Topic: The Problem With Altcoins - page 5. (Read 16459 times)

How does PoW waste resources? I actually believe it will increase resources! You see energy is abundant (probably practically limitless), yet finding it requires innovation. How do you spur innovation? You increase demand!

Anonymity - this is likely to (and WILL) be a very attractive feature of some alt-coin (the only reason bitcoin would even dream of implementing it would be if not implementing it would cost them SIGNIFICANT market share and threaten its future dominace, which is unlikely due to the network effect and the fact that most bitcoin users nowadays don't feel the need for ABSOLUTE anonymity). Many services which rely on or prefer anonymity would accept this currency directly, and users only using crypto for those services would hold the currency directly rather than buying bitcoins. Liquid exchanges would be very likely - decentralised, anonymous exchanges would make users of the anonymous currency even more confident.

I think PoS coins haven't caught up yet because people aren't aware of it yet. I feel that the transition would be mainstream fiat currency to BTC then in the long run BTC to PoS coins but I may be mistaken.

Communism isn't the right way to describe it. It could be seen very capitalistic, you get paid for helping the blockchain. Bitcoin isn't different since there the miners get paid to secure the chain. The only difference is that miners have to waste resources while POS is wasteless. I rather see someone getting rewards for free than to just to waste stuff.

There is no redistribution of wealth, so the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. Everyone has all chances so it's the way capitalism should be. It's the redistribution that kills any eco system. We now have redistribution to the rich and it will destroy capitalism in the same way than communism got killed by redistribution in the other direction.

People actually do something to get new coins. As Sunny King has said if my understanding is correct, keeping coins to get coins is actually "saving". You lose the ability to spend your coins in exchange for having more coins in the future.

Well, if that is communism, then I'd rather have that than see unproductive capitalism. Imagine a third world country entrenched with capitalism spending resources on mining hardware and energy rather than agriculture, infrastructure, or whatever just because it is more profitable. It just doesn't make the world any better.

You could always trade physical goods get your initial coins. It brings REAL world innovation.

My guess is because people fundamentally understand that getting something for doing nothing (i.e. redistributing the new coins based on share of the collective) is communism. But let me hear the logic of others, because I want to understand this better.

If the altcoin has sufficient demand (not even any where near Bitcoin) to generate a liquid exchange, then the altcoin can be converted on the fly to pay those who accept only Bitcoin.

So an altcoin doesn't need ANYONE to switch from Bitcoin, it only needs to grab a small percent of the market of new users. Bitcoin only has 350,000 users. There is a long way to go to 7 billion.

The key though is the altcoin needs to present something truly useful that Bitcoin can't copy. So it has staying power.

Friction always imposes costs. No how matter how good you make your exchange, it will always be more expensive than not needing to make an exchange. A line is the shortest distance between two points.

then the altcoin has to be appreciating faster than Bitcoin, else there will be a pernicious downward spiral.

Any feature that is so heavily demanded will be added to Bitcoin, because that is the most economically valuable solution.

My guess is because people fundamentally understand that getting something for doing nothing (i.e. redistributing the new coins based on share of the collective) is communism.

Also PoS does nothing to help you get your initial coins without a fiat exchange. And you can't increase your share by being more proactive, innovative, and risking your capital on mining.

Without risk, no new knowledge is created. Ponder that.

My guess is because people fundamentally understand that getting something for doing nothing (i.e. redistributing the new coins based on share of the collective) is communism. But let me hear the logic of others, because I want to understand this better.

LTC is just an imitation of BTC but PPC is a completely different cryptocurrency. I'm not promoting the coin but the idea of Proof of Stake (PoS) is just genius. Not only does it save energy that could've went to other meaningful and productive calculations but it also gives coin generation power to every coin holder ANYWHERE he/she may be in the world. Homeless people, uncivilized tribes, etc. would have a fair and equal coin generation capability.

I wanted to mine bitcoins before but my country is really far away from those ASIC manufacturers. I didn't want to risk my money to pre order hardware. I believe Satoshi Nakamoto created bitcoins to give anybody with a computer generate significant amounts of bitcoins. From what I am seeing today, that is no longer the case. Bitcoins are no longer completely decentralized. Eventually, the people who has the most mining power will rule it. Many may not share this view especially those people who have access to the new ASIC miners. I trully believe that PoS in coins is an innovative solution for the geographical problem. Mining will become the fundamental problem with bitcoin. It is unsustainable, wasteful, volatile, easily manipulated by strong enough players, geographically selective in terms of hardware availability and electricity rates.

Don't conflate an individual's inertia (which is a decentralized effect, i.e. the inertias are diverse and not moving together in unison, thus they are small and move independently thus low NET inertia) with a centralized inertia. The latter is a much higher NET inertia.

