81–90 of 381 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bitcoin SV is a barely used esoteric fork of Bitcoin with a $5.5B market cap. It's a cash grab from a minority fork of BTC or BCH miners.
It is fun to see something with $5.5B market cap being called "esoteric" and "barely used". I wish I had a side project with similar market cap :P
This actually points out why Tesla not accepting bitcoin for environmental reasons is silly: 134.0 kg of CO2 per transaction about as much CO2 as a tank of gas. This is ridiculously inefficient, but it's a car; the energy inputs are already high. The real issue is the interest Musk created when Tesla bought bitcoin a few months ago and how he grew a conscious suspiciously fast.
Cool chart! Interesting to see how much of an outlier Bitcoin is. The middle tier currencies in this list (USDC, USDT, etc) are built on Ethereum, so once Ethereum finishes its switch over to proof-of-stake, both they and Ethereum will drop down to almost nothing in terms of power used per transaction.
> so once Ethereum finishes its switch over to proof-of-stake Isn't there a lot of uncertainty as to how well proof-of-stake will work?
Proof-of-stake is vulnerable to various miner collusion attacks that Bitcoin is not vulnerable to. The gist of it is that casting multiple conflicting votes (sometimes way after you cast your original vote) doesn't require any additional resources in a proof-of-stake system, whereas casting additional votes in a proof-of-work system is very expensive.
Txs / MWh is not a valid metric for most cryptocurrencies since power consumption is proportional to price, not transactions. Also, BSV and BCH are totally insecure so it's not really fair to compare them to secure cryptocurrencies.
It's proportional to the value a miner is awarded (ie: block reward + transaction fess) for mining a block not the price of the coin. Saying it is the price of the coin is like saying Berkshire Hathaway is worth more than Apple because their share price is a lot higher.
Cool chart! Interesting to see how much of an outlier Bitcoin is. The middle tier currencies in this list (USDC, USDT, etc) are built on Ethereum, so once Ethereum finishes its switch over to proof-of-stake, both they and Ethereum will drop down to almost nothing in terms of power used per transaction.
We will see how proof of stake will work, and in FAQ is a paper about it. POS have one big problem, that you only have to buy coins once and stake them and you will get richer every day by doing nothing without any additional investment. Basically it will make rich richer and more centralized. We will see how it will works in future.
With PoW, miners can't really hold on to the coins for very long, so they have to dump it to cover electricity and hardware costs which always creates supply whereas with PoS, a staker can just hold on to the coins they get forever at no cost and their share of the pie keeps getting larger and larger forever.
To be clear, I'm not complaining, if eth decides to pay me 5-10% per year based on my holdings for a simple cryptographic signature, I'm not gonna say no, but it definitely creates a weird dynamic where new entrants will have to buy at the price the stakers decide to sell, which could be sky high since we have no pressure to sell.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We will see how proof of stake will work, and in FAQ is a paper about it. POS have one big problem, that you only have to buy coins once and stake them and you will get richer every day by doing nothing without any additional investment. Basically it will make rich richer and more centralized. We will see how it will works in future.
POS has a big problem when a coin starts as proof-of-stake. I agree with this. Because there's no fair way to do distribution. Many proof-of-stake coins happen to start out with the majority of supply owned by the core devs or VCs. It ends up becoming a cartel, which is not decentralized. I think Ethereum's approach is interesting, because after 6 years of Proof-of-Work and several up and down markets, the distributi…
Anything resembling an ICO is a non-starter if it were to survive, especially with a shifting regulatory landscape. I was among the opponents to Ethereum's initial distribution (premine) but to wit, ETH has no supply cap so Vitalik's slice has shrunk over the years.
From the FAQ Page: >What about Ripple/IOTA/...? >As with Proof of Stake we are aware of no existing, alternative protocol that has solved the problem of distributed consensus. Usually these approaches have resulted in some form of centralized authority becoming an important factor in the security model. >Of course a centralized systems can achieve a far greater energy efficiency. Here we want to compare only distribu…
Does XRPL no longer have a unique node list that is mostly under the control of Ripple (because they maintain the default that clients automatically use)? https://cryptobriefing.com/is-xrp-decentralized-ripples-invo... Could the system still be decentralized in practice? Sure. But the fact that the Ripple CTO claimed XRP might be more decentralized than BTC or ETH makes me take the rest of their claims with huge buck…
https://xrpl.org/technical-faq.html#what-are-unique-node-lis...
>Ripple CTO claimed XRP might be more decentralized than BTC
Hows that relevant he can assume whatever he wants ryt? We can not measure decentralization in a meaningful way. His guess is as good as yours. BTW hes a Bitcoin developer.
Also I assume what he meant to say with that is that China could gain control over 50+% of the mining power. On the XRPL no country could seize control or more accurately they could but it would not have any effect. Double spends are not possible by gaining control over 50+%. You could only trick the nodes you control which is literally as useless as it sounds.
And ofc all other nodes would simply ignore any node that is assumed to be compromised or malfunctioning. The BTC network cant "ignore miners". If it would be know that someone has 50+% hash power there would be no solution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not true, you have to run a validator to get rewarded. Rewards will be much less than miners get now, and the whole "rich get richer" is literally how investment works in basically anything, even Bitcoin mining
Yes, running a validator will cost some money. I will explain how I think. If the rich want to get richer he have to make good investment decisions and some work. In POS you don't have to do anything at all, just buy and hold. So in POS, you don't need to innovate your business model. In POW, you always have to innovate to be a leader. Bitcoin ASIC innovation in last years shows how strong competition is. And competi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People have largely switched already. Py2 is gone from default installs these days. So yes, even if it takes a while, people often do switch to better solutions.
https://dev.to/hugovk/python-version-share-over-time-6-1jb8 It seems like Python 2 is still pretty prevalent, with over 40% of new downloads taking place as of last year. And people forget Python 3 was originally introduced in 2008. So the transition is taking decades, not years. The last place I worked was still using Python 2 as of last year, and they were a startup without all the bureaucracy of a big company. The…
https://transactionfee.info/charts/payments-spending-segwit/