Topic: The Ethereum Paradox - page 12. (Read 99889 times)

Even if you thought this was true, Eth has enormously higher verification costs than Bitcoin, so it would centralize more and faster.

Somewhat related talk with Scam-from-Beyond below:

One man can't accomplish what "Satoshi" did with such precision. It was a large group of experts. No doubt about it.

You guys who have no experience in doing something like this, love to have your James Bond fantasies. But you are completely out-of-touch with the reality of actually doing what "Satoshi" accomplished.

Smooth I suspect you've been busy doing other s/w work lately bcz you've been quiet and also because you don't totally have your mind immersed in this right now.

At 12.5 coins per block, 75 BTC per hour, and at $3000 that would be $225,000 per hour.  At 4 cents per KWH, that is 5.6 million kilowatts. Google tells that "China's power consumption in 2015 rose 0.5 percent from a year earlier to 5.550 trillion kilowatts".

That means in your scenario, Bitcoin would only be consuming one millionth of the electrical generation capacity of China. Sorry the increase in the value of Bitcoin can't overwhelm China's ability to subsidize the electricity.

And again it has to do with odds. I like to wear my tinfoil hat as anyone else but the most probable conclusion is Satoshi was one man and he was simply mistaken. Bitcoin is flawed not by design but by mistake. Not saying any cryptocoin is guaranteed to have no flaws, we will know it when they get big. Another POV, Satoshi knew Bitcoin is flawed and tends to centralization, and he launched it anyway in hopes for others to catch on and improve, as a first step. You needn't wear a tinfoil hat every day, some puzzles have more obvious than conspiracy explanations.

I agree we're all gamblers at this point, I don't think it's possible to make cryptocoins something else but a zero-sum game. It's not perfect but it beats fiat. What is not a zero-sum game?

That wasn't my halving estimate, it was at best a 5-halving estimate, but not even that, more of a hypothetical.

Even at $3000, mining might expand enough to marginalize China. That is a numbers question and we don't have the numbers.

I believe smooth's 1000x halving estimate is a little high.  I was looking at a probabalistic model of $1000, $1600, or $3200 peaks, although Realsolid claims $5000.

I'm not predicting such a price increase, though r0ach might be. It won't be globally relevant without some sort of increase in that neighborhood though. Yes, you will be able to complete your dark market drug purchases more quickly using Lightning network.

Very insightful attempt at a retort, I am impressed. Thanks. But the huge increases in scaling will come offchain with Lightning Networks and thus no mining. The Chinese mining cartel has been consulting with the core developers (i.e. Blockstream) about this issue.

The difficulty is set by the level of block reward and transaction fees times the Bitcoin price. If you are implying the price of Bitcoin will increase 1000X, then I have bridge to nowhere to sell you.

TPTB are managing their Bitcoin baby very well. And we are gullible fools.

Your incessant shit posting pictures and 1 word comments are tiring.
And so is your never ending Ethereum spam topics you make.

I would consider you to be the absolute rock bottom of intelligence on this entire fucking forum.
I would sooner have a debate about an Altcoin here with a box of Korn Flakes.
It would be a smarter conversation i am sure..

Bitcoin becoming relevant as an alternative to fiat means its value will go up 1000x or more. Even 5 halvings from now that would be a minimum of a 30x  larger mining industry. If people are thinking about reset/moon event sooner than 20 years, mining would need to be even bigger than that. Electricity in China and corrupt access to it are both limited, and both compete with other uses (including corrupt ones). So such growth would very likely would not be concentrated in China and we really have no idea what it will look like, though all kinds of likely and unlikely theories could be thrown out.

r0ach gets roasted over and over. 

Please stop painting me as a Bitcoin permabear. I merely claimed it might not have hit the bottom yet for the decline from $1000, but I never claimed it wouldn't go higher again.

And I am not 100% sure my vaporware design (with no ETA on when I might ever implement it) will solve the centralization problem, but at least it has a chance whereas the other designs don't have a chance if they also scale up. Monero's block size auto adjustment with penalty will do nothing to stop centralization if Monero is scaled up enough that it is becomes profitable to design ASICs for it. It is more difficult to design an ASIC for Monero's memory hard proof-of-work function, thus Monero can scale up more before it becomes profitable enough to design an ASIC for it. There is no way to solve the problem of centralization using a profitable PoW design. Period. Full stop. Whether an unprofitable PoW is viable and whether it would actually fix the centralization problem, is something that can't be properly peer reviewed because there is no white paper. And I don't want to go off on that diversion right now.

