321–330 of 347 posts
> To make their intentions clear, Ethereum’s core developers reprogrammed their PoW code to create an exponential rise in mining difficulty. Known as the “Difficulty Bomb,” it began slowing the creation of new transaction blocks in late 2016 and was expected to bring ether mining to a grinding halt a few years thereafter. > This time bomb has, however, functioned more like an alarm clock with a snooze button. In Octo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is special pleading; there is no stock, no matter how blue chip, for which the market cap reflects the price at which all 'hodlers' could simultaneously sell their position. That's just... not how markets work, at all.
The idea of everyone with a stock exiting simultaneously is way too suspicious and hard to mentally model, so let's say a supermajority instead, because some event makes a big holder and some followers want to move out. Perhaps the stock was replaced in an index fund. And you made up "simultaneously", so I'm going to ignore that and say "a week or two" instead. There are thousands of major stocks that could support t…
From these figures I find it hard to imagine being able to sell 50% of all shares within two weeks on top of all the normal trades that will also keep occurring in that time.
I will give you that the major stocks have more liquidity and can take a bigger selloff % wise than even Bitcoin or Ethereum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> are you seriously trying to compare that to stealing coins from somebody on a valid chain? They're not stealing coins from someone on a valid chain, they are forking away to another chain and slashing the user's stake. The user will still have all their coins on "their" chain and it's up to everyone else to decide which chain is "the right one". If the 51% user is truly malicious, the majority of network participan…
> If the 51% user is truly malicious, the majority of network participants will move away to the new chain, rendering the 51% user's tokens (near) worthless. so being successful is punished by destroying all wealth of the richest participant in the network? nice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks, I feel like I’m the crazy one when people talk about “just fork it” in response to the fact that developers of any specific coin could crash it at any point. That’s not how it works in reality. Bitcoin could be entirely ruined by a couple dozen people around the world in different ways at any time. Eth and other coins even more so. The idea of who “gets trusted” in these coins is just nuts. I’m not anti-coin.…
I think your misunderstanding is believing users are locked into a crypto system if its implementation is controlled by a small group. They are not - if the developers abuse their power, users are free to migrate elsewhere and take their funds with them (in fiat value or as a different coin). That's different to e.g. PayPal where your funds can be locked and there's nothing you can do. Decentralized control over name…
Furthermore, crypto value is beholden on whales not to just dumping their vast hoards of coins into marketplaces all at once. That is to say, the largest stakeholders in a chain have the opportunity to crush the value of that chain, which means that they have power over other users' choice of chain .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea of everyone with a stock exiting simultaneously is way too suspicious and hard to mentally model, so let's say a supermajority instead, because some event makes a big holder and some followers want to move out. Perhaps the stock was replaced in an index fund. And you made up "simultaneously", so I'm going to ignore that and say "a week or two" instead. There are thousands of major stocks that could support t…
Apple had an eventful day yesterday (dropped by 10%). Despite that, the amount of shares traded (this includes day trades) was only ~90M, on a total shares outstanding of 5000M, so less than 2%. From these figures I find it hard to imagine being able to sell 50% of all shares within two weeks on top of all the normal trades that will also keep occurring in that time. I will give you that the major stocks have more li…
When a stock leaves the S&P 500 you can have people selling off a double digit percent of ownership, but once the process is over prices tend to be quite close to where they started. And that's despite the implication that it's a bad stock.
If someone has a plausible reason to buy or sell a huge amount of stock, that isn't related to the company itself, counterparties will show up. If you offer a stock at a 10% discount for purely personal reasons, there will be many many buyers.
And as billmalarky said, in a merger you can have all the shares changing hands with only a small price shift.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The majority of the community believed in the fork, that's what I meant if I wasn't clear. That belief is contra to the concept of an immutable decentralized ledger, which means ETH isn't canonically a cryptocurrency, an immutable ledger, or a decentralized ledger anymore. The upcoming (well, it's never going to happen) POS fork is going to centralize it further among the very small number of massive whales who contr…
would you like to stake some ether on the claim that's it's never going to happen? I'm willing to bet 10 Ether we see POS before the end of 2021..
I'm relatively confident the network will never go POS, but not confident enough to put money on it anyway -- you never know what these kids will pull.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Buisness plan: Get a 51% stake in Ether, and hold big users hostage?
That works until the big users hard fork and take away your ether on their fork. It's pretty much a failsafe that always works at the cost of possibly destroying all trust in the network.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
TekMol, I don't get how your analogy relates? A gun would have to be put to every individual miner's head to force the majority to upgrade. Even then, if it caused a fork, individual users have the freedom to continue using the old version, new miners can choose the old version. Miners can even switch back to the old version after the gun is gone. Everything will still work.
I think he's saying that without the support of the demos (voting public) the police/army won't move to support the government's position so their power is curtailed; in the same way that a centralised coin administration has their power curtailed if the community don't support their "army" (system changes to force a particular new regime).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think your misunderstanding is believing users are locked into a crypto system if its implementation is controlled by a small group. They are not - if the developers abuse their power, users are free to migrate elsewhere and take their funds with them (in fiat value or as a different coin). That's different to e.g. PayPal where your funds can be locked and there's nothing you can do. Decentralized control over name…
I believe the point being made is that the _value_ of the crypto system is largely controlled by small groups. Forks rarely achieve the value and status of the prior coin (considering ETC the "fork" here as it was the chain that didn't have the core dev approval). Furthermore, crypto value is beholden on whales not to just dumping their vast hoards of coins into marketplaces all at once. That is to say, the largest s…
Itslired by the great mystery of bitcoin, it’s like an appealing urban legend to say “we don’t know who owns all our coin by design! wink”. So this doubly makes the coin devs more powerful than “but it’s decentralized” people want to admit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
PoS was known way before PoW. It simply doesn't solve the problem at hand - decentralized consensus between mutually distrusting parties.
IOHK has many conference accepted peer reviewed research papers that show that proof of stake has equivalent security properties as proof of work.
sure.
> peer reviewed
not so sure.