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

BTC Endgame

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 278 posts

Re: BTC Endgame

#111

Post by throwaway1777 »

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #63
nostrademons wrote: post #17

You don't need a DoS attack under the assumptions of this project. It's already assumed that you control ~80% of hash rate, so you execute a 51% attack that mass double-spends coins and destroy all confidence in the integrity of the currency. Poof, nobody uses it. Note that China already controls ~65% of Bitcoin hash rate, so if they wanted to execute this right now, they probably could. That they haven't is one reas…

> China gains no benefit from destroying Bitcoin; they can just continue to let it exist and tax all the Bitcoin miners in China, generating revenue for themselves and their citizens and continuing to be a thorn in the side of dollar hegemony CO2 emissions is probably why I'd do it if I were the Chinese government frankly.

Environmental virtue signaling compared to other co2 emission sources in China.

Re: BTC Endgame

#114

Post by swader999 »

mrits wrote: post #97
hertzrat wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will Bitcoin even be that decentralized in 50 years? The miners control the network, and most mining is done by big companies now and their data centres. If it’s like other companies, won’t they gradually acquire one another until there is only 1-2 companies controlling almost the entire future crypto economy? The scale of the computing power we are talking about is not something that individuals can compete with

I've posted here before about it. I'm of the opinion that it currently is not decentralized. There is such a shortage of hardware that can be competitive right now and there are only a few organizations that can get their hands on them. I think this problem is just going to get worse when the manufactures start to realize it doesn't make sense to sell any of their miners at all.

Agree, the electricity for the mining is even more centralised. That really is the point of control on this whole thing.

Re: BTC Endgame

#115

Post by Laforet »

swinglock wrote: post #78
Laforet wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would a hyperinflation on the US dollar cause civilization to stop? In any case, crypto trading since 2017 has been nothing but people buying and selling imaginary ticker symbols on unregulated exchanges. For example, XVG and ETC has been subject to successful 51% attacks more than once and every time the price was hardly affected. And each time the "solution" to deep chain reorg involved the exchanges freezing a…

> PoS is still vaporware Why is that? Aren't Cardano and Polkadot PoS as they claim or doesn't it work?

No PoS algorithm has yet managed to solve the Nothing-at-stake problem, nor are they any more resistant to the abovementioned kind of hostile takeover by the nation state player compared to PoW.

I can't speak for every PoS coin out there but Cardano/Ouroborous explicitly assumes partial synchrony which is arguably never a good idea for a supposedly permissionless blockchain.

Re: BTC Endgame

#116

Post by Laforet »

ericb wrote: post #88
Laforet wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would a hyperinflation on the US dollar cause civilization to stop? In any case, crypto trading since 2017 has been nothing but people buying and selling imaginary ticker symbols on unregulated exchanges. For example, XVG and ETC has been subject to successful 51% attacks more than once and every time the price was hardly affected. And each time the "solution" to deep chain reorg involved the exchanges freezing a…

> PoS is still vaporware - debate me if you want Tezos has a fully working Proof of stake system, and there are others. Feel free to share whatever you're on about, but I have a feeling "the debate" will be an exercise in goalpost moving.

Baseless accusations aside, please see my reply elsewhere in this thread for a response.

Re: BTC Endgame

#117

Post by Udik »

fanciestManimal wrote: post #86
afavour wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> China gains no benefit from destroying Bitcoin Right now they don't, no. But to my mind Bitcoin being subject to the whims of a major world power is a big knock against it, given that it aims to be a currency alternative. I don't want such an alternative to subject to any kind of geopolitical mood.

Yea I can't see a power like China controlling bitcoin to be a good thing. I also can't see myself maintaining a substantial fraction of my wealth in a unit of value subject to the whim of a totalitarian government. It's not inconceivable (to me at least) that leaders could decide it's personally beneficial to them (or politically beneficial) to damage Bitcoin, even if it cost a ton of their tax payers money.

No power controlling Bitcoin is a good thing (at least for Bitcoin). That's true for China, who could force its miners to do what it wants, as it is for the US, which could make it arbitrarily hard to transact or hold BTC (and which also has the habit if imposing sanctions on other states' entities).

Re: BTC Endgame

#118

Post by xiphias2 »

unyttigfjelltol wrote: post #112

The entire multi-billion BTC ecosystem is built on software that still hasn't reached "Version 1.0"? Bitcoin Core 0.21? A development beta? LOL.

It may be 0.21 but it is one of the best reviewed software in tbe worls for security issues. Also there's a trillion dollar bounty especially on the public signature infrastructure.

Re: BTC Endgame

#119

Post by hiimtroymclure »

unyttigfjelltol wrote: post #112

The entire multi-billion BTC ecosystem is built on software that still hasn't reached "Version 1.0"? Bitcoin Core 0.21? A development beta? LOL.

what on earth does choice of versioning have to do with anything. React Native isn't at 1.0 and tons of companies use it. Google releases versions/APIs of their software with tons of bugs.

Re: BTC Endgame

#120

Post by ardy42 »

nostrademons wrote: post #17

You don't need a DoS attack under the assumptions of this project. It's already assumed that you control ~80% of hash rate, so you execute a 51% attack that mass double-spends coins and destroy all confidence in the integrity of the currency. Poof, nobody uses it. Note that China already controls ~65% of Bitcoin hash rate, so if they wanted to execute this right now, they probably could. That they haven't is one reas…

> China gains no benefit from destroying Bitcoin; they can just continue to let it exist and tax all the Bitcoin miners in China, generating revenue for themselves and their citizens and continuing to be a thorn in the side of dollar hegemony.

That's making a lot of assumptions which I don't think there are good grounds to assume. For instance, that Bitcoin tax revenue is something the Chinese government cares enough about for it to affect its decision-making, or that Bitcoin is a "thorn in the side of dollar hegemony."

I think the reality is that Bitcoin (and cryptocurrency in general) is a niche thing that isn't nearly as important as its fans like to think it is, so there's little for a state-actor to gain by making the effort to disrupt it.

Post reply on HN