Wikipedia degrees-of-freedom.

It is actually the same as potential energy. I can cite a reference if you don't believe.

Stored energy is created whenever a particle has been moved through a field it interacts with (requiring a force to do so), but the energy to accomplish this is stored as a new position of the particles in the field—a configuration that must be 'held' or fixed by a different type of force (otherwise, the new configuration would resolve itself by the field pushing or pulling the particle back toward its previous position). This type of energy 'stored' by force-fields and particles that have been forced into a new physical configuration in the field by doing work on them by another system, is referred to as potential energy. A simple example of potential energy is the work needed to lift an object in a gravity field, up to a support.

Fitness

Fitness is how well a particular configuration of a system fits the desired solution, e.g. how well a particular program fits the desired semantics.
For example, there would be gaps (i.e. errors in fitness) between a bicycle chain and a curved shape it is wrapped around, because the chain can only freely bend (i.e. without permanent bending) at the hinges where the links are joined. Each hinge is a degree-of-freedom, and the reciprocal of the distance between hinges is the degrees-of-freedom per unit length. Employing instead a solid, but flexible metal bar, the metal would remain fit to the curve only with a sustained force. The resisting force is a reduced degrees-of-freedom and an error in fitness. Permanent bending to eliminate the resisting force, reduces the degrees-of-freedom for future straightening some of the bend for wrapping to larger curves or straight shapes.

Higher-level semantics are analogous to adding more hinges. Cases in the higher-level semantics which don't compose, i.e. aren't unified, or where the high-level semantics don't fully express the desired semantics, are analogous to permanent bending.

Efficiency of Work

Efficiency of work is the ratio of the work output (i.e. performed) divided by the work input, i.e. the efficiency is 100% minus the work lost to friction.
The lower the friction, then less power is required to do the same work in a given period of time. For example, pushing a cart on wheels, requires much less power than to push it without wheels, or to push it uphill on wheels. The ground rubbing against the bottom of the cart, or gravity, are both forms of friction. The rubbing is analogous to the permanent bending of the metal bar in the Fitness section, because the top of the ground and the bottom of cart are permanently altered. The gravity is a form of friction known as potential energy.

Given the friction is constant, then the input power (and thus input energy) determines the rate at which work can be completed. If the type of friction is potential energy, then the more work that is performed, the greater the potential energy available to undo the work. This type of potential energy is due to the resistance forces encountered during the work to produce a particular configuration of the subject matter. For example, a compressed spring wants to push back and undo the work performed to compress it.

Since the goal is to get more configurations (i.e. programs) in the software development system with less work, then these resistance forces must be reduced, i.e. increase the degrees-of-freedom so that fitness is closer to 100%. Visualize an object held in the center of a large sphere with springs attached to the object in numerous directions to the inside wall of the sphere. These springs oppose movement of the object in numerous directions, and must be removed in order to lower the friction and increase the degrees-of-freedom. With increased degrees-of-freedom, less work is required to produce a diversity of configurations, thus less power to produce them faster. And the configuration of the subject matter which results from the work, thus decays (i.e. becomes unfit slower), because the resistance forces are smaller. Requiring less power (and work), to produce more of what is needed and faster, with a greater longevity, is thus more powerful (efficient) and explains the wisdom of a forgotten proverb.

Google can't even find a wise proverb, “if you use your power, then you lose it”. The equivalent form, “absolute power corrupts absolutely”, is probably popular because it is a common misperception that power is useful (i.e. to be idoled). The utility of power exists only because there are resistance forces, i.e. friction and inefficiency. This generative fact applies to everything. For example, the power vacuum (i.e. the need for more power to get work done) that gives rise to central authority is due to the (resisting forces caused by) vested interests, bickering, selfishness, and complacency (laziness) of the governed.

Knowledge

Knowledge is correlated to the degrees-of-freedom, because in every definition of knowledge one can think of, an increase in knowledge is an increase in degrees-of-freedom and vice versa.
Software is unique among the engineering disciplines in that it is applicable to all of them. Software is the process of increasing knowledge. Thus the most essential characteristic of software is that it does not want to be static, and that the larger the components, thus the fewer the degrees-of-freedom, and the less powerful (i.e. efficient) the software development process.

Communication redundance (i.e. amplitude) is a form of power, because its utility exists due to the friction of resistance to comprehension, i.e. due to noise mixed with the signal. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) depends on the degrees-of-freedom of both the sender and the receiver, because it determines the fitness (resonance) to mutual comprehension.

