Bitcoin Sees Wall Street Warm to Trading Virtual Currency

Post by needz » Tue, May 08, 2018, 2:28 PM UTC

hudon wrote: post #76

cslarson wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and "smart contract" systems like Ethereum seems to still not show any productive output aside from scams and severe bugs in wallets and contracts that lose millions of dollars Ethereum is a vibrant, growing ecosystem with many many ambitious projects that have or are nearing release (maker, golem, swarm, bat, you need to do some research because the list is extensive). the above statement is really ridiculous but…

I know of these projects and some of my friends are investing and/or building them. I commend the ambition and really hope they one day turn into something great. That's beside the point, though. Knowing that Ethereum and Bitcoin consume more energy than Iceland and Switzerland respectively, why don't we turn them off until they're providing actual use? I get that markets need time to figure out if a product is usefu…

Post by hudon » Tue, May 08, 2018, 2:33 PM UTC

nonbel wrote: post #80

hudon wrote: post #9

This seems like good news for speculators (disclosure: I still hold Bitcoin and worked at a Bitcoin exchange). Having said that, "Wall Street" should be wary of enabling the use of a system that is using more electricity than the country of Switzerland [0] without any productive output. The energy consumption is rapidly rising too. Furthermore, Bitcoin's transaction throughput is dismally low compared to existing pay…

>"I'm all for "wait and see", but have we ever done that with a technology that is literally using more electricity than a medium sized nation? " I keep seeing these types of posts every few months and they always seem very poorly thought out and presented. Almost like people did the actual analysis but didnt like the results... Don't you need to compare this with the energy usage of the industries bitcoin is suppose…

Post by moneybadger » Tue, May 08, 2018, 2:42 PM UTC

lrvick wrote: post #53

doug3465 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proof of Stake is the answer.

There is even -less- evidence this can actually work at large scale without becoming centralized. By design the rich get gradually richer via staking and once enough nodes/coins are controlled by a single party they can change the rules of the network. Maybe social dynamics work out to avoid this, but humans have a long history of trending towards various forms of plutocracies. One of the reasons Ethereum forked was…

Post by tuesdayrain » Tue, May 08, 2018, 2:54 PM UTC

DINKDINK wrote: post #12

hudon wrote: post #9

This seems like good news for speculators (disclosure: I still hold Bitcoin and worked at a Bitcoin exchange). Having said that, "Wall Street" should be wary of enabling the use of a system that is using more electricity than the country of Switzerland [0] without any productive output. The energy consumption is rapidly rising too. Furthermore, Bitcoin's transaction throughput is dismally low compared to existing pay…

>I [...] worked as an engineer at a well-known Bitcoin company). >Having said that, "Wall Street" should be wary of enabling the use of a system that is using more electricity than the country of Switzerland [0] without any productive output You worked at a Bitcoin company and don't understand the value of proof of work? Being able to trustlessly settle shared stated across the entire globe is unproductive output? Th…

Post by tuesdayrain » Tue, May 08, 2018, 2:59 PM UTC

moneybadger wrote: post #85

lrvick wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is even -less- evidence this can actually work at large scale without becoming centralized. By design the rich get gradually richer via staking and once enough nodes/coins are controlled by a single party they can change the rules of the network. Maybe social dynamics work out to avoid this, but humans have a long history of trending towards various forms of plutocracies. One of the reasons Ethereum forked was…

Excuse my ignorance but how are the PoS rich getting richer different than the PoW rich getting richer? Aren't the payouts proportional to the investment for both schemes? And can't Delegated PoS more or less eliminate 51% attacks for PoS?