run them in, which may or may not cost more than 108M USD. But, your same logic applies, why would someone spend that much money to gain control over something that will then crash in value? Personally I think it's a helluva lot more likely to occur when some hacker can do it for (practically) free by hacking an exchange compared to someone spending hundreds of millions or more dollars creating the infrastructure to 51% Bitcoin, or in the case of other leading PoW coins like Litecoin or Monero or something maybe millions to tens of millions, still a lot more than what it costs to hack a website.
Besides the stake grinding mentioned above and other attacks that only PoS is vulnerable to, another issue is if there are only one or two exchanges controlling volume, and then an exchange gets hacked. If a hacker gets his hands on 10-50% of a PoW currency it sucks, and it's bad, but he can't attack the chain just by virtue of holding coins. This isn't the case with PoS currencies, where a hacker can basically control the blockchain if they get their hands on a large portion of the supply, either through an exchange or some other means. This led to the Vericoin/Mintpal rollback fiasco a while ago, and almost led to NXT rolling back their chain as well in one of the (many) Bter "hacks".
That's true, but if a person had control of that many PoS coins and corrupted the blockchain he would instantly make his own holdings worthless because nobody would want the coin anymore. Once a hack of that size was announced he wouldn't even have to attack the chain, people would be dumping like crazy until it's dead once they realized it was possible. if he were to buy enough coins to do this he would drive the price to the moon with his demand, very expensive for him and then what, turn it all into a shitcoin with forged blocks? Yes he could destroy the coin but he would destroy himself too, only someone very rich and insane could do it and everyone else who sold to him would profit from his loss before it happened. So I don't think that would ever happen.
Meanwhile you can get control of 50% of the BTC hash with 864165 TH. Miners are about $125/TH now, so for $108M you can control a network with a market cap of $10B. That's a 100:1 leverage, I like the odds of that happening a lot better.
Besides the stake grinding mentioned above and other attacks that only PoS is vulnerable to, another issue is if there are only one or two exchanges controlling volume, and then an exchange gets hacked. If a hacker gets his hands on 10-50% of a PoW currency it sucks, and it's bad, but he can't attack the chain just by virtue of holding coins. This isn't the case with PoS currencies, where a hacker can basically control the blockchain if they get their hands on a large portion of the supply, either through an exchange or some other means. This led to the Vericoin/Mintpal rollback fiasco a while ago, and almost led to NXT rolling back their chain as well in one of the (many) Bter "hacks".
Why is it that POW coins are preferred more than POS coins? Newb here, just curious. Is it because one can profit more with POW mining? I'm holding some of both.
A few reasons, none of them really good. One is just tradition, Bitcoin is a pure PoW coin and I suppose in the days of CPU mining it was believed to be a perfect system, but now that every CPU in the world couldn't keep up with one big ASIC farm the imperfection of it is apparent.
Another is certain alternative political and social beliefs where interest/inflation are the root of all evil, it's all controlled by the you-know-whats and the rich get richer, all of that stuff.
Another is that there is less distribution of the coin when people can't mine, but I think that's a carryover also from the old days of CPU mining. Although another popular anon coin is CPU mined, we don't know how much of that is being mined by malware and distributed to just a few bad actors. It's happened to other good coins.
Another is a perceived risk of forged blocks, but I don't think that would ever happen being to do it you would need to buy an enormous amount of coin, only to summarily make your coins worthless by corrupting the blockchain and destroying the reputation of the coin.
This might be true, but I am also prefering PoS coins because:
- They don't burn such insane amount of electricity just for the sake of keeping the network secure. PoS coins are much "greener" than PoW ones; I really like that (we're fucking up the planet enough as it is)
- While the "rich get richer" is true, I still think PoS is more distribution friendly than PoW. In PoW nowadays, you need a massive budget to buy mining equipment (ASICs) and keep it running (electricity) to mine coins. In PoS, you just directly buy coins and that's it. I think this is more fair for people (meaning that the entry barrier to start mining PoW coins is really high and costly).
- Regarding the inflation – I don't think it's such a big problem, when it's stable. If devs could change PoS rewards (inflation) as they would please, that would be bad of course. But this is not the case.
All in agreement. While they say PoS creates inequality of access, there is also inequality of access to mining equipment and cheap electricity. Although a CPU mine eliminates a lot of that, if Monero were to get big enough how long do you think it would take to make ASICs to mine that too starting the arms race all over again?
