41–48 of 48 posts
Is there anything to stop users (or a single person with two emails) from sending money to each other over and over again to abuse the "one lucky user" system?
The lucky user is randomly selected from the network. The selection has nothing to do with the users associated with the transaction. So in other words if you do that, you're actually losing purchasing power due to the transaction fee.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The lucky user is randomly selected from the network. The selection has nothing to do with the users associated with the transaction. So in other words if you do that, you're actually losing purchasing power due to the transaction fee.
UNLESS -- you control a meaningful % of the accounts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you assume that 9447ffe1633c73206d9e775762fae7c5e6f3a926ba83f862c2774491d53a3a4b has infinity coins (which it effectively does) Then you can verify double spends
You can only verify double spends if the integrity of the chain is intact. Since its not a decentralized database, and your service can "go down" at any time and "pop up" with amended transaction history, its just the illusion of transparency. If you know that, and your users know that, why not just keep transactions private like PayPal.
It's no different than when the NYT changes their article. People have screenshots and can show the discrepancies.
Fun fact: a service like this is illegal in the USA without a money transmitter license (which costs around $1mm per state) in each state in which you send or receive money. There are additional regulatory requirements demanding that you collect the identity of each person you send to or receive from. Liberty Reserve learned this the hard way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Reserve This is one of the reasons c…
IMO this is kind of the worst of both worlds: - It's centralized: so all the issues that come with that, plus the authority is some random person somewhere, rather than the european central bank or something like that. And people die and individual computers catch on fire and get hacked. - It's a new digital currency: so it's completely useless as of today. I'd consider it way more likely that I'll get hit by a meteo…
Btw centralized doesn’t mean not distributed. And so it doesn’t mean that it’s not highly available/resilient.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Btw centralized doesn’t mean not distributed. And so it doesn’t mean that it’s not highly available/resilient.
Sure, the white paper mentions that this is supposed to be a dictatorship, how should power be distributed while still remaining a dictatorship?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, the white paper mentions that this is supposed to be a dictatorship, how should power be distributed while still remaining a dictatorship?
You distribute it yourself. This is what most distributed systems do, and this is how gmail, facebook, etc. Can remain up even when there’s a number of servers down or a fire in one of their data centers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You distribute it yourself. This is what most distributed systems do, and this is how gmail, facebook, etc. Can remain up even when there’s a number of servers down or a fire in one of their data centers.
That way you distribute data, not power. That way you are resilient against a single computer catching fire, but not against the computer the dictator writes his stuff in getting hacked.
Btw what you’re talking about is interesting because decentralized systems are often decentralized until you start thinking of implementations. Since most cryptocurrencies have a single software, one bug tend to affect the entire network. Some cryptos are looking into having several implementations but I think we’re not there yet.