Topic: The Flipening when? 51% Devexed Attack (Read 1804 times)

You are arguing that PoW is wasteful, which is irrelevant.
It was designed to be energy expense/conversion, since it mimics our
current understanding of physics. PoW is based on thermodynamics.

You then stated that PoS is superior, which is unproven and irrelevant to the
original argument about altcoins, which you are no longer arguing for and
instead have gone onto an argument about why PoW is bad (ignoring that
most altcoins are PoW).

What are the universal laws that PoS is secured upon?



No, you ignored what I wrote.

The centralization is natural and can happen to all unregulated PoW tokens at early points in their
lifetimes. There are no known mechanisms that exists that can prevent such now. It is an inevitability.
This centralization only comes about due to the location of technology and power manufacturing.
Over time, technology and power becomes cheaper and common and gets disbursed throughout
society. At that point in time, civilians in their homes will be able to manufacture their own chips
based on the schematics they find on the internet. When that occurs, civilians will be able to compete
with large centralizing manufacturers, who will become obsolete and eventually go out of business.
You ignore that Bitcoin subsidy mining will occur till 2140. You actually believe there will only be one
centralized entity at that point in time?

In comparison, PoS is bad because over longer periods of time, centralization will occur. In theory,
the centralizing forces are oppose of that in PoW tokens. As Bitcoin mining becomes less centralizing,
PoS coins staking becomes more centralized. PoS is a fine design for short term coin lifetimes, but bad
for long term. If there is nothing lost or converted, there is nothing gained. PoS is an illusion not
intended for security intensive systems, but for passive interest bearing ponzis. The new coins do
not come from the laws of physics but from a mechanism that violates the laws of this universe.
It is essentially something from nothing. Proof of Burn, in theory, is more reliable and secure.




Let me be more plain.
Length of life is irrelevant and does not test anything.

A coin is proven/tested when it is under constant attack, either internally or externally.
Bitcoin is constantly being tested from all angles, whether by the miners, devs, bugs,
malware, hackers, and etc. There is even possibilities that state actors are attempting to
coop or outright attack the system for purposes not fully understood. This is called testing.

I repeat, all altcoins that currently exist are not being tested and attacked. Majority of
them are time bombs laying in wait, filled with bugs and exploits.



Did I mention the "fiat system"? No. You misunderstand what I'm saying.
Satoshi's proposed answer has nothing to do with fiat/currency and more to do with
manipulation by governments or financial sectors. All forms of manipulations ultimately
lead to failure in the system, whatever that system is. Satoshi tried to create a new
system type (manifested as a public decentralized blockchain) that was to prevent
manipulation.

In addition, he created a token for online transactability with gold like properties since
gold is the only known asset that has proven itself through time and easily fits into the
financial world's mindset of how human financial structure reliably functions. It is in
accordance with man's nature. That was the point. If you think bitcoin is a speculative
asset, you are saying that gold is a speculative asset. It is an empty remark that doesn't
really mean anything of significance. All matter is speculative, it is just some matter is
more worthy than others.

Comparing a bitcoin (token) to the worthless derivatives is an incorrect viewpoint.
They were selling eachother's debt, back and forth with a profit each time. That is all
it was and eventually when that debt was consolidated within certain parties, they stopped
it causing those parties to hold the bags and ultimately cause the citizens to be punished.
They were playing hot potato ponzi purposefully. This is why Satoshi was inspired to
create what he did. It was an answer that solved two problems: (1) an unexploitable
online currency and (2) a way for people to protect themselves from this manipulated
financial world. A new world has been created since the old is a debt ponzi.

Deflationary spirals can not exist in Bitcoin since Bitcoin does not issue debt. In fact,
bitcoin (token) is the realization of a virtual nondebt. If you convert your bitcoins into
fiat or credit, you have now taken on the debt their system creates. A deflationary spiral
can only exist within a credit system, since without credit there is no debt. Holding gold
and transacting with gold (in theory) does not create or transfer debt. When gold prices
rise (or bitcoin), that does not create debt, since that rise is due to people selling their
debt instruments into a virtual nondebt that is programmatically designed to appreciate
over time. As long as bitcoin serves a purpose, like gold, its future existence is ensured.
Interestingly, as we enter space, gold and other minerals becomes more common, thus
leaving Bitcoin as the only asset type left of any value (besides land) in the future.




You misunderstand. Speculation is normal, but speculation to the point that the protocol
needs to be changed to allow for greater speculation is what I am referring to. Those
speculators are the same types of people who destroyed the financial world and the
retirements of millions of people. They changed the rules and devised new scams to perform
on the markets and the people, which lead to 2008 and etc. The blockchain was created to
prevent these people from changing the rules, which is what they are attempting to do now
in Bitcoin. They wish to speculate to the point of collapse and then go on to the next asset
device, like locusts. These are the hurdles I am referring to, the non-healthy speculation.

Bitcoin is a "volatile currency" that currently functions as a "speculative commodity".
Over time, the commodity aspect will fall away as the currency begins to stabilize more
and more as we approach the year 2140. Calling Bitcoin a derivative, which makes no sense,
shows you're disingenuous and explains your incorrect reasoning and understanding of what
makes the system and its token interesting. Would you say Gold is a derivative? Are you
saying that all matter in the universe is essentially a derivative? Based upon such
statements it is not surprising why you think worthless empty altcoins are on equal
par to Bitcoin.

Well, it isn't.  PoW is a very *insecure* and wasteful form of cryptographic security.  Cryptographic security is normally based upon the asymmetry between the adversary's effort needed to crack the system, and the effort needed by the good guy to set up the system.  Encrypting a disk with AES-256 costs you maybe half a cent, cracking it would not even be possible with trillions of dollars.

Now, the PoW security of bitcoin is ridiculously bad in that respect: you need to WASTE AS MUCH effort as "good guy" as the effort it would cost an attacker.  Instead of having an insane asymmetry between setting up and cracking, with PoW, both are the same !  This is extremely LOUSY security which is extremely wasteful.  So, no, it is not "the most secure design" AT ALL.  You can hardly do worse than PoW security.  It is also not censorship resistant, when mining gets centralized, and mining GETS centralized because of economies of scale, which are unavoidable with such a bad security scheme. 

Now, it is true that the wasteful PoW system as it is now, is "good enough", but there are clearly better schemes around, and proof of stake systems can provide for smarter cryptographic security without all that wasting.


Of course not.  Because PoW competition is relative.  It is a winner-takes-all scheme.  This is exactly what happened with the ASIC transition: technology improved a lot, and centralized the competition instead of decentralizing it.

But the worse of all is inherent to bitcoin's "lottery" design: the fact that mutualizing lottery risk is beneficial, makes that pools are a natural happening, in the same way that insurance is a natural phenomenon when random gains and losses occur.  So the fact that the PoW lottery is a winner-takes-all lottery makes that we have an unavoidable centralization of the mining towards pools, which group together the relatively most successful mining technology industries into an oligarchy of highly invested power structures.

This is not an "unfortunate temporary feat".  It is inherent in bitcoin's design: make a costly, technology and electricity intensive winner-takes-all lottery and you end up like this, in the same way that there are only a few centralized high-performance processor manufacturers (intel and amd, say), and only a few centralized high-performance memory manufacturers in the world, because there too, it is a high-investment winner-takes all environment where economies of scale matter.


I don't see how you can claim that.  There are a few years of difference in age between bitcoin and alt coins, and wind back bitcoin 3 or 4 years, and it was more "untested" than certain altcoins are today.  This difference of a few years will fade away as time passes by.  Between a 6 year old system and a 2 year old system, there's a big difference.  Between a 20 year old system and a 16 year old system, what's the advantage of the oldest one ?



Well, first of all, the fiat system didn't have a problem back then: the financial world had a problem with wild speculation on "empty" complex derivatives and over-investment in speculative assets that crashed down because of no content.  Seems that Satoshi designed himself a highly speculative asset too.  He based the economic model of his "currency" on some misguided theories about sound money, and this found some resonance in believers of these theories (I was part of them).  I neglected warnings of deflationary spirals. 


The "get rich quickers" are the NORMAL public of deflationary speculative assets.  You do not get "get rich quickers" in fiat, because fiat is slightly inflationary *especially to avoid that* ; but this feature was taken as a conspirational attack on people's assets by the designers of deflationary currencies - now we see why that was an error (at least, if the goal was to design a currency - if the goal was to design something akin to the "complex derivatives" that caused the crash in 2008, well, then it is succeeding very well).

If you need "true believers to come" for the system to work as pretended, then you know that the thing is not going to work as intended.  But it is working.  But as it was designed, not as it was pretended.  It is not a currency, it is a speculative asset, like these complex derivatives.

No. It is not true. Most of the altcoin market caps are outright fraud. Ripple Labs (or Ripple developers) holds ~30 Billion of the current ~38 Billion supply. This means that in reality, the actual market cap is:
[currentPrice] * 8 Billion = 0.174 * 8 Billion = 1 392 944 000. This is a decrease of ~78.7%. Even this market cap can be debate to be misleading as Ripple is not a cryptocurrency. Ripple is a centrally issued token.
Dogecoin has processed 1/2 of the amount that LTC has in the last 24 hours, and Dash ("digital cash" MLM Scam) did 3 times less than Doge. Let me just leave this here:

---

Source: https://bitinfocharts.com/

Here's the one big thing that you mentioned several times already, though: They have no real userbase outside of a bunch of investors looking for a quick buck. Therefore they wont truly be used and they'll stay as is until those investors pump the price further up. If those investors stop, price will absolutely plummet. For as long as Bitcoin is alive we will keep pushing the boundaries. It's the first and the greatest and unless there is an incredibly technically better coin that far surpasses Bitcoin and BTC has a huge technical or price issue that kills it there simply will not be a replacement.

Mining part is true and it's definitely possible that the hashrate of altcoins will beat that of altcoins; we're already seeing a migration of BTC miners moving to Alts, but truthfully those people only mine to change alts back to BTC. As philipma says, BTC is the super highway and alts are the smaller roads.

As much this all true, you are missing the big picture here, Bitcoin was like the current altcoins at some point and it started to grow more strong and secure and that is exactly what these alts are doing now, they will grow in hashrate until they will reach Bitcoin's or even surpass it.

While no one cares about them is because they are small but when they become big enough to attract the sharks then it's already too late because they have become strong eh?

They are pushing Ripple and Stellar by artificial injections to steer away the private investors from China's BTC/LTC and another faction which is ETH/DASH/Monero while there is a small but vigilant faction named Zcash/Zcoin are keeping up with 10 times faster than Bitcoin when it was at their stage.
But all said, they are reaching their goal> breaking BTC market cap and moving it towards their coins, however I very much like the community's support of Bitcoin to push the barriers and keeping it up for now but that can't hold much longer I'm afraid.

If such a thing really did happen we would see the varying factions dropping their ideological differences in the blink of an eye and running for the option the market wants. Right now that's Segwit.

There are an awful lot of people waiting for BTC to get its shit together. They're the ones who ultimately count and they have the ultimate control by voting with their money.

Better? Hold up for a second, if LTC were truly better than BTC then we would see a much larger userbase and a higher price but that's not happening. The way I see it, LTC is a prototype of BTC with the nearly same things happening to Bitcoin after changes are amended to LTC. Hopefully Lightning will be added to BTC as well so prices will really start to take off on BTC.

Ethereum is a joke as money. It's interesting, pretty interesting and innovative projects here and there, but TONS of smoke and mirrors.

LTC is BTC's code with segwit, lightning network, schnorr sigs, MAST, CT, Coinjoin... only an idiot can't see how if any coin can rival BTC then is it's better clone, LTC.

It's not just market cap that matters. Other metrics come into play as well, such as the number of transactions in the last 24 hours.

Bitcoin leads by far with 360,636 transactions in the last 24 hours. The next is ETH with 117,551 transactions and then Doge with 17,038. See the following for details:

https://bitinfocharts.com/

As you can see bitcoin is still the most used crypto and will retain it's #1 status as long as that remains true.

Unique is irrelevant. Market Cap is irrelevant. Security is paramount.
Bitcoin was designed to be the most secure, censorship resistant, online currency possible.
If it outright failed, we wouldn't be here today. Those who copy it, but change fundamental
structures of its security, are not actual competitors, but "pretenders".

It was designed with one purpose, securability. There may be flaws in the system, such
as the current mining centralization problem, but that is only transient. Over long periods
of time, that centralization loses it grip due to technological advancements. In 50 years, it
is possible civilians in their homes may begin solo mining again due to new technology that
are affordable and common in each home, as well as new forms of solar energy accumulation
and storage. The point being, Bitcoin not being so called "unique" now is irrelevant, and that
there may be competitors now (which I disagree with, that is like saying skateboards are
competitors to helicopters) is not important in the larger picture.

All altcoins that currently exist are actually all untested. The only one that comes close to
any testing is Ethereum, and they failed since they proved there can be times where things
are "too big to fail" and will revise their originating social contract based on the whims of their
VCs and ignorant users. Within a year of ETH's release, they directly interfered into their protocol
to "bailout" a subsidiary unrelated to the protocol. All other coins have not even begun to reach
the starting line in the race of cryptocurrency competition. All those coins are wonderful illusions
for those who wish to live a lie.



Satoshi proposed an answer to the online currency problems inspired by the problems with
the financial world in 2008, but that does not mean that the full use and potential of the
system has come about. The masses that exist now, and are entering our sphere are the
"get rich quickers". Majority of them are either directly from the financial world where they
have been taught to "rape and pillage" then repackage and sell to the next fool, or very
young children who have little money, but are beginning to learn trading by participating
within the altcoin world. Both of those "masses" are not the primary target of this type of
currency. Those people are irrelevant to Bitcoin's long term goals. If anything, they are  
hurdles that we must be overcome since they think PayPalCoin is equivalent to Bitcoin.

Comparing Bitcoin to the model T-Ford is an incorrect analogy. A better example would be
comparing it to an engine. There are different types of engines in existence with each
designed to facilitate different purposes. Some are efficient and others are gas hogs,
some are simple and others are heavily complex, some are for the air and others for
the ground.

All those different engine types are like the cryptocurrency world. Each engine facilitates
a different purpose, but only one engine is specifically designed for the average form of
road travel. That is the modern day car engine. It is the standard today because of it
reliability and etc. Though there are many other types of engines that could "compete with"
that type, they do not, since the standard today performs its job in a reliable manner. Maybe
one day, when civilians have "flying cars" that standard will change, but as long as there
are cars on the ground, this form of engine type will be the standard (ignoring advancements
such as electromagnetic engines).

I have no concern that Bitcoin will lose to a "competitor" because there are no actual
competitors that currently exist. Majority of all altcoins today are pure illusions that are
untested in many different ways. When an altcoin claims superiority over Bitcoin for a
specific reason, such as "faster confirmation" for example, there needs to be a loss of
something, for that coin to get that gain. That is the reality here. So when you say there
are competitors to Bitcoin, what you are really saying is that some are competitors,
because they decided to do something Bitcoin can not, at the cost of something that
Bitcoin does best. In the world of cryptocurrency, that is a failure, but the masses haven't
learned that yet since they are not instructed, but left to their own education. They think
that illusions can be better than reality and then its becomes their truth.

These individuals are not true Bitcoiners, but are hurdles that must be overcome or they
will erode the system from within. That is what happened with the 2008 financial crisis
and what Satoshi envisioned Bitcoin to counteract. Those destructive masses have finally
arrived at our doorstep, yet you confused them with real purposeful adoption. They are
purely destructive and all consuming. Satoshi did not accept their world/financial views.

What makes you think that bitcoin is unique in this respect ?
Bitcoin, as of this moment, is a pseudo-centralized system that is ran by about 20 mining nodes, of which 5 are majority and of which some of them are in the hands of one single entity ; and most of these mining nodes have their mining power provided by one single producer of competitive mining equipment, and many of them are based in a single country where individual freedom is very relative.

I wouldn't directly call that the most censorship resistant network, when compared to many other similar systems.


Well, in that respect a) it got competitors ; b) it failed due to deflationary design (it is much more a speculative "lets' get rich quickly" asset than a true currency) and c) the masses are not into it.

When you look at the current VOLUMES, in fact, the "masses" (who want to get rich quickly ; not who want to buy coffee) are using 2/3 alt coins, and only 1/3 bitcoin.

So, even though bitcoin has its merits, I don't see what makes it "unique" apart from being the first.  It was the first implementation of a new idea. Many others improved upon that first idea since then. There's no reason to stick with the first implementation as the best one for ever.  But Ford-T was also the first mass produced car.  That doesn't mean the only mass produced car ever to be meaningful is going to stay Ford-T.

If you are thinking about currency, in fact, the exact currency you're using today, and you're using tomorrow doesn't matter.  However, if you are sitting on a stash in a greater-fool game (which crypto essentially is), then of course you're not happy when the fools go to another game - because you might end up being the greater one after all.

So the solution is what? Break away from a system that is based on consensus, to something where centralized development make all the calls? You have to be Bat shit crazy to think that something like that would be a better alternative. ^grrrrrr^

The whole idea about the consensus model in Bitcoin is functioning as it should. Anyone is free to add new implementations and if the nodes think that these new additions is good for Bitcoin, then they start running that software. < No matter who they are >

No. Most of those altcoins can be easily attacked (e.g. miner who recently joined Vertcoin with over 50% of the hashrate to block Segwit).

You mean the real ETH which now carries the name ETC because ETH is a trademark? The same very ETC being trolled by ETH developers because of the potential ETC ETF? You shouldn't use a consensus-failing, and centralized coin led by amateurs and childish individuals in comparisons to Bitcoin.

Once Ver stops paying them and once Jihad Wu starts acting like an adult.

No, It forks, and that fork obtains tech, ethos to prevent that happening again, and the market ascribes value, see ETC for a $600M case study

Yes I am not that bothered if I loose $2 or get filmed at starbucks buying a cofee.

But I am really upset if my $2 is glued my hand or have to pay an indestructible robot $4 to take my $2 and give it to the cashier.

I want my coin to be able to do both.

So if BTC is high value only, and it maybe I expect coins designed to do that to win out like *PPC*, which is actually designed to be a backbone currency in a way BTC is not.

I am convinced alot of bitcoiners and people in the crypto space have little idea where the actual value in transactions occur, and its not at muh, amazon, muh coffee shop. Its in high value swaps, balancing the nightly, money/futures markets. Buying and selling 100,000's of Houses a day

Regulated payment platforms, such as Paypal, I'm not talking about altcoins.

Majority of altcoins are very weak and can be attacked easily through different means.
In fact, majority of them are very vulnerable today. No one cares about them, so they
aren't normally attacked. If ETH passes BTC, they could be neutralized more easily than
Bitcoin.

Plenty of alt coins are 'censorship resistant' just like Bitcoin.  If you disagree, provide a definition that holds true for Bitcoin and no other coin.

In relation to regulated payment platforms.

When people make complaints that their tx was close to Paypal fees,
it ignores the purpose of using Bitcoin or blockchain like currencies.

by what definition?

You think Bitcoin could lose #1 position because people do not want to
(1) pay competitive prices for the only censorship resistant payment platform
and (2) are willing to sacrifice their security in the system for convenience?

If a true "flippening" ever comes about, which I can not imagine realistically
occurring, then it only does so because the masses wish to be enslaved.
Bitcoin's only true purpose is to counter the current financial system, not to
mimic it.