Interesting thing about SDC PoSv3 is that not every coin gets the stake so it is inflation for some uses, interest for others. The people who leave their coins on exchanges for rapid trading are paying interest to those who hold on their own machines, as are the people who hold them as SDT or actively spend them. Seems fair to me, the coin has value and value doesn't come without a price. It's about 7.5% overall return on staked coins now, subtract the SDC 2% inflation and you get 5.5% return before fiat inflation, not a bad investment even if SDC doesn't rise at all relative to fiat.
We can also take into consideration that you hardly earn anything on fiat currency held by banks and other institutions. In almost every case you are losing money due to inflation and ongoing worldwide currency debasement. SDC is volatile, but it compares very favorably to almost any other investment over the longer term. The more debt governments around the world generate, the more likely that trend will accelerate.
For example DB is losing nearly $6 per share, $1.38 billion shares outstanding... A loss of $8.28 billion for the year. DB holds between $40 trillion to $73 trillion in bad debt depending on what source you choose to believe. Roughly 5 times Lehman Bros. Somehow I don't see this working out, and eventually it will lead to another 2008 style crisis. The bigger the world's financial problems get, the more SDC will benefit.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/german-government-has-ruled-out-state-help-for-deutsche-bank-1476459873
http://quotes.wsj.com/DB
Why is it that POW coins are preferred more than POS coins? Newb here, just curious. Is it because one can profit more with POW mining? I'm holding some of both.
A few reasons, none of them really good. One is just tradition, Bitcoin is a pure PoW coin and I suppose in the days of CPU mining it was believed to be a perfect system, but now that every CPU in the world couldn't keep up with one big ASIC farm the imperfection of it is apparent.
Another is certain alternative political and social beliefs where interest/inflation are the root of all evil, it's all controlled by the you-know-whats and the rich get richer, all of that stuff.
Another is that there is less distribution of the coin when people can't mine, but I think that's a carryover also from the old days of CPU mining. Although another popular anon coin is CPU mined, we don't know how much of that is being mined by malware and distributed to just a few bad actors. It's happened to other good coins.
Another is a perceived risk of forged blocks, but I don't think that would ever happen being to do it you would need to buy an enormous amount of coin, only to summarily make your coins worthless by corrupting the blockchain and destroying the reputation of the coin.
This might be true, but I am also prefering PoS coins because:
- They don't burn such insane amount of electricity just for the sake of keeping the network secure. PoS coins are much "greener" than PoW ones; I really like that (we're fucking up the planet enough as it is)
- While the "rich get richer" is true, I still think PoS is more distribution friendly than PoW. In PoW nowadays, you need a massive budget to buy mining equipment (ASICs) and keep it running (electricity) to mine coins. In PoS, you just directly buy coins and that's it. I think this is more fair for people (meaning that the entry barrier to start mining PoW coins is really high and costly).
- Regarding the inflation – I don't think it's such a big problem, when it's stable. If devs could change PoS rewards (inflation) as they would please, that would be bad of course. But this is not the case.
All in agreement. While they say PoS creates inequality of access, there is also inequality of access to mining equipment and cheap electricity. Although a CPU mine eliminates a lot of that, if Monero were to get big enough how long do you think it would take to make ASICs to mine that too starting the arms race all over again?
Interesting thing about SDC PoSv3 is that not every coin gets the stake so it is inflation for some uses, interest for others. The people who leave their coins on exchanges for rapid trading are paying interest to those who hold on their own machines, as are the people who hold them as SDT or actively spend them. Seems fair to me, the coin has value and value doesn't come without a price. It's about 7.5% overall return on staked coins now, subtract the SDC 2% inflation and you get 5.5% return before fiat inflation, not a bad investment even if SDC doesn't rise at all relative to fiat.
SDCoin put a tweet up about upcoming community news... a few days back. Is there any news on the news??? I am very curious. Anybody guess what it's about. Can we expect a version of Market Place to be released, or is that still some time off?
Why is it that POW coins are preferred more than POS coins? Newb here, just curious. Is it because one can profit more with POW mining? I'm holding some of both.
A few reasons, none of them really good. One is just tradition, Bitcoin is a pure PoW coin and I suppose in the days of CPU mining it was believed to be a perfect system, but now that every CPU in the world couldn't keep up with one big ASIC farm the imperfection of it is apparent.
Another is certain alternative political and social beliefs where interest/inflation are the root of all evil, it's all controlled by the you-know-whats and the rich get richer, all of that stuff.
Another is that there is less distribution of the coin when people can't mine, but I think that's a carryover also from the old days of CPU mining. Although another popular anon coin is CPU mined, we don't know how much of that is being mined by malware and distributed to just a few bad actors. It's happened to other good coins.
