Topic: [SHOCK] Core dev and Blockstream employee tells bitcoin users to use fiat! - page 4. (Read 6040 times)

Really, who would have thought that!! Did you expect miners to mine for fun and make no profit? Perhaps you think only yourself is allowed to make a profit?

This constant attack on miners making profit is the same as workers attacking bosses for making a profit. And the workers forget that profits means more capital investment thus securing jobs.

Too many hypocritical damn socialists, green with envy, on this board.

It wasn't such a bad idea , it went up 2x in the past year:
https://poloniex.com/exchange#btc_nxt

THen it morphed into ARDOR, which also went up recently:
https://poloniex.com/exchange#btc_ardr

But side issue, I am not using those any more anyway. However you have NEM which is like NXT, that just hit big, 2 billion market cap. 4th largest coin.

So you can't say that POS sucks, it is good, but it has to have good rules to not have the problems that certain coins have.

---

I don't even care about BTC politics, whatever happens Bitcoin should survive it. If it  doesn't, than that proves that BTC is not even decentralized enough to survive.

How can you have people pulling strings in a supposedly decentralized community? Or are people stupid enough to fall for it? In either case this is the test of BTC.

If BTC fails, then that only shows that BTC was too weak to begin with. LTC is the same. If they destroy BTC, LTC could not resist it either.


You must include the community into the Voting, as per Dash model. Have all the people vote, that is how you do it.

No fucking backdoor meetings, and HongKong agreements, just let the users decide.

sorry to say this but im still laughing at you about your NXT from the early days...

anyway

bitcoins PoW mining is not insecure nor is it exploited... asic boost is much the same as the GPU days of ATI(openCL) vs Geforce(cuda)

if you wash away the racial fud and the bad maths..
its not about jihan vs the world, its about DCG portfolio having the devs on strings. having the main merchant tools on strings, but no matter how many free lunches and all inclusive weekends they offer, cant get pools to tie themselves to the DCG portfolio puppet strings, bar BTCC and a couple other small ones

so DCG/blockstream are at war blaming antpool for not joining the cartel.
even though antpool does not account for the 68% nay/abstainers... only 16%

again i see DCG jumping ship over to litecoin and getting bitpay/coinbase to flip to LTC dominance where devs/merchants and asics are under the DCG portfolio

Wanna elaborate on that? Because I have heard this argument before,but I have never got any explanation as to why.

And by the way pre-mine is not an argument. Bitcoin was also premined by Satoshi and many early miners, remember?

So the coins are just as centralized as Bitcoin.


But Bitcoin has tons of spikes in node count, looks like many people were trying to Sybil attack Bitcoin:




So the Masternode argument is invalid too. Bitcoin can be easily Sybil attacked.

Dash is yet another overhyped scam coin

I don't really know how perverted your reasoning should be even to assume that someone who has to pay like 150 thousand dollars just to become a master node would not be a "shameless profiteer" by definition.  Honestly, I don't know either what you refer to by "the best interest in their hearts", but, as to me, this interest wouldn't be very far from "shameless profiteering" any way you look at it. I'd venture a guess and say that you still lack basic understanding of real life, and it looks like it is not curable (no offense intended). Other than that, I wouldn't call Dash transactions cheap, Litecoin is certainly cheaper (and Dash rhymes with trash, basically the same vowels and consonants)

I never thought that more hashrate means more secure networks

I give you the benefit of doubt since I assume that I may be wrong after all but it seems that it is you who is confusing something here. Methinks, I can prove very easily that more hashrate doesn't in the least make the Bitcoin network more secure. A very simple proof really, say, if there is just one miner with infinite hashpower, will the network be secure? As to me, it is a gazillion of small miners with more or less equal hashrate power that actually make the network truly decentralized and thus genuinely secure. With just one miner, it will be totally insecure. Basically, everyone in this network would depend on this miner's whims and quirks

Well for once POS coins are better, I have been telling people since 2014 that POS coins like NXT and others are better ,but everybody was just making fun of me.

Who is laughting now?

Secondly, DASH is better because in Dash Nodes actually have a voice, and are not just like free webserver sybil attacks as with Bitcoin.


You have to pay 1000 dash to be a master-node, so a lot of sybil attack can be filtered out. It is better that way. The nodes have the best interest in their hearts. While miners are just shameless profiteers anyways.

I'd just go with Dash. Litecoin sucks just as BTC.

Won't Dash and Litecoin experience the same problems once miners start competing for difficulty? What would stop them? Or is the grand plan to simply phase in a new PoW coin every couple of years?

Lol, I am just so glad that I have quit Bitcoin about 6 months ago. I just couldn't take the bullshit in this community.

Well I think DASH is the future not Bitcoin with 500$ tx fees. I'd rather just use Wire Transfer. It only takes 3-4 days isn't it? Well BTC transaction will soon take 1 week to settle, ahahaha 

Go use Litecoin, it's the same shit as Bitcoin. Or use Dash that actually has decent fees and a more open minded community.

