141–150 of 338 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1% of ALL energy generated just to operate a part of the world economy is a massive amount though...
Bitcoin uses less energy than Gold Mining and the Banking System https://twitter.com/topimp21/status/1542863870552936448 "Bitcoin uses 2-56 times less energy than the fiat system" https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/bitcoin-environmental-de...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
PoS does not give you any power to change the rules of the system, it only makes sure that those who are invested in the system get (slightly) rewarded for good behavior and (heavily) penalized for bad behavior.
That “bad behavior” is precisely what the above poster meant by “changing the rules of the system.” If you or a syndicate have a large enough stake, you can manipulate the transactions which occur.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there's two points to unpack: 1. As you said, it was compute-rich before, and native token-rich now. I see it that way: the difference is that your richness is now a part of the protocol which allows it to e.g. punish bad actors (aka slashing) which isn't possible in PoW scenario where attacks can continue indefinitely. 2. Validators don't solely decide rules of execution: full nodes do. If you, as a validato…
Who defines what a "bad" actor is?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the prevailing theory but in practice I'm not sure it will work. Ethereum forked early on due to someone stealing some money from The DAO. In reality the exchanges/large corporate owners will be the ones doing network validation, and they will be the ones most easily leaned on by their respective governments. If a government(s) says "you need to veer off this version of Ethereum and run your own", the chain w…
> If a government(s) says "you need to veer off this version of Ethereum and run your own. Which governments, saying to whom? And how would they enforce it? What would be the consequences for those that didn't comply?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I absolutely agree we should build infrastructure that allows people within oppressive regimes options with which they can resist, escape and co-ordinate. Which is why this infrastructure, which is clearly designed to empower those regimes, is bad. Are North Koreans using crypto-currencies? Maybe, it doesn't seem like it. Is the North Korean regime using crypto-currencies? Absolutely, we repeatedly see the North Kore…
Turns out North Korea are using crypto! To fund missile programs https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-60281129.amp The more I think on these things, the more I think trust is a feature, not a bug
Transparent systems in which transactions are screened do not trust their people.
North Korea would never allow their people access to a truly private cryptocurrency (which Monero does better). It would become easier to funnel money internally and create opposing factions.
This discussion is no different than a discussion about just rulers. If the person in charge of a monetary system has good intentions, or is informed by a democracy with collectively good intentions, it is better for them to dictate who can have access and who cannot.
Crypto forces those on the network to trust in the free decisions of the collective. If you think more people would transact with a large criminal psychopathic state like North Korea than they would with people who oppose North Korea, that is a collective choice. In a truly decentralized system, where everyone had access (which is not the case, and complicates things), the real, in practice will of the people comes out.
>Let’s walk through a couple theoretical scenarios where a subset of malicious validators wants to censor transactions, say those originating in FATF-blacklisted countries. Hang on a second. Just to be clear about this example, this example is walking through how Ethereum has been designed specifically to allow North Korea to transact Ethereum, and more than that, prevent anyone who dissents. Like, I mean ok, I get t…
Imho, they are inferior to real currencies at everything except for that.
Now, if you want to discuss whether that makes crypto a good or bad thing, oh, I'm with you, let's dive into that. But this article is discussing the implementation of such a system, not the frankly quite concerning ethics behind the existence of the system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If a government(s) says "you need to veer off this version of Ethereum and run your own. Which governments, saying to whom? And how would they enforce it? What would be the consequences for those that didn't comply?
They can use the classic decentralized conflict resolution method, proof of violence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it backwards compatible? Clients cannot continue to secure the protocol by hash mining after switching the protocol from PoW to PoS. Bitcoin moving to PoS would probably lead to a hard fork and split - two protocols, one where some group want to stay on the PoW fork, and another where some group want to migrate to the new PoS fork.
You define a consensus rule in NewStakeChain that it must include within it a valid block for OldChain that contains no transactions, or otherwise causes damage to the network by making it unusable such as a reorganization proof. Once the OldChain network has been destroyed by the new one, the consensus rule can be relaxed and there no longer needs to be POW completed by anybody. This specific example works and is ec…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you just assume that Etherium is American?
The US assumes everyone is American when enforcement is concerned. Ask Kim Dotcom.
What happened to Dotcom is fairly normal in the case where someone in country X is doing something that violates similar laws in both country X and country Y, more of the damages are occurring in country Y than in country X, and X and Y have extradition treaties.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You define a consensus rule in NewStakeChain that it must include within it a valid block for OldChain that contains no transactions, or otherwise causes damage to the network by making it unusable such as a reorganization proof. Once the OldChain network has been destroyed by the new one, the consensus rule can be relaxed and there no longer needs to be POW completed by anybody. This specific example works and is ec…
That doesn't work as it would still require PoW to "include within it a valid block for OldChain". Any change to proof of work requires a hard fork.