My criticisms against the other coins, was just to be sure that everyone admits they are just in love with gambling and not actually making any technical solutions to anything. As long as we all admit we are just gamblers, then I STFU and let us play Lotto and try to steal from each other in the zero sum game of greater fool theory of speculation. White the Chinese mining cartel is extracting $1 million a day from us via printing-coins-out-of-thin-air and soon also by sky high transaction fees. We steal from each other with speculation volatility while the oligarchs in China steal from us. Eventually all our wealth has been siphoned from us, they (TPTB) win. Which is what "Satoshi" designed Bitcoin to do to us. Period.

Satoshi isn't some man. Bitcoin was created by a secret group funded by the banksters. How can't that be obvious by now given what profitable proof-of-work does to all of us over time.


I never thought the value of Bitcoin would crash to 0. I rather think you will be forced to pay your taxes when you transact in Bitcoin by signing an output over to the appropriate authority, which will be enforced at the block chain protocol level by the Chinese mining cartel. I don't know when those capital controls will come, but my guess is after 2018, maybe later. And I think these taxes will become very high as the governments around the world are bankrupt, people love socialism, and they will need to steal the money from those who still have any.

Yes chaos such as a fragmented Internet would change many things.

Even if this were true, it does not matter. Humans will not settle on one form of money unless it has existed almost universally as money for millennia like gold and is not a human invention.

The truth is what I said earlier, no altcoin has done anything whatsoever to improve upon Bitcoin except for ring signatures and zk-snarks for anonymity.  Everything else is either fundamentally broken or just a flat out scam.

Agreed but irrelevant. If not him, then the next guy, because it is quite profitable for the corrupt to charge electricity to the collective and take profits from raping our BTC for themselves. It is just a matter of organizing the various power players such as those who authorize discounts on electricity for factories. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours, is precisely how everything is organized in China. The Chinese are masters of top-down organization.

No one here can argue that flies won't eat honey. The opportunity exists, and so it will be availed of.

The truth is in the middle.
r0ach with his superbull Bitcoin to the moon as the only coin rhetoric is one extreme POV.
Anonymint with his "all your coins are crap, only mine will work" is another extreme POV.

One probable outcome in the middle - in 2020 Bitcoin will be valuable, a bunch of other cryptocoins will have half the market share, various degrees of centralization. Gold and silver will be valuable, cryptocoins will not surpass gold and silver as a store of value but will surpass them as cross border value transfer vehicles. Fiat will be less valuable than today, in various degrees depending on the country. Fiat will not disappear as long as there are bodies of people who assume governmental powers and can declare pieces of paper money. Forget one world currency and government, human nature is power struggle. A couple big secessions will happen. Taxes will be raised, inflation will be higher. A lot of this can't happen if there is a nuclear conflict, then all bets are off.

FTFY

If someone who is well known to be mining say 10% of Bitcoins says he's going to expand and mine 30%, that might be pretty credible, but when someone is supposedly mining 1% and claims his new mine is going to mine 30%, be skeptical. Is he soliciting investors by any chance, selling cloud mining contracts, etc.?

1. I agree doing nothing is not a solution. I am trying to do something, but my design requires that there be very significant transactions since the unprofitable proof-of-work share (not a block solution!) is sent with each transaction. So if I launch the thing with nearly no adoption and just HODLers, then it can be easily attacked by botnets. Thus before I can make the CC, I need to first create something that could drive a lot of demand for the use of the CC. That is why I conceived JAMBOX. But then I realized that the concept of JAMBOX (which basically means replacing the web browser with a mobile app browser) is actually a better career choice for me to work on than a CC. It also enables me to work on creating a new programming language, which will bring me great respect+admiration amongst my peers and will also secure my finances at the tail end of my career (which I desperately need is some stability in my life at 51 and trying to recover from a 10 year illness which REKTed my life/career, 4 years acute and as well I need to pay back my meager angel investors with some gains for them if I don't create a CC or let them take investment share in JAMBOX corporation). Btw, @keean who I met recently at the Rust forum (and is now in my contacts list at my LinkedIn, so you can view his CV) is discussing with me in private collaborating on a new programming language. He has published research papers with the famous FP guru Oleg. He already has a prototype of a language he had designed and maybe we could reuse some of that for the 10 programming language features I have concisely enumerated as crucial for the next popular programming language that will eat all the others to a great extent in terms of popularity. That is an amazing accomplishment for me that a person as accomplished and well connected (in the UK!) has agreed with me that the features I listed are very much needed and not offered by any other programming language on earth. He also approves of my recent invention to solve the major computer science problem known as the Expression Problem. We agreed the best strategy is open source it and hope others will join to help us, which we think is likely given his pedigree and also the features we are targeting. So I am on a major positive upswing in my career (and also apparently/hopefully health), but this is still far away from implementing JAMBOX and then after that a CC.

