The consensus dead end. - page 2. | Bitcointalksearch.org

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: tromp on April 30, 2021, 02:56:50 PM

Indeed. I believe a capped supply PoW chain can only survive by developing a fee market, which requires constraining the block size. This also help decentralization as smaller chains require fewer resources to run a full node.

A simple tail emission allows a chain to remain secure without the challenge of developing a fee market.

Which forces the Bitcoin Cash miners to mine smaller blocks, but the worse situation is, the mining cartel controls what size of blocks to mine, which could become an attack vector. It was smart for the Core developers to keep the limit, and keep the block size regulated.

tromp

legendary

Activity: 988

Merit: 1108

Indeed. I believe a capped supply PoW chain can only survive by developing a fee market, which requires constraining the block size. This also help decentralization as smaller chains require fewer resources to run a full node.

A simple tail emission allows a chain to remain secure without the challenge of developing a fee market.

aliashraf

legendary

Activity: 1456

Merit: 1174

Always remember the cause!

Quote from: tromp on April 30, 2021, 01:17:32 PM

I think Bitcoin Cash is not sustainable as the block subsidy keeps halving and there's not enough low-fee transactions to compensate, making the block reward too low to provide the necessary security...

Good point and it needs to be understood in the lights of centralization problem.

BCH folks could argue that it can handle more transactions and once it is adopted, there would be enough fees accumulated for miners to compensate for higher difficulties and more security which is a wrong argument because more transactions means larger blocks and large blocks are not feasible for consensus to be reached unless the number of parties involved is reduced properly. The fact that currently BCH is not experiencing a considerable force towards centralization compared to Bitcoin is merely a result of another fact: its blockchain is not loaded.

So, for BCH it is the dilemma:
As a coin with capped supply and halving, it desperately needs more transactions to survive while due to its basic design flaw as a big block coin it is doomed to centralization once it achieves high transaction levels.

tromp

legendary

Activity: 988

Merit: 1108

I think Bitcoin Cash is not sustainable as the block subsidy keeps halving and there's not enough low-fee transactions to compensate, making the block reward too low to provide the necessary security...

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

I don't have anything to respond you. It seems that you're prejudiced about Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash. Although, I'll have to inform you that there's something unique on Bitcoin. That something is what makes it special and different from any other cryptocurrency. It has everyone's agreement.

Metal Brain

newbie

Activity: 19

Merit: 1

Bitcoin Cash overtook Litecoin in market cap for 10th place.
As it moves up to 9th and then 8th maybe the people here engaging in "group think" will see I am right.
Hypothetical vulnerabilities are far from convincing. That is true of all cryptocurrencies.

I'll let Bitcoin Cash's performance speak for itself. While most people on here will let themselves be fooled by their confirmation bias support group the smart people will buy Bitcoin Cash before it moves up to the top 5 in market cap and eventually #2

Are you all waiting for it to be too late? Every transaction leads to an increase in market cap. Low transaction fees lead to more transactions. Hello! Ignore flawless logic at your own risk of losing out on a great deal.

Bitcoin Cash is NOT centralized. It is merely less decentralized than Bitcoin. The lying and the condoning of that lie says a lot about the lack of honesty from Bitcoin loyalists on here. You can resume your groupthink or you can buy Bitcoin Cash and get a great price. You all like money, right?

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: Metal Brain on April 28, 2021, 08:07:08 PM

NANO does not limit inflation like Bitcoin Cash does. Another poster here seems to think decentralization is all good, but that may make reaching consensus more difficult and be a problem. Bitcoin Cash is better able to evolve from consensus without that difficulty.

Decentralization in the context that it’s better for the network to scale out to overshoot security, and strengthen Bitcoin’s main value proposition. Censorship-resistance.

Quote

Despite Bitcoin Cash's being less decentralized no major security problems have been found to prove it is a problem in the short term. The long term future of all decentralized coin is in question in reality.

Because attackers probably think it’s not worth to attack it.

Quote

If decentralization is so important why is nobody mentioning Cardano? Cardano claims to be the most decentralized coin, contrary to what Black hat stated. Is it a false claim or is Bitcoin not really the most decentralized coin?

Laughable.

tromp

legendary

Activity: 988

Merit: 1108

Quote from: philipma1957 on April 29, 2021, 07:53:47 AM

But I do like the idea that 1 year of added Doge Coins in 100 years is just 1 % inflation

That's the case for Grin, with its pure linear emission of 1 per second forever.

Quote

compared to 1 year of added Doge coins now is over 12% (A quick estimate off top of my head)

Not the case for Dogecoin, which had a 20x bigger reward in its first year, so that inflation was down to 5% for the 2nd year and is now closer to 3%.

philipma1957

legendary

Activity: 4158

Merit: 8049

'The right to privacy matters'

Quote from: tromp on April 29, 2021, 07:01:13 AM

Quote from: philipma1957 on April 29, 2021, 06:31:06 AM

DOGE can handle some aspects of being a dollar bill so to speak. Its inflationary nature is much like that of a Dollar bill.

