151–160 of 179 posts
They didnt include NKN which has a lot of nodes
It says on their website: "Our economic model consists of two kinds of users: The ones who want to use the benefits of NKN, and the ones who create them." So how many of 32k nodes are actually the ones that create NKN?
Wait isn't each collection of 32 eth considered a separate validator no matter the source? If that's the case then wouldn't that mean that coinbase and other exchanges make up the massive overwhelming majority of those validators? If that's the case is it really good faith to claim that there are 400+ thousand validators and then arbitrarily put ethereum in first place?
Currently there are 79,717 distinct depositor addresses. They list 36 known entities validating, accounting for about 75% of staked ETH. So that leaves about 100K validators split among small unknown entities. Many of those would be home stakers.
Some of the known entities are staking pools, representing lots people who own the stake. But it's only the pool producing the blocks. Bitcoin is similar: lots of home miners but they're mostly in pools, not attempting to create blocks on their own.
For the number of entities creating Bitcoin blocks, I just found this paper, which doesn't give a total number but says 55 to 60 miners control at least half of Bitcoin mining: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3942181
I wouldn't expect the number of independent (i.e. unpooled) Bitcoin miners to be especially large, since a fairly large investment is required to have a chance of producing a block in a given year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The market cap is now $100M. In your dreams only. Good luck finding any serious (aka "smart") money willing to take your valuation seriously. With such due diligence you're likely to be the only one hodling $FOO ;)
Thats exactly why market cap is a bad metric - it does not encode market depth (how much you can actually sell before the price moves) or velocity (how many units are changing hands in the wild in a given period). Worst of all, currencies do not have market caps - equities do. Market caps are measured in currencies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Firstly I don't understand who you are "answering" to, the GP didn't talk about Market Cap as a relevant metric. No but they were clearly refuting the alternative suggestion (nodes) was game-able. That was my point. > Market Cap is only relevant when reported by popular metrics websites which vet their data sources a little > you will learn to care for coins/token which have liquidity/volume either on reputable CEX…
Not OP, but: > by a centralized web site, is the exact antithesis of cryptocurrencies. What happened to decentralization? A centralized cryptocurrency is an antithesis. I don't care if any of the products or websites in the surrounding ecosystem are centralized: all I care about is that bitcoin remains decentralized. Decentralization is a force that limits usefullness. Bitcoin is useful only as a base layer; digital…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct, asic's could have multiple, but in reality, don't. There is litecoin with scrypt. I was the 3rd largest scrypt miner there for a while. But these are all speculation coins without any solid utility. Nobody is going to build asics for coins that don't have demand. We saw this happen with Grin coin. Another little tidbit for you... GPU mining didn't really impact the supply as much as people like to talk it up…
> But these are all speculation coins without any solid utility. Nobody is going to build asics for coins that don't have demand. We saw this happen with Grin coin. Not only is Grin the one coin, out of many thousands, that strongly deters speculation with its pure linear emission, but it did in fact have ASICs built for it (the Ipollo G1/G1-mini).
I still stand by what I said... grin doesn't have any demand (the price is in the dumps and it has no utility)... nobody is going to pay $9k for an asic to earn pennies. how many of those things have people actually bought?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because crypto is banned on every meaningful platform. I can’t use my phone to mine, I can’t use defi on IOS or android. In the US I can’t access shorting on CEX, am not allowed to use tornado cash to gain privacy, I am platform locked everywhere I go and yet crypto hangs on the fringe. Crypto is heavily censored in the US from multiple directions.
I can use my phone to CPU mine with https://github.com/XMRig-for-Android/xmrig-for-android albeit at a very low hashrate. IDK about GPU mining though, seems like that could be more useful. But if you root your android device you can pretty much install anything you would on a linux system, with exceptions. Also, I don't see why you couldn't just distribute a defi app on android as an APK, including tornado cash. I do…
> Crypto is not heavily censored in the US. I mean maybe, but it depends on what state you live in.
There are major roadblocks being put in place by powerful entities. I have to use VPNs, different distribution/ platforms, .onions, NATS, and other bits of technology to get around those roadblocks and use the technology as I see fit.
> tornado cash or coinjoin server, as that constitutes money laundering.
Ensuring privacy is money laundering? Please tell.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not OP, but: > by a centralized web site, is the exact antithesis of cryptocurrencies. What happened to decentralization? A centralized cryptocurrency is an antithesis. I don't care if any of the products or websites in the surrounding ecosystem are centralized: all I care about is that bitcoin remains decentralized. Decentralization is a force that limits usefullness. Bitcoin is useful only as a base layer; digital…
Gold bars are technically "decentralized". No one controls the supply (e.g. there isn't a sovereignty that creates/destroys them), and I can technically just dig them up out of the ground.
Quoted post unavailable.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
(No, that's not a defense of cryptocurrency - just of HN comment quality, which may not be great to begin with, but which accounts like this destroy.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean to me the problem is how do you define a node? A node participating in consensus or any node? And if it's participating in consensus, is it counting only the nodes that participated in consensus since genesis or since some time in the past? All of these technologies are completely different.
The problem, if you go that route, is how you define participating in consensus. Say I have a fully synced and always up to date Bitcoin node, running on a Pi in my closet, that I only use to make and receive payments, which I very rarely do. Then yes, that node did participate in consensus for those payments but it was practically asleep for all the other transactions happening in the network (it did validate all bl…