The difference between signal and noise, is the mutual comprehension (i.e. resonance) between the sender and the receiver, i.e. noise can become a signal or vice versa, depending on the fitness of the coupling. In physics, resonance is the lack of resistance to the change in a particular configuration of the subject matter, i.e. each resonator is a degree-of-freedom[1]. Degrees-of-freedom is the number of potential orthogonal (independent) configurations, i.e. the ability to obtain a configuration without impacting the ability to obtain another configuration. In short, degrees-of-freedom are the configurations that don't have dependencies on each other.

Thus increasing the number of independent configurations in any system, makes the system more powerful, requiring less work (and energy and power since speed is important), to obtain diversity within the system. The second law of thermodynamics says that the universe is trending to maximum entropy (a/k/a disorder), i.e. the maximum independent configurations. Entropy (disorder) is a measure of the relative number of independent possibilities, and not some negative image of violence or mayhem.

This universal trend towards maximum independent possibilities (i.e. degrees-of-freedom, independent individuals, and maximum free market) is why Coase's theorem holds that any cost barrier (i.e. resisting force or inefficiency) that obstructs the optimum fitness will eventually fail. This is why decentralized small phenomena grow faster, because they have less dependencies and can adapt faster with less energy. Whereas, large phenomena reduce the number of independent configurations and thus require exponentially more power to grow, and eventually stagnate, rot, collapse, die, and disappear. Centralized systems have the weakness that they try to fulfill many different objectives, thus they move monolithically and can fulfill none of the objectives, e.g. a divisive political bickering with a least common denominator of spend more and more debt[16].

Thus in terms of the future, small independent phenomena are exponentially more powerful than those which are large. Saplings grow fast into trees, but trees don't grow to moon (nor to end of the universe). The bell curve and power law distributions exist because the minority is exponentially more efficient (i.e. more degrees-of-freedom and knowledge), because a perfectly equal distribution would require infinite degrees-of-freedom, the end of the universe's trend to maximum disorder, and thus a finite universe with finite knowledge. It is the mathematical antithesis of seeking knowledge to have socialism (equalitarian) desires for absolute equality, absolute truth, or perfection in any field.

The organization of matter and natural systems (e.g. even political organization) follows the exponential probabilistic relationship of entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, because a linear relationship would require the existence of perfection. If the same work was required to transition from 99% to 100% (perfection) as to transition from 98% to 99%, perfection would be possible. Perfection is never possible, thus each step closer to 100% gets asymptotically more costly, so that perfection can never be reached. This is also stated in the Shannon-Nyquist sampling theorem, wherein the true reality is never known until infinite samples have been performed (and this has nothing to do with a pre-filter!). The nonexistence of perfection is another way of stating that the universe is finite in order, and infinite in disorder, i.e. breaking those larger down to infinitely smaller independent phenomena.

Copute attempts to apply these concepts to software, by increasing the independence (orthogonality) of software components, so they can be composed into diverse configurations with less work. Independent programmers can leverage independent components with less communication and refactoring work, thus Copute is about increasing cooperation.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resonance&oldid=432632299#Resonators

A physical system can have as many resonant frequencies as it has degrees of freedom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resonance&oldid=432632299#Mechanical_and_acoustic_resonance

Mechanical resonance is the tendency of a mechanical system to absorb more energy [i.e. less resistance] when the frequency of its oscillations [i.e. change in configuration] matches the system's natural frequency of vibration [i.e. natural change in configuration] than it does at other frequencies.

Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its motion while potential energy is the energy of an object or a system due to the position.

They are not the same, but I get what you want to say.

Inertia doesn't stop a ball to roll down a hill, and the potential energy is usually causing the acceleration, not preventing. A minimum in the potential funktion could be interpreted as "inertia", but that's not the first thing to come in mind talking about inertia and potential.

I don't see altcoins as a direct threat to bitcoin. There's really not much incentive to move from bitcoin to another crypto and at this point I don't ever see there being an incentive to move unless something disastrous happens to bitcoin.

I think it's a bit silly to be majorly involved in another crypto as no alternative will ever catch up to BTC as long as BTC is still afloat. For those whining about it's obvious bias towards bitcoin; wasn't that the point of the article? I pretty much agree with the article although I disagree with the so called competition of alternate crypto currencies.

It is actually the same as potential energy. I can cite a reference if you don't believe.

I disagree with your arguments, not the result.

Inertia doesn't effect this in the way you suggest. High inertia would fight the lock-in since people would rather stay at where they are than to move to the one central item.BluRay vs HD DVD was very euqual and its huge inertia would have prevented a system to win so fast. Think of the billions invested in it.

Lock-in network effects are not a foregone conclusion in every market.

It varies depending on the natural inertia.
...