331–340 of 347 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If the 51% user is truly malicious, the majority of network participants will move away to the new chain, rendering the 51% user's tokens (near) worthless. so being successful is punished by destroying all wealth of the richest participant in the network? nice.
No, being malicious is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think he's saying that without the support of the demos (voting public) the police/army won't move to support the government's position so their power is curtailed; in the same way that a centralised coin administration has their power curtailed if the community don't support their "army" (system changes to force a particular new regime).
Except that's completely false, as has been demonstrated many times in multiple countries.
Equally police/military have probably been used when there would not be democratic support.
Did you have some examples in mind?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it really a joke? Because if this is seen as a valid argument in the Ethereuem community then they've really gone off the deep end.
Decentralization is not my area of expertise but I am growing very interested. I've recently been learning a lot more about building decentralized apps using blockchains and distributed file storage. Could you expand a little upon why this is a joke? I understand that it is not describing a good situation but my understanding was that the miners are a part of the decentralizing infrastructure in the way that was desc…
Another issue that I see with these projects that claim to be decentralized, for example ipfs.io is that they do not consider worst case scenarios so they cannot have a service level agreements on their service. Most of the customer networks are asymmetric, you have much more bandwidth to download content than to upload so if you are providing services than you are going to saturate your uplink. Nodes can also be turned off, worst case scenario is that all of the nodes are off that has a piece of data that you can't recover from anywhere else.
As of everything going to be built on the blockchain in the future, most definitely not. I think 2019 going to wipe out most of the cryptocurrencies and we are going to see very few successful blockchain (or more like distributed ledger) projects succeeding in the corporate space. Maybe there will be some use cases for blockchain/DLT like food traceability (one project i have contributed to) and customer warranty for example but all this hype that everything will be running on blockchain will just fade.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How can Ethereum be decentralized if they can so easily keep changing it? The development of crypto has really demonstrated an institutional inertia to moving away from the blessed official implementation. Tons of BTC forks were tried and failed, and almost all coins die when development stops than see their clients forked. A lot of it, I imagine, has to do with... trust . That magical thing crypto users keep tryin…
>Doge Isn't this an odd example to use since it was created to be a parody of cryptocurrency, or did I mix up my crypto-history?
> To make their intentions clear, Ethereum’s core developers reprogrammed their PoW code to create an exponential rise in mining difficulty. Known as the “Difficulty Bomb,” it began slowing the creation of new transaction blocks in late 2016 and was expected to bring ether mining to a grinding halt a few years thereafter. > This time bomb has, however, functioned more like an alarm clock with a snooze button. In Octo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If they get caught cheating, they lose their stake in that chain . In any distributed blockchain there's going to be several chain(tips) at any given time.
Issuing staking transactions on more than one chain is one of the defined slashing conditions. All the transactions are public so any other staker can see that you've done it, submit the evidence in a transaction of their own, and earn a reward while causing some or all of your stake to be destroyed. ("Some or all" because the devs recognize that you might get hacked, so the penalty depends on how much of the total s…
Ie. the cheater just extends the chain at one block before the block that contains evidence of the cheating.
How will clients agree to use the chain that contains the cheating proof, and not the other — just as valid — chain?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Doge Isn't this an odd example to use since it was created to be a parody of cryptocurrency, or did I mix up my crypto-history?
And still has a $280 million cap which isn't bad considering. I'll consider the crypto bubble done when parody currencies are not in the tens of millions.
If I issue 100 trillion “runeks”-tokens, and sell you one for one cent, this crypto will have a “market cap” of 1 trillion. But that doesn’t mean it’s either useful or successful.
Your example shows there’s something wrong with using market cap to measure the success of cryptocurrencies, not that Dogecoin is successful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, it's in some sense "an AWS competitor" but something like a billion times less efficient, measured by throughput, energy efficiency, or cost. So, in practice, no it's not.
AWS actually made an interesting product, a distributed ledger that's 'trustless' as long as you trust Amazon, but with none of the overhead of blockchain so at least it's efficient I think Ethereum is going big places, but the AWS ledger solution is probably also going to be good for smaller industries where competitors don't trust each other, they want a database that's shared, and they all might trust Amazon enoug…
This has been possible since the 80’s due to public key encryption.
It’s not having to trust a central actor that’s the innovation behind e.g. Bitcoin.