Because I read what you wrote like: "A coin wouldn't want too much hashrate because that will bring mining farms. So we threat people to move to PoS when they mine us too much" however at the same time a PoW coin would want hashrate because more hashrate = faster transactions and more secure networks.

And where is paradox here?

Miners in the PoW want profits (after all, everyone wants profits), but the threat of a PoW coin turning into a PoS coin will necessarily keep mining more or less decentralized. If it becomes too centralized, then this coin will just move from a PoW algo to a PoS algo, and miners will lose their investments without which centralization is not possible (though I still think that such a system would still be sustainable in the PoW mode of operation without inevitably going for PoS). The latter would hold even truer with coin getting more recognition and higher value. The bottom line is that this possibility will prevent miners from investing too much, which, in its turn, will keep the network properly decentralized via more low-cost miners (PoS style miners). Even under the PoW model many people run full nodes to support the network, so we still have the same common denominator for both models

Yes, and PoS does that automatically, just when people use their wallet.

In PoW the motivation is profit. Your principle works as long as a coin is new and ran by a rather small community of people that support the coin because they like it. As soon as the coin gains marketcap and value, more and more professional miners will jump onto the bandwagon.

You have neither of that in PoS coins. They will be supported just by using it normally.

So all it took was a small amount of $55M for them to bring down a currency with $40B+ market share? that's really cheap mate.

Better for them to start bribing altcoin devs now that they are small compared to Bitcoin.I can guarantee you that Tillkoeln aka

A developer behind most of the shitcoins listed on yoshit would take a couple hundreds bucks and will immediately shut down all the coins.

Now that's a bought dev not the Core's contributors.

There seems to be a bit of misunderstanding on your part

I never said about making mining profitable to anyone. What you say is only your assumption, not my actual point nor my words. In fact, I always said and continue to stick to that opinion that mining should be a sort of natural outcome for users which are transacting with a given coin. Basically, it is how societies evolve despite being packed with die-hard egoists and profiteers. If people want to transact faster with that coin, they should support the network themselves, so it is a win-win situation for everyone. In my view, there is some deep philosophical and existential harmony and rightness in supporting the network for the sake of using it. In other words, this is the job done right

But what can they really do?

We have already seen Jihan Wu eating his words and pride miserably after SW and LN got activated in Litecoin despite his open opposition to these updates. If "regular" miners don't mine the block which would activate the PoS algorithm for a certain coin, someone else will do just that on his desktop computer or via an old ASIC miner. After all, isn't that what PoS is all about? I'm not very familiar with technical details how such things are done or activated, but isn't that what the idea of "nuclear option" refers to?

Yes but that's still the thing what also Decentradical mentioned: You're basically saying that you don't want your mining to become so profitable that large pools will want mine your network. Which leads into a paradox, on the one hand you want as much hashingpower as possible to have a secure coin and on the other hand you don't want that hashingpower since pools will centralize that power when its profitable enough for them. Which is awkward.

Every attempt so far to create ASIC proof algorithms has become void as soon as the algorithm was used in an accepted coin. It happened with Scrypt and later with X11 when Dash became valuable enouigh. Every other PoW-algo would follow when the demand is there. So you will always play a game of hunting the rabbit with the creators of ASICs and mining farms.

All that effort, that waste of energy and resources and dangers of centralization could be prevented with just going PoS.


So you better have a miner running 24/7?
Besides, you don't need to have it running 24/7, it's still staking when you have it on for some hours per day, just less than 24/7. And if the coin is used enough so that it actually has value, then there will be always enough people having their wallet on.

And there is literally no serious coin that can be mined solo anymore. You always need pools even with the GPU-algos because there are GPU-farms too. With PoS you are always mining solo.

the litecoin ASIC is in the barry silbert portfolio control.. just to add another layer to the list
LTCASIC -> DCG

my mindset is blockstream/barry silbert should move over to litecoin. after all then the asic control would be under their cartel control.
let them turn litecoin into the the corporate capitalist crap cartel driven currency..

then the rest of us can concentrate of moving bitcoin back to its original principles
independent diverse decentralised peer to peer network

But you should not forget about risks involved

If mining becomes too centralized (say, coming close to what we see in Bitcoin now), the users may check the nuclear option and switch to a PoS paradigm. My point is that Litecoin, after successful activation of SW and LN, may still remain a PoW coin without being too centralized even if its value surges over time. How come? Because miners themselves will be self-limiting. It is the same with many parasites in nature, if they propagate without limit, they will kill both the host and themselves

No, the point is that if a PoW coin becomes valuable enough, farms will centralize hashing power. With PoS this can not happen at all.

So, PoW: the more users the greater the danger for centralisation by farms because mining becomes more profitable.
PoS: The more users the better the security because the more people will stake their balances.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

Other than that, I don't see how centralizing hashing power in few hands can be a good security approach at all. If we assume that proper decentralization does contribute to higher security, then yes, "supporting" network which ends up with mining centralization should evidently be frowned upon and lead to exactly that (even if centralization was not a goal). But this has nothing to do with someone playing dirty but rather with PoW deficiencies as such. Regarding switching to PoS, there can be a host of reasons why that might not be an optimal strategy. In short, I don't know