261–270 of 301 posts
What about nano and banano?
Banano in particular has abused the airdrop (and thus distribution) system. They had an airdrop in Feb (supposed to go out in March) for Nano holders (same team) that they leveraged into a ton of publicity and people buying their coins and then just didn't give it out - in fact the project lead is hostile about it on their discord while doing more separate airdrops.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> button-clicking and datacenter-construction Which of these two scenarios seems to favour the rich, in your mind?
Running a proof-of-work mining business isn’t risk-free: being wealthy alone is no guarantee of success. Conversely, with button clicking for autoyield, success is all but guaranteed. There’s really no comparison. Running a business with high fixed and variable costs, and considerable competition is far more difficult to pull off successfully than a passive investment. Which one do you think favours a “gilded elite”…
Putting money in a bank isn't even enough to keep up with inflation at the moment, the same is true for Proof of Stake coins, too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
PoW is not the only way to solve double spending (and make sure that the blocks are ordered in a particular timeline), in PoS it is solved by randomly choosing which validator will create the next block according to an algorithm that all the nodes follow. So there's no race to find the next block, the block producer is known in advance. What's more, in PoS, you have guaranteed finality, meaning that after a certain a…
There are a bunch of ways in which you're not exactly correct here. First, you're describing a very particular implementation of PoS. Not all PoS implementations include slashing. This isn't a mere technicality: the most popular implementation of PoS (as measured by market cap) is Cardano's and it doesn't include slashing. And not all PoS implementations involve randomly choosing a validator. The bigger problem here…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is actually quite fun to say out loud - "here is a revolutionary trustless system of currency, but you must trust a group of anonymous developers in the non-extradition offshore not to screw you with premine"
Have you never used a block explorer, or do you just not understand how blockchain works? I fully agree there are weird insider deals based on allocations and premines - but that's all fully auditable, and if it isn't, that says all you need to know. You are applying the flaws of the worst examples across the whole technology AKA a strawman. Maybe you're just salty you could never take the risk required to make money…
So please tell me, how does being auditable (note that "auditable" is very different from "audited") prevents creators from selling premine?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> we have payment systems that are currently multiple orders of magnitude more efficient than Bitcoin or Chia, so that is kind of a baseline. (Think Visa or Mastercard) Credit cards offer none of the desirable properties found in many cyptocurrencies such as decentralization, privacy, security, full custody of funds... It makes little sense to compare the two, especially in terms of "efficiency".
It does. I am trading off decentralization, privacy, security, ... with (for Bitcoin) more than how much energy I would use in a year and CO2 I would use in a life, per transaction. They do offer a comparable product, and you need to compare their upsides and downsides.
You're looking at the cost of transactions. You're not looking at the cost of private anonymous trustless decentralized uncensorable unsanctionable irreversible transactions.
I think bitcoin is a waste of resources because it failed as a cryptocurrency. I wouldn't mind even larger amounts of resources being poured into better coins like XMR though. I don't care how much energy it requires, those properties are just too valuable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
PoW is not the only way to solve double spending (and make sure that the blocks are ordered in a particular timeline), in PoS it is solved by randomly choosing which validator will create the next block according to an algorithm that all the nodes follow. So there's no race to find the next block, the block producer is known in advance. What's more, in PoS, you have guaranteed finality, meaning that after a certain a…
What if an attacker’s goal is to see another validator get slashed?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
PoW is not the only way to solve double spending (and make sure that the blocks are ordered in a particular timeline), in PoS it is solved by randomly choosing which validator will create the next block according to an algorithm that all the nodes follow. So there's no race to find the next block, the block producer is known in advance. What's more, in PoS, you have guaranteed finality, meaning that after a certain a…
There are a bunch of ways in which you're not exactly correct here. First, you're describing a very particular implementation of PoS. Not all PoS implementations include slashing. This isn't a mere technicality: the most popular implementation of PoS (as measured by market cap) is Cardano's and it doesn't include slashing. And not all PoS implementations involve randomly choosing a validator. The bigger problem here…
Lol, you're a genius! Bwahahaha!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing against staking, but you and many other posters ITT are creating a blatant false equivalence between button-clicking and datacenter-construction. It’s not beyond the pale quite yet — we’ve all seen far worse from cryptocurrency promoters over the years — but you’re leaving open minded third parties little choice but to interject. When’s the last time a billion dollar staking operation had to build multiple mi…
> button-clicking and datacenter-construction Which of these two scenarios seems to favour the rich, in your mind?
I would say it’s harder to compete with miners than stakers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An attacker only needs to fool the network for a short amount of time -- e.g. to double-spend someone. It doesn't matter to the attacker that they are eventually discovered; what matters is that they can get away with it before getting caught.
Again, that's simply not true. Let's go through the hypothetical attack: 1. The attacker accumulates some coin then spends it / sells it. 2. The attacker starts building a chain using their old keys 3. The attacker presents this chain to a new entrant that they've eclipsed 4. The attacker buys something from the eclipsed victim Any self respecting PoS protocol would have long cooldowns that would force step 1 and ste…
2. That's simply incorrect, and I'm quite unsure why you think that. Proof of Work is the thing that slows down the creation of blockchains: a PoS attacker who creates a blockchain can emit blocks at a very high rate. The fact that they are the only validator doesn't slow them in any way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s perhaps not technically a premine but practically it is. There’s a protection however - if any of those coins ever move Bitcoin will have a very interesting day.
The problem with labelling it a premine is that it is, intentionally or not, a loaded FUD term commonly used to describe scam coins and to enrich "founders". Bitcoin was not premined in any sense of the word and Satoshi was quite verbose and open about his reasoning and launch date as well as supplying working mining code publicly.