Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

news.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

821–830 of 839 posts

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#821

Post by AgentME »

resters wrote: post #810
AgentME wrote: post #809

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Transactions already include fees today. The minting rate of new bitcoins goes down over time, so when minting finally ends, it won't be a sudden change to the mining rewards. It's expected that the mining reward will be mostly transaction fees by the end, so the mining reward will only be a little affected by the minting being stopped.

> the minting rate of new bitcoins goes down over time Isn’t the difficulty level calibrated based on 10 mins per block? I don’t see how your statement above can be true. Seems like it goes from one reward every 10 mins (on average) to 0 rewards as soon as the last one is mined.

There's a block every 10 minutes, but the number of bitcoins minted per block goes down over time. It used to be that 50 bitcoins were minted every block, but currently only 12.5 are minted each block. The amount minted halves every four years. (Personally, I think it's too extreme that it instantly goes from x to x/2 in one block. The mining rate generally dips a bit for a while when this happens. I think it would have been better for the minting to decrease in a much smoother way.)

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#822

Post by stale2002 »

ric2b wrote: post #814
stale2002 wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> , with regard to Bitcoin miners have essentially become a centralized authority, and their decisions on block-size have made Bitcoin less liquid, and less useful as a currency while making transactions more profitable to them. >Another example would be exchanges Interestingly enough, with regards to bitcoin, there was a huge powerplay that happened a couple years ago. And this debate proved who had the real power.…

> But, this change didn't pass, because the 4 or 5 people who controlled the bitcoin core github repository, and reference client disagreed with the changes, it prevented it from happening. This is blatant re-writing of history. A fork was written, Bitcoin Cash, but most people/miners/companies didn't want to use it. It was widely known and the differences/advantages/disadvantages were discussed ad nauseum for months…

> So why did they keep running Bitcoin Core instead of the fork?

Because it turns out that controlling a github repo is a very powerful power.

> A fork was written, Bitcoin Cash

This has nothing to do with Bitcoin Cash. This has to do with 2XSegwit. An initiative that was supported by every single major miner, all of the exchanges (coinbase, gemini, kraken, ect), as well as the major merchant payment processors (IE, bitpay, and all the others).

There are statements after statements made by all of these players, where they stated support for it. Unfortunately, it seems like the people who control the bitcoin protocol, the developers, had too much power, though.

Did you disagree that every major miner, and Bitcoin business like coinbase and BitPay, put out messages in support of the 2X Segwit agreement?

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#823

Post by foxrob92 »

johnisgood wrote: post #746
foxrob92 wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean that's a bit of a tautology isn't it? Once we have clean energy production for everything, bitcoin will have minimal environmental impact? That's ignoring the fact that fusion is still a very long way from commercial availability.

Why is it a tautology, and why would it be ignoring the fact? I am not. I am only stating that it will be less of an issue, because well, it will be... that is, if everything turns out to be working as ITER "predicted". Isn't this correct? We are aiming for "cheaper" and "greener" electricity, some even call it "infinite electricity".

Maybe tautology is the wrong word.

I just feel like it's a bit ridiculous to downplay the environmental impacts of bitcoin mining by saying "it'll be fine when we have fusion!" because we don't have fusion today, and it's likely to be a very long time before fusion is commercially available.

Also, your initial comment said:

>By the way, the negative environmental impacts will be significantly reduced after ITER is ready.

ITER is not a commercial reactor. Even after it's construction is completed (expected to be, what, 2025?), we still have a long way to go before you can use fusion power to mine bitcoin.

Meanwhile, climate change is happening now. We need to be reducing emissions now.

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#824

Post by topmonk »

darkpuma wrote: post #799
topmonk wrote: post #699

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell me how anything you just said shows how it could be easier to smuggle physical currency out of the country than digital currency, which was the point that I was refuting.

> it could be easier to smuggle physical currency out of the country than digital currency, which was the point that I was refuting. Then you were refuting a position I never espoused. My point wasn't that gold is easier to exfiltrate, but rather that BTC isn't necessarily easier to get out. If the border agents of the tyrannical government you're fleeing know you to have wealth, and are informed about bitcoin, they…

Here are a couple of other scenarios where having BTC works as an advantage:

1. The government doesn't know you have any money, but you are targeted in a random search.

2. The government does know you have money but doesn't know how much. Simply give them X out of Y cryptocurrency keys. They won't know you have any more.

I don't know how much exposure you have to tyrannical regimes, but they aren't as efficient as you seem to think, in that they don't really have much grasp on how much money people own, nor are able to find out instantly.

