651–660 of 1001 posts
Your post advocates a (X) technical ( ) legislative (X) market-based ( ) vigilante approach to solving the double-spend problem in a decentralized cryptocurrency. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.) (X) Scammers can easily use it to d…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct, the US Federal Reserve is a Proof of Stake system. Members earn 6% dividends for the last 100 years, and this was to entice them to join the system at all. Just pointing out that the idea of an omnipotent US government is a fairly new concept, and it must incentivize and entice people to join its payment network as opposed to other private ones. The private networks for final settlement are becoming more int…
> Members earn 6% dividends for the last 100 years, and this was to entice them to join the system at all. Can you tell more about this? Specially the "and this was to entice them to join the system at all." part.
The human interface to the system is a separate public agency called the Board of Governors, which simply tells the public what the Federal Reserve has done, and also communicates any changes to the Federal Reserve's charter (any legislative updates) to the DAO.
however, once the value of those tokens is established (as is true for most of the big cryptocurrencies today), there is really no compelling reason not to emulate the proof of work block lottery with a proof of stake block lottery. there is absolutely no reason why people can't lock up digital currency funds long term in exchange for share in a 10 minute lottery rather than lock up funds in hardware mining investments and associated power supplies for them.
i've been watching ethereum's progress on this with interest, and fully expect with time that bitcoin will follow.
I was fairly into the space in 2014-2016 but stopped paying attention the last few years. It seems like lots of theorized applications actually exist and have a proof-of-concept now. If I’m building a marketplace business in 2021, where I want to be “crypto-first” instead of relying on PayPal and Stripe Connect, where do I start? The marketplace sells access to resources with an off-chain ACL system. It facilitates t…
This is a great solution called zk-rollup (zero knowledge rollup) https://zksync.io/ It is just as secure as the base chain (unlike polygon) and has low fees and has been live for the past few months. This is a perfect solution to simple payments. The difference between optimistic rollups and zero knowledge rollups is that you can’t deploy arbitrary smart contracts to zk rollup, it only supports a limited set of use…
Proof of Stake is already how our current financial system works. The people with the most money make the decisions. Proof-of-Work is provably resistant to this, as evidenced by the 2017 blocksize debate where almost every large miner and bitcoin company wanted to change the protocol and it was fought off through grassroots efforts. A PoS currency will be controlled by a cabal of US financial institutions, and indire…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Controlling the mining doesn't allow you to control much about how transactions work.
The network majority decides everything, including how transactions work, how many coins there are, what the block size is... The prospect that there's only ever going to be 21 million Bitcoin is ensured by nothing except majority opinion. It's not inconceivable that this will be relaxed in the future and Bitcoin will have a "Bitcoin Classic" fork where old rules are enforced. This could happen if, for instance, tran…
This article comes from the Ethereum blog, can anyone verify the numbers or provide an unbiased view?
A lot of the debate seems to be around whether or not it's as secure or viable, or whether the existing Ethereum miners will try to stage a coup or something.
Disclaimer: I don't hold cryptocurrency and I think proof-of-work cryptocurrencies are a tragic waste.
Proof of Stake is already how our current financial system works. The people with the most money make the decisions. Proof-of-Work is provably resistant to this, as evidenced by the 2017 blocksize debate where almost every large miner and bitcoin company wanted to change the protocol and it was fought off through grassroots efforts. A PoS currency will be controlled by a cabal of US financial institutions, and indire…
I am not convinced that PoW is immune to those pressures or even resistant to it. The people with capital control the mining. At least the environmental problems are reduced with PoS
Mining is expensive and low margin. Generally, the people who own the most Bitcoins are not the same as the people with the most mining rigs, the two parties tend to be completely divorced, and the miners tend to be strongly incentivized around not rocking the boat (for better or worse).
The other misunderstanding is that mining doesn't shape the protocol. The users shape the protocol, and can run any validation software they want. No user has to accept a block by a miner, and every block made by a miner has to conform to the protocol's rules.
Algorand has been Proof of Stake for years (2019 MainNet launch) and it's actually carbon-negative [1]. It's a shame more people don't know about it. Its founder is a Turing-award-winning MIT professor (Silvio Micali) who solved the blockchain trilemma [2] with the Pure Proof of Stake consensus algorithm. The tech is leaps and bounds ahead of other cryptos. [1]: https://www.algorand.com/resources/news/carbon_negative…
If only a fraction of the stake holders are validators at any given time, but the set of 1000 validators is selected randomly from token holders, then all you technically need is 1000 tokens (or more) and given enough time you will be selected as the only validator, right? You can then validate a fraudulent transaction, breaking security.
Now perhaps the amount of time it would take for this to occur would be longer than the heat death of the universe if you only have 1000 tokens, but at the very least, this substantially reduces the stake required to mount such an attack below the 51% required in a PoW system, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Controlling the mining doesn't allow you to control much about how transactions work.
The network majority decides everything, including how transactions work, how many coins there are, what the block size is... The prospect that there's only ever going to be 21 million Bitcoin is ensured by nothing except majority opinion. It's not inconceivable that this will be relaxed in the future and Bitcoin will have a "Bitcoin Classic" fork where old rules are enforced. This could happen if, for instance, tran…