351–360 of 381 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly, hn is stuck on fossil fuel cryptocurrencies and doesn’t seem to understand that all new tech in the last 5 years hasn’t used proof of work.
That's because it's difficult to compete with Bitcoin on proof-of-work. Instead, they have to cut corners and create unsecure PoS money from thin air. There are new PoW cryptocurrencies such as Grin ( https://grin.mw )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's still a lottery, except the way you buy tickets is by wasting electricity. The more electricity wasted the more lottery tickets you have. It doesn't need be like this, just buy the tickets with effing bitcoins and you achieve the same result without wasting electricity.
It’s not that easy. You can’t secure Bitcoin with a lottery run on Bitcoin, because then you could forge your own tickets and forge the drawing, too. The proof of stake proposals don’t seem to work that way. They seem to be more a matter of stakeholders having machines that vote about who is trustworthy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I pay someone to build me a house, I have a house and they have fiat. We converted energy into a house and fiat. If I convert the same amount of energy into crypto, I have nothing with intrinsic value. And before you say that fiat has no intrinsic value, consider that most people have fiat debt (loans, taxes, wages, etc.) that they can pay off with it. Currently very few people have any crypto debt.
crypto/fiat is not an apples to apples comparison. it's an apples to oranges. cryptos are a new class of asset If you convert energy into crypto, you have crypto, may not have intrinsic value for you. right now it's worth 42k usd for somebody which of those have/don't have intrinsic value: - gold, silver and other precious metals - stocks - options - house - car - fiat - cryptos
In the case of stock, you have a legal stake in an ongoing enterprise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a node publicly commits to providing a random value, but then doesn't follow the protocol by actually revealing it, then that node's stake can be distributed to the honest nodes and the procedure started again. The protocol could even increase the stake needed to be one of these random value providing nodes, every time such a failure occurred, to make such an attack more and more expensive.
Then the node that had their stake forfeited simply allocates their resources to a competing blockchain where that didn’t happen.
That's probably true in general, but I was assuming that the random number generation would be decoupled from the process of actually building the consensus.
As long as the loss of stake can happen and be finalised as part of the transaction history, then eventually the attackers will run out of money and the random number generation process can catch up and start generating more entropy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A better analogy would be trying to use a 7-seater dump truck as a school bus, then complaining when the 'haters' analysis is based on "gallons of gasoline per available seat-day." As if the fact the gallons of gasoline per seat-day changes based on external factors (i.e. with the weather or traffic) makes any difference? It legitimately does not matter that (i) not all 7 seats may be populated each day or that (ii)…
No one is complaining and no one said "haters", these are things you hallucinated. I'm not defending bitcoin, I'm just pointing out that you have huge misunderstanding about how it and cryptocurrency works in general even though these things have been explained to you over and over. Bitcoin's electricity use it because of its sustained price. If the miners could not consistently sell for high prices the overall elect…
> ... which is why everything you are saying is nonsense.
You're being rude again. Once again this is against the site terms. I'm happy to engage in any civil conversation with you that doesn't involve name-calling, as I'm sure you've seen a number of times. This thread, however is closed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one is complaining and no one said "haters", these are things you hallucinated. I'm not defending bitcoin, I'm just pointing out that you have huge misunderstanding about how it and cryptocurrency works in general even though these things have been explained to you over and over. Bitcoin's electricity use it because of its sustained price. If the miners could not consistently sell for high prices the overall elect…
> No one is complaining and no one said "haters", these are things you hallucinated. > ... which is why everything you are saying is nonsense. You're being rude again. Once again this is against the site terms. I'm happy to engage in any civil conversation with you that doesn't involve name-calling, as I'm sure you've seen a number of times. This thread, however is closed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not how logic works. That would be like saying "you need light to your math homework so we will measure how many math problems you can do per lumen of light". The throughput of transactions is not coupled to the amount of electricity used to mine. They are two elements in the system, that doesn't mean they move proportionally in any way.
> The throughput of transactions is not coupled to the amount of electricity used to mine. They are two elements in the system, that doesn't mean they move proportionally in any way. We know that. This is not an argument against cost per transaction being an adequate measure of efficiency for a transaction processing system.
Not only that, but not all cryptocurrencies are even trying to optimize for this. I would say that bitcoin is actually in the opposite direction and trying to be as expensive per transaction for both the miners and users as possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No one is complaining and no one said "haters", these are things you hallucinated. > ... which is why everything you are saying is nonsense. You're being rude again. Once again this is against the site terms. I'm happy to engage in any civil conversation with you that doesn't involve name-calling, as I'm sure you've seen a number of times. This thread, however is closed.
No one is being rude to you. If you don't want someone to mention that you made up something they didn't say, then don't do that. If you say the same things over and over that have been explained to you to be false, don't be surprised if that gets brought up. If you can confront what I'm saying with something true, feel free.
You may wanna chat with your mother for a second opinion ;)
> No one is complaining and no one said "haters", these are things you hallucinated.
I didn't say you said 'haters' that's a stylized/flourished way of saying an opposing viewpoint. That's why it's in quotes. If anything it was self-deprecating/deferential with respect to my biases. Jumping in with "that's not how logic works" is certainly a valid thing to call out as whining or complaining because again it's not particularly civil. Off the basis of your misinterpretation you once again accuse your counter-party of 'hallucinating.'
As I said this thread is over and should in the future you decide to have a civil conversation I'll happily engage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one is being rude to you. If you don't want someone to mention that you made up something they didn't say, then don't do that. If you say the same things over and over that have been explained to you to be false, don't be surprised if that gets brought up. If you can confront what I'm saying with something true, feel free.
> No one is being rude to you. You may wanna chat with your mother for a second opinion ;) > No one is complaining and no one said "haters", these are things you hallucinated. I didn't say you said 'haters' that's a stylized/flourished way of saying an opposing viewpoint. That's why it's in quotes. If anything it was self-deprecating/deferential with respect to my biases. Jumping in with "that's not how logic works"…
You seem happy to engage on how something is being said, but not so much on what is being said.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Those monopolies you mention in the abstract are largely possible because laws make it much more difficult than it could be for competitors to arise. This is just more libertarian apologetics. There have been more than enough examples ( cough intel *cough) of monopolistic practices caused by unfair market practices. Using dominance to force suppliers to exclusive use of your products is not a practice enabled by th…
> There have been more than enough examples (cough intel *cough) of monopolistic practices caused by unfair market practices. Using dominance to force suppliers to exclusive use of your products is not a practice enabled by the state. Microchip fabrication is a very lucrative business, so why aren't there more competitors to Intel? I can think of at least two reasons: 1. It's a very capital-intensive industry. Here a…
You say "libertarian" but then you reject intellectual property.