They also do care about how they are perceived and aren't going to grab some tourist and with no proof whatsoever, torture him to death because he might possibly have some cryptocurrency.

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#825

Post by tim333 »

SkyMarshal wrote: post #775
tim333 wrote: post #762

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>hedge against mis-management and failure of national currency regimes At the moment cryptocurrencies seem a good be worse than fiat. Imagine your salary or mortgage was a set number of bitcoins. There were probably a number of initial uses imagined but if you look as Szabo's twitter pretty much the first link is The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto about circumventing government and libertarian freedom which I think was a…

They’re a hedge in that they have different failure modes than govt fiat, which means they’re a potential safe haven in the event of govt currency collapse/hyperinflation/etc. Which is part of what the cryptoanarchists wanted. Yes they’re volatile, but they’re new, immature tech, with shallow market depth. None of those things will last forever.

Guess if they become accepted enough. At the moment businesses transacting with iffy countries often do the deal in USD so I guess it could be the new USD maybe.

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#826

Post by johnisgood »

foxrob92 wrote: post #823
johnisgood wrote: post #746

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it a tautology, and why would it be ignoring the fact? I am not. I am only stating that it will be less of an issue, because well, it will be... that is, if everything turns out to be working as ITER "predicted". Isn't this correct? We are aiming for "cheaper" and "greener" electricity, some even call it "infinite electricity".

Maybe tautology is the wrong word. I just feel like it's a bit ridiculous to downplay the environmental impacts of bitcoin mining by saying "it'll be fine when we have fusion!" because we don't have fusion today, and it's likely to be a very long time before fusion is commercially available. Also, your initial comment said: >By the way, the negative environmental impacts will be significantly reduced after ITER is re…

> downplay the environmental impacts of bitcoin mining

I didn't, I just said it won't be an issue when ITER is ready, which it probably will, and in our lifetime. We don't need to have it available to us, it would be enough for those miners to use it and the impact would be significantly reduced. I am not saying that it isn't a problem right now, because it is, but it won't always be the case so there is a long-term solution in the happening, which is good to know.

I am not saying we shouldn't reduce emission and whatnot right now, of course we should.

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#827

Post by Nursie »

keymone wrote: post #802
Nursie wrote: post #800

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>yeah, tell that to Venezuelans Or BTC hodlers who've seen an 80% crash, perhaps. > banks are providing some useful services, banks won't stop providing those services on top of cryptocurrencies Then they, and I, have no incentive to use cryptocurrency. >finally, if you're fine trusting politicians to run your financial system and regularly screw you up with inflation, financial meltdowns, bankruptcies, etc So far th…

> Or BTC hodlers who've seen an 80% crash, perhaps zoom out, you're embarrassing yourself. > Your 'fix' doesn't actually fix anything and it makes a lot of things worse. That's why you get called on it. that's just like your opinion man. no reason to continue, time will prove who's right.

> zoom out, you're embarrassing yourself.

Not really, I'm not the one pointing at other currencies and how much they've dropped in value, that would be you.

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#828

Post by keymone »

Nursie wrote: post #827
keymone wrote: post #802

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or BTC hodlers who've seen an 80% crash, perhaps zoom out, you're embarrassing yourself. > Your 'fix' doesn't actually fix anything and it makes a lot of things worse. That's why you get called on it. that's just like your opinion man. no reason to continue, time will prove who's right.

> zoom out, you're embarrassing yourself. Not really, I'm not the one pointing at other currencies and how much they've dropped in value, that would be you.

and where exactly did i do that? will you provide a link to your claim?

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#829

Post by resters »

AgentME wrote: post #821
resters wrote: post #810

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the minting rate of new bitcoins goes down over time Isn’t the difficulty level calibrated based on 10 mins per block? I don’t see how your statement above can be true. Seems like it goes from one reward every 10 mins (on average) to 0 rewards as soon as the last one is mined.

There's a block every 10 minutes, but the number of bitcoins minted per block goes down over time. It used to be that 50 bitcoins were minted every block, but currently only 12.5 are minted each block. The amount minted halves every four years. (Personally, I think it's too extreme that it instantly goes from x to x/2 in one block. The mining rate generally dips a bit for a while when this happens. I think it would h…

Thanks for the clarification. Going to back-fill and update the rest of the logical conclusions I had drawn :)

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#830

Post by 908087 »

int_19h wrote: post #643
908087 wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would you call the near-daily exit scams, pump and dumps and ponzi schemes in the "crypto" world if not "cheating"?

They're the same, but when your government does it, it's not really opt-in, unlike with all the crypto frauds.

I've never once been forced into anything resembling a pump and dump, ponzi scheme or exit scam by the government.
Post reply on HN