It's very different from fiat, as it is disinflationary. And not that much different from Bitcoin, as I argue in

https://john-tromp.medium.com/a-case-for-using-soft-total-supply-1169a188d153

It just has a much slower emission, taking 81 years to reach 1% inflation, compared to 16 years with Bitcoin.

Interesting argument. Have to agree with you that down the road the flat 1 block per minute add very little new coins percentage wise.

Disagree a bit with the BTC lost coin concept as I suspect much like abandoned bank accounts there will be claw back on abandoned coins.

Maybe 2059 or 2049 Any 2009 abandoned address will kick back into awards pool.

But I do like the idea that 1 year of added Doge Coins in 100 years is just 1 % inflation compared to 1 year of added Doge coins now is over 12% (A quick estimate off top of my head)

tromp

legendary

Activity: 988

Merit: 1108

Quote from: philipma1957 on April 29, 2021, 06:31:06 AM

DOGE can handle some aspects of being a dollar bill so to speak. Its inflationary nature is much like that of a Dollar bill.

It's very different from fiat, as it is disinflationary. And not that much different from Bitcoin, as I argue in

https://john-tromp.medium.com/a-case-for-using-soft-total-supply-1169a188d153

It just has a much slower emission, taking 81 years to reach 1% inflation, compared to 16 years with Bitcoin.

ABCbits

legendary

Activity: 2870

Merit: 7490

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: Metal Brain on April 27, 2021, 07:03:59 PM

People will turn to Bitcoin Cash eventually.

I doubt it, altcoin such as NANO are far more attractive to people which have far lower block time (means faster confirmation) and very low fee.

Additionally, 51% attack also possible Bitcoin Cash and other PoW-based cryptocurrency. If Bitcoin actually attacked by 51% attack, i expect most PoW-based cryptocurrency (especially if it's use SHA-256) will lose it's popularity.

philipma1957

legendary

Activity: 4158

Merit: 8049

'The right to privacy matters'

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Metal Brain on April 28, 2021, 08:07:08 PM

NANO does not limit inflation like Bitcoin Cash does.

It's only example, obviously there are downside which i didn't mention.

Quote from: Metal Brain on April 28, 2021, 08:07:08 PM

Another poster here seems to think decentralization is all good, but that may make reaching consensus more difficult and be a problem.

I agree, it's trade off. But people are free to choose between coin with more decentralization or easier consensus.

Or inflationary such as DOGE vs Noninflationary BTC

at OP I have a sticky on methods that can be used to create high fees for BTC

BTC has simply morphed into a 10000 USD T-Bill it is a store of value.
Possibly due to the fact that the mining of golden Astroids is technically feasible.
Thus gold may become very common more like Copper.

So anyone with large gold reserves and steady income coming in may want to divest into BTC to store large wealth.

DOGE can handle some aspects of being a dollar bill so to speak. Its inflationary nature is much like that of a Dollar bill. It does 10 blocks in ten minutes which allows for it to handle 10x the transactions that BTC can handle (on the blockchain)
It is very well protected by hard iron gear.

To me BTC will simple not move small numbers on the blockchain. Yeah some multiple layers will allow for it to move so to speak but it won't be a 'true' cash. Much like you do not go into a grocery store with a 10,000 dollar t-bill or a 10,000 dollar savings bond.

It is obvious that others have caught on to moving wealth with Doge. As it is now a 31 cent coin.
It does not half and is more like the Dollar bill than BTC is.

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

Quote from: Metal Brain on April 28, 2021, 08:07:08 PM

Another poster here seems to think decentralization is all good, but that may make reaching consensus more difficult and be a problem.

We already have centralized currencies that are working A LOT better then centralized cryptocurrencies. The existence of a centralized cryptocurrency makes no sense.

Quote

Bitcoin Cash is better able to evolve from consensus without that difficulty.

So does PayPal and VISA and ...

Quote

Despite Bitcoin Cash's being less decentralized no major security problems have been found to prove it is a problem in the short term.

3 major security flaws:
EDA: difficulty manipulation
Fork at will multiple times to change the protocol without caring what everyone else thinks
Successful 51% attacks to reverse blocks that the centralized controllers of bcash didn't like.

Quote

If decentralization is so important why is nobody mentioning Cardano?

This is not a coin comparison topic but Cardano also has a lot of traces of centralization. Starting from its ICO-premine.

Metal Brain

newbie

Activity: 19

Merit: 1

NANO does not limit inflation like Bitcoin Cash does. Another poster here seems to think decentralization is all good, but that may make reaching consensus more difficult and be a problem. Bitcoin Cash is better able to evolve from consensus without that difficulty. Despite Bitcoin Cash's being less decentralized no major security problems have been found to prove it is a problem in the short term. The long term future of all decentralized coin is in question in reality.
If decentralization is so important why is nobody mentioning Cardano? Cardano claims to be the most decentralized coin, contrary to what Black hat stated. Is it a false claim or is Bitcoin not really the most decentralized coin?