Another is a perceived risk of forged blocks, but I don't think that would ever happen being to do it you would need to buy an enormous amount of coin, only to summarily make your coins worthless by corrupting the blockchain and destroying the reputation of the coin.
This might be true, but I am also prefering PoS coins because:
- They don't burn such insane amount of electricity just for the sake of keeping the network secure. PoS coins are much "greener" than PoW ones; I really like that (we're fucking up the planet enough as it is)
- While the "rich get richer" is true, I still think PoS is more distribution friendly than PoW. In PoW nowadays, you need a massive budget to buy mining equipment (ASICs) and keep it running (electricity) to mine coins. In PoS, you just directly buy coins and that's it. I think this is more fair for people (meaning that the entry barrier to start mining PoW coins is really high and costly).
- Regarding the inflation – I don't think it's such a big problem, when it's stable. If devs could change PoS rewards (inflation) as they would please, that would be bad of course. But this is not the case.
+1
I remember back in 2013 when I got my 1st $1,000 electric bill! I remember thinking it was insane, and couldn't last. At the time it was easy to make a fortune mining with racks full of computers loaded with graphics cards, but parts of the house were over 100F.
For a long time I was highly resistant to coins that couldn't be mined. It is now easy to see coins like SDC are the future of crypto.
Why is it that POW coins are preferred more than POS coins? Newb here, just curious. Is it because one can profit more with POW mining? I'm holding some of both.
A few reasons, none of them really good. One is just tradition, Bitcoin is a pure PoW coin and I suppose in the days of CPU mining it was believed to be a perfect system, but now that every CPU in the world couldn't keep up with one big ASIC farm the imperfection of it is apparent.
Another is certain alternative political and social beliefs where interest/inflation are the root of all evil, it's all controlled by the you-know-whats and the rich get richer, all of that stuff.
Another is that there is less distribution of the coin when people can't mine, but I think that's a carryover also from the old days of CPU mining. Although another popular anon coin is CPU mined, we don't know how much of that is being mined by malware and distributed to just a few bad actors. It's happened to other good coins.
Another is a perceived risk of forged blocks, but I don't think that would ever happen being to do it you would need to buy an enormous amount of coin, only to summarily make your coins worthless by corrupting the blockchain and destroying the reputation of the coin.
This might be true, but I am also prefering PoS coins because:
- They don't burn such insane amount of electricity just for the sake of keeping the network secure. PoS coins are much "greener" than PoW ones; I really like that (we're fucking up the planet enough as it is)
- While the "rich get richer" is true, I still think PoS is more distribution friendly than PoW. In PoW nowadays, you need a massive budget to buy mining equipment (ASICs) and keep it running (electricity) to mine coins. In PoS, you just directly buy coins and that's it. I think this is more fair for people (meaning that the entry barrier to start mining PoW coins is really high and costly).
- Regarding the inflation – I don't think it's such a big problem, when it's stable. If devs could change PoS rewards (inflation) as they would please, that would be bad of course. But this is not the case.
Why is it that POW coins are preferred more than POS coins? Newb here, just curious. Is it because one can profit more with POW mining? I'm holding some of both.
A few reasons, none of them really good. One is just tradition, Bitcoin is a pure PoW coin and I suppose in the days of CPU mining it was believed to be a perfect system, but now that every CPU in the world couldn't keep up with one big ASIC farm the imperfection of it is apparent.
Another is certain alternative political and social beliefs where interest/inflation are the root of all evil, it's all controlled by the you-know-whats and the rich get richer, all of that stuff.
Another is that there is less distribution of the coin when people can't mine, but I think that's a carryover also from the old days of CPU mining. Although another popular anon coin is CPU mined, we don't know how much of that is being mined by malware and distributed to just a few bad actors. It's happened to other good coins.
Another is a perceived risk of forged blocks, but I don't think that would ever happen being to do it you would need to buy an enormous amount of coin, only to summarily make your coins worthless by corrupting the blockchain and destroying the reputation of the coin.
Why is it that POW coins are preferred more than POS coins? Newb here, just curious. Is it because one can profit more with POW mining? I'm holding some of both.
Proof-of-stake coins, especially those that aren't hybrid PoW/PoS, are considered by a lot of very smart and influential people to be vulnerable to attacks that aren't feasible with PoW, such as stake grinding.
Why is it that POW coins are preferred more than POS coins? Newb here, just curious. Is it because one can profit more with POW mining? I'm holding some of both.
Parity with Monero Price at 0.011 soon
Get your buys in!!!
Get your buys in!!!
I have no doubt SDC will blow past 0.011 BTC and beyond in the not too distant future.
Jump to: