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

The Crypto-Chernobyl

stephendiehl.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 156 posts

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#81

Post by agotterer »

eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 wrote: post #37
robjan wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a big problem then. That means once the block mining reward turns to zero most miners will have to cease their operation to keep themselves in the black. If that happens, the cost of a 50% attack significantly decreases.

They will sell off their equipment to the general public, which causes a lot of decentralization, and thus makes a coordinated attack more difficult.

There's going to be an awful lot of wasted hardware and electricity before mining is complete in ~2140.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#82

Post by Apocryphon »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #78
yongjik wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...There surely is a large overlap between bitcoin enthusiasts and people who don't understand how fiat currency works, isn't it?

No, I doubt it considerably. In fact bitcoin enthusiasts are likely to have a better understanding of fiat than the average person, due to the value proposition of cryptocurrencies.

Most bitcoin enthusiasts at this point are more likely to be speculators who enjoy amassing (currently) rapidly appreciating assets that can be converted back to fiat currency, than deeply-committed ideologues who are familiar with the economic implications of the project.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#83

Post by Nextgrid »

nexthash wrote: post #59
Nextgrid wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, what drives Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies is the need for certain properties that conventional currencies don't have - this includes properties some might find undesirable as they mainly benefit crime. The definition of "crime" itself is murky - are the citizens of sanctioned countries criminals because they're just trying to survive by participating in the global economy despite a stupid feud…

Yep, crime is all relative. Cryptocurrencies fullfill a very important need - how else would I accept my ransomware payments?

Before cryptocurrencies, ransomware would use gift cards or vouchers such as PaySafecard.

Even if ransom payments were made completely impossible, it would just move the problem - malware operators would then trade the stolen data directly or use it to extort users or profit from it in some other way. Hell, the stolen data itself could become a currency.

Also, how large of a part does ransomware play in criminal use of cryptocurrencies?

Finally, you could argue that "honest" ransomware (in the sense that they keep their promise not to further misuse the stolen data if the ransom is paid - which they have an incentive to keep otherwise the entire business model would collapse) provides a market-driven solution to security & privacy breaches, something that governments still can't solve as demonstrated by the Equifax case.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#84

Post by chordalkeyboard »

Apocryphon wrote: post #82
chordalkeyboard wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I doubt it considerably. In fact bitcoin enthusiasts are likely to have a better understanding of fiat than the average person, due to the value proposition of cryptocurrencies.

Most bitcoin enthusiasts at this point are more likely to be speculators who enjoy amassing (currently) rapidly appreciating assets that can be converted back to fiat currency, than deeply-committed ideologues who are familiar with the economic implications of the project.

> Most bitcoin enthusiasts at this point are more likely to be speculators who enjoy amassing (currently) rapidly appreciating assets that can be converted back to fiat currency, than deeply-committed ideologues who are familiar with the economic implications of the project.

I think you may be conflating recent bandwagoners with enthusiasts.

“There’s a limit to the number of bitcoin but the government can print as many dollars as they want” is a value proposition that bitcoin enthusiasts are likely to be familiar with.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#85

Post by Apocryphon »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #84
Apocryphon wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most bitcoin enthusiasts at this point are more likely to be speculators who enjoy amassing (currently) rapidly appreciating assets that can be converted back to fiat currency, than deeply-committed ideologues who are familiar with the economic implications of the project.

> Most bitcoin enthusiasts at this point are more likely to be speculators who enjoy amassing (currently) rapidly appreciating assets that can be converted back to fiat currency, than deeply-committed ideologues who are familiar with the economic implications of the project. I think you may be conflating recent bandwagoners with enthusiasts. “There’s a limit to the number of bitcoin but the government can print as ma…

I would assume bandwagoners have outnumbered the "enthusiasts" at this point. And the bandwagoners are just as enthusiastic about bitcoin as the true believers, as they have skin in the game. It just happens to be monetary instead of ideological.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#86

Post by tal8d »

Apocryphon wrote: post #75
tal8d wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Step one, don't do this: "BOINC superblocks fetch a participant’s BOINC recent average credit, also called researcher RAC. RAC is based on a participant’s earned BOINC credits. !!!>>>* Credits and RAC are defined by BOINC* <<<!!!"

BOINC's unit of credit, the Cobblestone (named after Jeff Cobb of SETI@home), is 1/200 day of CPU time on a reference computer that does 1,000 MFLOPS based on the Whetstone benchmark Eventually, credit may reflect network transfer and disk storage as well as computation. Credit has no monetary or other value; it's just a measure of how much work your computers have done. Total credit: The total number of Cobblestones…

Lets just take the shortcut: Who assigns the the proofing unit? The metric doesn't even matter, it is a question of who. Now, who controls that? Once you figure that out you'll realize that you are trusting parties that you either didn't know you were trusting, or you kinda knew but didn't want to think too hard about because nobody really cares about chucky cheese coin. You can't be rewarded for performing useful compute without some degree of implicit trust, which makes you dependent on the other party. You can dress it up with quorum algorithms, etc - but it only further obscures the underlying vulnerability. That is fine for a token system, but not for a cryptocurrency.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#87

Post by Apocryphon »

tal8d wrote: post #86
Apocryphon wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BOINC's unit of credit, the Cobblestone (named after Jeff Cobb of SETI@home), is 1/200 day of CPU time on a reference computer that does 1,000 MFLOPS based on the Whetstone benchmark Eventually, credit may reflect network transfer and disk storage as well as computation. Credit has no monetary or other value; it's just a measure of how much work your computers have done. Total credit: The total number of Cobblestones…

Lets just take the shortcut: Who assigns the the proofing unit? The metric doesn't even matter, it is a question of who. Now, who controls that? Once you figure that out you'll realize that you are trusting parties that you either didn't know you were trusting, or you kinda knew but didn't want to think too hard about because nobody really cares about chucky cheese coin. You can't be rewarded for performing useful co…

Okay, thank you for deigning to explain your objections in detail. That is actually quite helpful, as it has decreased my interest in GRC. I appreciate your time in reading the whitepaper and pointing out the deficiencies in the design.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#88

Post by paulryanrogers »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #73
paulryanrogers wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering the volatility and poor fundamentals of BTC I think your ice cube analogy might be reversed.

Considering the value proposition of BTC is to avoid keeping your money in fiat currency that is constantly depreciating while BTC is appreciating, the analogy is apt.

Key part being "while BTC is appreciating". Which seems based more on the greater fool theory than a sustainable asset or currency. (Lightning network not withstanding)

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#89

Post by chordalkeyboard »

Apocryphon wrote: post #85
chordalkeyboard wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most bitcoin enthusiasts at this point are more likely to be speculators who enjoy amassing (currently) rapidly appreciating assets that can be converted back to fiat currency, than deeply-committed ideologues who are familiar with the economic implications of the project. I think you may be conflating recent bandwagoners with enthusiasts. “There’s a limit to the number of bitcoin but the government can print as ma…

I would assume bandwagoners have outnumbered the "enthusiasts" at this point. And the bandwagoners are just as enthusiastic about bitcoin as the true believers, as they have skin in the game. It just happens to be monetary instead of ideological.

Without any source of data, there’s no way to know. There’s just no reason to believe that bitcoiners would have a worse understanding of fiat currency than non-bitcoiners. That would be like saying people who watch nascar don’t seem to understand how tires contribute to traction.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#90

Post by chordalkeyboard »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #88
chordalkeyboard wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering the value proposition of BTC is to avoid keeping your money in fiat currency that is constantly depreciating while BTC is appreciating, the analogy is apt.

Key part being "while BTC is appreciating". Which seems based more on the greater fool theory than a sustainable asset or currency. (Lightning network not withstanding)

> Key part being "while BTC is appreciating". Which seems based more on the greater fool theory than a sustainable asset or currency.

Thats just a failure to understand the value proposition of bitcoin. Its a medium of exchange that has a hard limit on inflation, no greater fool required. Hence, the comparison of ice cubes and fiat currency.

Post reply on HN