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: Metal Brain on April 27, 2021, 07:03:59 PM

It would destroy confidence in Bitcoin and that is enough. If you are talking about a hard fork say so. No need to beat around the bush.

Destroy what? The total Hashing Power of Bitcoin assures that it’s the network/protocol safest to HODL value.

Quote

The rising transaction fees are a problem. It is an effective limit on growth in the long term. Small transactions are already impractical. People will turn to Bitcoin Cash eventually. A 51% attack on Bitcoin isn't really necessary. Bitcoin will become weighted down by it's own increasing transaction fees. Fine for buying a Tesla, but anything less than $200 is just plain stupid. Might as well use your Mastercard. It will save you money.

I HOPE Bitcoin Cash WILL have more than Bitcoin’s daily transactions to teach, and prove in practice, how flawed the design decisions were made.

Quote

Bitcoin is over rated.

Your opinon, but it chugs along and will live longer than Bitcoin Cash, simply because of the choices made by the developers.

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

Quote from: Metal Brain on April 27, 2021, 07:03:59 PM

People will turn to Bitcoin Cash eventually.

Alternative to bitcoin (a decentralized currency with immutable blockchain) is not bitcoin cash (a centralized garbage with a mutable blockchain). Not to mention that it is the exact copy of bitcoin that suffers from the same scaling issues.
If people some day turn away from bitcoin they will seek an actual alternative that provides them with the same characteristics such as being decentralized, immutable and have a better scaling tactic.

Quote

Might as well use your Mastercard. It will save you money.

If you think the only concern when it comes to using bitcoin versus mastercard is the fees then discussing things further with you is pointless.

Metal Brain

newbie

Activity: 19

Merit: 1

It would destroy confidence in Bitcoin and that is enough. If you are talking about a hard fork say so. No need to beat around the bush.

The rising transaction fees are a problem. It is an effective limit on growth in the long term. Small transactions are already impractical. People will turn to Bitcoin Cash eventually. A 51% attack on Bitcoin isn't really necessary. Bitcoin will become weighted down by it's own increasing transaction fees. Fine for buying a Tesla, but anything less than $200 is just plain stupid. Might as well use your Mastercard. It will save you money.

Bitcoin is over rated.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: Metal Brain on April 26, 2021, 04:58:38 AM

Are you claiming a 51% attack cannot result in double spending? There are other concerns as well.

I am claiming that it isn’t that simple, and it’s very impossible for Bitcoin with the current hasing power that’s securing it. How much would a bad-actor spend for one double spend, then get pushed out of the network? The bad-actors will be rewarded with Bitcoin if they were honest.

Quote

https://www.thestreet.com/investing/bitcoin/bitcoin-worst-case-scenarios-14467541

Quote

This forum seems to be plagued with "group think" and it is being enforced with censorship. I created a thread called "High transaction fees and how it could limit the growth of Bitcoin and it was deleted. Seems that one thread was a threat to peoples "confirmation bias".

This is just a confirmation bias support group and it is terrified of info about high transaction fees. That is the real fud.

Then prove your 51% attack in practice.

Metal Brain

newbie

Activity: 19

Merit: 1

Are you claiming a 51% attack cannot result in double spending? There are other concerns as well.

https://www.thestreet.com/investing/bitcoin/bitcoin-worst-case-scenarios-14467541

This forum seems to be plagued with "group think" and it is being enforced with censorship. I created a thread called "High transaction fees and how it could limit the growth of Bitcoin and it was deleted. Seems that one thread was a threat to peoples "confirmation bias".

This is just a confirmation bias support group and it is terrified of info about high transaction fees. That is the real fud.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: Metal Brain on April 22, 2021, 09:17:58 AM

"This opens another discussion, again. There are surely altcoins that process transactions faster, such as Litecoin with 2.5 minutes per block. The fact that someone chose 10 minutes back in 2009 isn't a non-sense randomly-made decision."

What is the advantage to choosing 10 minutes instead of a faster rate?

What advantage does the shorter durations between blocks if it is less secure than Bitcoin? I don’t know the exact calculation, but one confirmation is worth how many confirmations in Litecoin? It’s about the assurances of settlement, not speed.

Quote

I don't think you understand what is beneficial to central bankers. It is beneficial to sabotage Bitcoin even if it costs them billions they will never recover. Destroying competition by wasting billions is not a waste if preserving the dominance of the US dollar will insure 100's of Trillions will keep rolling in from the inflation tax. You need to remember the US dollar is the world reserve currency. They are taxing 80% of the world with inflation!

You say sabotage, but the Core developers have made the most conservative design-decisions. Hard forking to bigger blocks, and risking decentralization/security is the sabotage.

Quote

A previous poster on here said the NSA created the backbone of the bitcoin network with backdoor vulnerabilities. Perhaps they don't need to go through the expense of a 51% attack. They can pull the plug whenever they want. Heck, the establishment probably created it and own most of the bitcoin and are just doing a big pump and dump scheme.

LAUGHABLE FUD.

Topic: The consensus dead end. - page 2. (Read 1356 times)