2. The reason I don't want to accelerate by jumping straight to the implementation of a CC, is because:

• I'm hedging my bets in terms of where I place my effort and thus my risks of failure.
• We have time, the collapse in earnest is not until 2018. Bitcoin will continue to function and not likely be regulated with capital controls before that, although 2018 will come very fast if measured in programmer man-hours needed to complete such ambitious projects.
• I don't want to put myself in a desperate position where I need to P&D in order to be financially stable.
• The LOC required will be immense over time, and I don't want to code it all the crappy languages we have now. It is like I am restarting or resetting my career, so it is time to do it right and with the right programming language.
• If I do a CC, I want it to be something truly different and adopted by millions and hopefully a billion users. My ambitions are very high. To match those ambitions, I need to do this development in a very high quality way and draw in these extremely smart people who are outside of CC.
• Smooth can't help me as much as someone who has a high, visible pedigree because he is anonymous (note I have my eye on Paul Phillips whom I have exchange some cordial messages on mailing lists in the past and because he wants to create the "perfect" programming language and he has the kind of extrovert personality that I love, as well as probably being raw IQ smarter than myself!). Also because he will consume most of the funding because his rate is very high. it doesn't help as much to raise more money in a crowdfund if the co-developer is anonymous. And fluffypony et al are already consumed/committed to their projects. There are so many talented developers out there, but most of them see no point in working in CC; whereas, with my programming language and app browser initiatives I may be able to pull in top developers from outside of CC. The @keean result is my first confirmation of my strategy. He also a very amicable person, as well as being extremely knowledgeable about programming, design patterns, and PL design.

3. About monsterer's criticisms of my unprofitable proof-of-work design, the salient refutations are there in the last few pages of the decentralization thread where I specifically rebutted him on his point about there being no proper incentives. I am too rushed (overloaded with tasks) to go dig up the link, you all can find it if you are really interested. Essentially monsterer's argument was that the profit from mining has to be greater than the potential profit from double-spending with a 51% attack. My refutation was that a) there is no level of maximum profit from double-spending attack, because there is no limit to the value that can be transacted in a block; and b) that motivation to supply the honest proof-of-work isn't driven by profit in my design but rather because it is mandatory. And btw, did monsterer disappear? The possible weakness in my design is that the spender will merely offload the computation of the proof-of-work to a server and thus the mining hashrate becomes concentrated. But even so there is a major distinction in the control and economics of that, which I will detail in a white paper. The problem with IOTA is not that the PoW is unprofitable, but rather that the structure of a DAG does not enable a single longest chain of truth, thus afaics the only way to force convergence to consensus is to use centralized servers and checkpoints. I will explain better the mathematical criticism of Iota in the future. I don't have time for the meticulous diversions right now.

This doomsday prophecy changes nothing.  This is just reiterating what everyone already knew from day one before getting into Bitcoin, that governments have a monopoly on violence and can do things like nuke us all to death with missiles if they want to.  If they can kill everyone on the planet for fun or sport, of course they can stop any cryptocurrency that exists or will ever exist, just like they can attempt to ban or confiscate gold.

If they ban gold, you bury it in the backyard.  If they attempt to co-opt Bitcoin, you fork to new algo or let them play whack-a-mole against Bitcoin, Litecoin, Dogecoin, Monero, Vertcoin, Myriadcoin, and if all else fails....maxcoin.

You are disingenuously spreading lies and you know it.

It has been explained to you numerous times that it is not the pools that are the only point of centralization but also the mining farms. There is one cattle farmer in China who is investing in a mining farm large enough to mine 30% of all BTC that is stolen from us via printing-coins-out-of-thin-air (aka coinbase block reward) to pay miners.

Also it is entirely illogical to claim that cartels and oligarchies do not cooperate with each other, when in fact all throughout history of mankind they always do, because it is the only way they can control the pricing and reap more profit for themselves. It has already been explained to you numerous times that the Chinese mining cartel prevented the timely increase of the block size by refusing to mine on Bitcoin Classic or XT. This is because they prefer to support Blockstream's Segregated Witness which will provide much smaller and delayed block size increases, so that they can drive transaction fees sky high. Also they support Blockstream's SegWit, because it changes the Bitcoin block chain protocol in such a way (insidious soft fork versioning) as it will make it virtually impossible for anyone to stop the mining cartel from changing the protocol in the future at-will.

Thus the Chinese mining cartel is already speaking and acting as a cooperating oligarchy and they have already 51% attacked Bitcoin's protocol, when they blocked the block size increases which would have kept our transaction fees low.

This is very dangerous for our future, because it means in the future when the Chinese government says to these mining farms in China (which control more than 50% of Bitcoin's network hashrate) that they must change the protocol to require that every transaction include a signed government issued identification number or that every signed transaction must include a tax contribution to China or the world government, then the miners will have no choice but to comply because otherwise they will find their $100 millions investment in mining equipment padlocked and confiscated by the government.

What kind of delusional fantasy world do you live in DooMAD.