Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoin Is Time

dergigi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 1001 posts

Re: Bitcoin Is Time

#281

Post by benlivengood »

gnrlst wrote: post #210

I'm ready to be downvoted to oblivion, especially by all the Bitcoin purists, but I hope my message sparks at least some curiosity. Bitcoin is getting "weaker" every year for several reasons: - emerging centralization due to economies of scale. If this trend continues the mining power will be so consolidated that a 51% attack will be likely. The Nakamoto coefficient is already at 4, and tending towards 3. - energy us…

There's also the other Bitcoin, BCH, which suffers from basically none of the problems you listed.

If a 51% attack was actually lucrative then shouldn't at least some miners attempt it given that BTC hash-power is about 100X that of BCH?

Re: Bitcoin Is Time

#282

Post by WanderPanda »

gnrlst wrote: post #210

I'm ready to be downvoted to oblivion, especially by all the Bitcoin purists, but I hope my message sparks at least some curiosity. Bitcoin is getting "weaker" every year for several reasons: - emerging centralization due to economies of scale. If this trend continues the mining power will be so consolidated that a 51% attack will be likely. The Nakamoto coefficient is already at 4, and tending towards 3. - energy us…

But a 51% attack (with e.g. a double spend) will be easily spotted by the community, right? What would be the incentive for an actor with such a vast amount of specialised hardware just for Bitcoin mining, to undermine its security? Its not that I'm saying it is not possible but its your usage of "likely" that I would argue against

Re: Bitcoin Is Time

#283

Post by rawtxapp »

paulmd wrote: post #243
gnrlst wrote: post #210

I'm ready to be downvoted to oblivion, especially by all the Bitcoin purists, but I hope my message sparks at least some curiosity. Bitcoin is getting "weaker" every year for several reasons: - emerging centralization due to economies of scale. If this trend continues the mining power will be so consolidated that a 51% attack will be likely. The Nakamoto coefficient is already at 4, and tending towards 3. - energy us…

> The lightning network is incredibly buggy and won't actually solve the problems it's promising. it's actually worse than that - lightning only works in the context of centralized banking. It presumes there is some other entity with whom you can hold a channel open, who you do roughly equivalent amounts of deposits and withdrawals from. If that criterion is not met, then you have to keep closing channels and re-open…

> you have to keep closing channels and re-opening new ones, each of which incurs a new transaction fee just like if you did it yourself.

Channel factories will significantly reduce the need to go to the blockchain to open and close channels.

> if you ever lose power or internet then your channel has to be closed and resolved

This is complete non-sense, your channel lives on as long as you don't close it, if you're concerned about counterparty risk, you can use a watchtower.

Re: Bitcoin Is Time

#284

Post by shawnz »

Applejinx wrote: post #192
Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s not beyond the reach of governments to ban unwanted trade Yeah, right, it worked so well for alcohol... It DOES (/s) work so well for drugs in the US right now... And hey imagine whether it's easier or harder to ban something that doesn't take any physical space in your suitcase and can be transacted with only internet connection.

On the contrary, bitcoin mining operations can be sniffed out by their impossibly outlandish power requirements, like pot growers used to be. Increasingly, mining operations have to make special arrangements with entire power grids to suck up their energy and basically just burn it in arbitrary calculation. The scale at which this operates, and the increase over time, are both what makes up a lot of the problem, and…

Mining doesn't have to happen in the same country where you use the coin though.

In order for this scenario to become a reality, many governments would have to collaborate to make mining infeasible. But they would be incentivized to not collaborate so they can instead tax their miners and get the profits for themselves.

Re: Bitcoin Is Time

#285

Post by csomar »

gnrlst wrote: post #210

I'm ready to be downvoted to oblivion, especially by all the Bitcoin purists, but I hope my message sparks at least some curiosity. Bitcoin is getting "weaker" every year for several reasons: - emerging centralization due to economies of scale. If this trend continues the mining power will be so consolidated that a 51% attack will be likely. The Nakamoto coefficient is already at 4, and tending towards 3. - energy us…

The difference is that Bitcoin success was largely accidental. People are very touchy about others getting a head start. Miners got their Bitcoins by burning electricity, this makes it a "fair deal" despite destroying the environment. Satoshi disappeared and never moved his coins, which removes the "pre-mine" aspect.

Re: Bitcoin Is Time

#286

Post by ballofrubber »

Nursie wrote: post #262
ballofrubber wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say that it shouldn't be the role of a government to govern over money. The economy is very complicated. There are no models that can predict the output of changing its parameters. It wasn't possible before to have the properties in money that we have with bitcoin (a gold standard was easily removable by a powerful government). The current central banking system is an experiment as much as anything before it…

> (1 btc is always 1/21 million of the monetary base) Why is that good? Why should I, if I have 1 bitcoin, always have ownership of a fixed proportion of the entire societal monetary base? This seems like a great deal for someone who has a bitcoin, and a terrible situation for new workers and the economy as a whole. If the economy expands, your fixed proportion of the monetary base sees you profit off the backs of ot…

As an employee I would rather have the lever in renegotiations. I also would like to be able to save without having to put my economic output at risk.

If you don't invest your bitcoin in productive assets you will be behind peers who do that, however they carry a risk.

Today you carry risk if you don't invest your savings. However with low-income you can't, as you need emergency funds.

Re: Bitcoin Is Time

#287

Post by aeturnum »

jes5199 wrote: post #254
gnrlst wrote: post #210

I'm ready to be downvoted to oblivion, especially by all the Bitcoin purists, but I hope my message sparks at least some curiosity. Bitcoin is getting "weaker" every year for several reasons: - emerging centralization due to economies of scale. If this trend continues the mining power will be so consolidated that a 51% attack will be likely. The Nakamoto coefficient is already at 4, and tending towards 3. - energy us…

can you explain your point about renewable energy? I'm not sure I see how that follows

I think the idea is that, as mining fees and power generation requirements increase, you have less incentive to build the most efficient power generation (renewables) and increasing incentives to build financially reliable proven technologies. Coal power plants, though less efficient than solar, have a much better known lifecycle and are easier to plan around.

Re: Bitcoin Is Time

#288

Post by Ancapistani »

UncleMeat wrote: post #187
Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s not beyond the reach of governments to ban unwanted trade Yeah, right, it worked so well for alcohol... It DOES (/s) work so well for drugs in the US right now... And hey imagine whether it's easier or harder to ban something that doesn't take any physical space in your suitcase and can be transacted with only internet connection.

Alcohol didn't apparently threaten to end the authority of the state.

I'd actually argue that it was more of a threat to the authority of the state than Bitcoin is today. The widespread disregard of Prohibition lead directly to its repeal. Defying the state in one aspect of your life leads to defiance in other aspects.

Re: Bitcoin Is Time

#289

Post by rawtxapp »

mmastrac wrote: post #238
gnrlst wrote: post #210

I'm ready to be downvoted to oblivion, especially by all the Bitcoin purists, but I hope my message sparks at least some curiosity. Bitcoin is getting "weaker" every year for several reasons: - emerging centralization due to economies of scale. If this trend continues the mining power will be so consolidated that a 51% attack will be likely. The Nakamoto coefficient is already at 4, and tending towards 3. - energy us…

> The lightning network is incredibly buggy and won't actually solve the problems it's promising I'm curious to know why this is the case. I don't know much about it - ELI5 or a good link to read more?

It's not, it's fully functional and there are many users. Only people who haven't actually tried using it says things like "it's incredibly buggy".

Re: Bitcoin Is Time

#290

Post by toto444 »

shawnz wrote: post #269
toto444 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody is saying that it is going to replace all other forms of money. To be a money it somehow has to. What is the value of a dollar ? The set of goods you can buy with a dollar. As long as the value of a bitcoin is expressed in another currency that is weird to call it a money.

The value of every currency is expressed in other currencies. How else would you do it? Are you saying there is nothing in existence which can really be considered "money" except maybe the US dollar?

If suddenly every land on Earth but the UK is flooded, £1 will still have a value : the set of goods you can buy with £1.
Post reply on HN