141–150 of 175 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the data on the drive is encrypted, there’s no need to shred decommissioned drives.
True, but some companies are extra careful. Or were anyway, back when I got a tour.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, it just had Satoshi and friends as basically the only members on the network and mined millions of coins when difficulty was basically non existent.
Early adoption is not premining.
Definition sometimes are lagging behind ever changing reality, same with "premine".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not trying to be obtuse, but why is authority tied to amount of coin owned any more plutocratic than authority tied to amount of computing resources used? Both cost money, and both scale power with amount of money sunk into it.
I don't think it is any more plutocratic. It's about the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The key difference is that there is a lot of overprovisioned storage out there currently sitting idle From where? Individuals or enterprises? With the direction we're headed (SSDs and cloud storage), it's hard to imagine many people with a few terabytes of hard drive space. On the other hand you can get around cheap hard drives at around $15/TB if you buy external, then shuck them so you can put it in a backpane or…
It's becoming more and more popular for hobbyists to have at least double-digits of TB of storage sitting around for various purposes. I'd gladly make some profit out of the part of my array that's not filled up yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s plutocracy with emojis. Other than that - absolutely nothing
I'm not trying to be obtuse, but why is authority tied to amount of coin owned any more plutocratic than authority tied to amount of computing resources used? Both cost money, and both scale power with amount of money sunk into it.
Users have prevailed in Bitcoin forkwars over miners and many large exchanges and businesses.
Miners are really more similar to employees of the network, that order transaction in exchange for fees. They are not masters of the protocol, and cannot dictate its rules.
Proof of Work has a nuclear option (change of hashing algo) that would bankrupt the miners and render their farms useless. No such option exists in PoS, just political battles, as we've seen in practice.
In PoS users lost in political battles of EOS (collapsed and rewrote the network rules) and Steem (taken over by bad faith staker). Literally all PoS projects failed in some way until today, due to some centralization pressures it produces.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it is any more plutocratic. It's about the same.
What other options are possible for blockchain networks? All I've seen so far are plutocracy (PoW/PoS blockchains) and oligarchy (centralized blockchains).
Users have prevailed agaist miners and large business in Bitcon forkwors, which failed to force their agenda on the users. This is at least some empirical proof in support that Bitcoin is not a plutocracy.
Miners have large farms that can be bankrupted by users simply deciding to change the hashing algo. No such option in PoS.
In PoS, largest wallets dictate changes. Liquidity begets more liquidity, aka the rich get richer, and such effect has a centralizing effect on PoS. All PoS project to date have failed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s plutocracy with emojis. Other than that - absolutely nothing
The upside is that the wealthy have an incentive to keep the currency functional, otherwise their wealth is lost. The downside is that "functional" isn't exactly a high bar. For example reducing block rewards to encourage deflation would disproportionately help the wealthy so they may push it even if it isn't ideal for the average person.
We've seen this throughout history.
That's what PoS will do to small holders. They will be nothing but tiny shareholders with no anti-dilutive protections and zero legal recourse.
I'd much rather deal with a centralized entity where at least I have a some body of law I can rely on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s plutocracy with emojis. Other than that - absolutely nothing
The upside is that the wealthy have an incentive to keep the currency functional, otherwise their wealth is lost. The downside is that "functional" isn't exactly a high bar. For example reducing block rewards to encourage deflation would disproportionately help the wealthy so they may push it even if it isn't ideal for the average person.
A system like that is definitely not decentralized.