Bitcoin will eventually need to move to Proof of Stake like Ethereum did. Or to maintain a fixed supply without any issuance whatsoever, Bitcoin could convert entirely into an ERC-20 on Ethereum (probably the best option but would never happen)
Napkin math suggests Bitcoin will perish unless its mining incentives change
41–50 of 56 posts
Re: Napkin math suggests Bitcoin will perish unless its mining incentives change
#42And, at the one-hour mark, this post got knocked out of the top 10 on HN's front page to the 106th spot on the 4th page, for no stated reason, which has happened before. (Perhaps it's HN's "flame war detector", idk; for me, that usually only knocks a post to Page 2). None of the comments are too negative about the piece. But in any case, this will likely get flagged by enough users, and I get it - people own a lot of…
At present, I see 29 points on the post, and 39 comments.
My understanding of HN's flamewar detector is that having a post with more comments than points is a strong signal for flamewar.
FWIW this article was on the front page for me regardless.
Re: Napkin math suggests Bitcoin will perish unless its mining incentives change
#43And, at the one-hour mark, this post got knocked out of the top 10 on HN's front page to the 106th spot on the 4th page, for no stated reason, which has happened before. (Perhaps it's HN's "flame war detector", idk; for me, that usually only knocks a post to Page 2). None of the comments are too negative about the piece. But in any case, this will likely get flagged by enough users, and I get it - people own a lot of…
At present, I see 29 points on the post, and 39 comments. My understanding of HN's flamewar detector is that having a post with more comments than points is a strong signal for flamewar. FWIW this article was on the front page for me regardless.
When the post was pushed off the front page, it had about 5x as many points as comments (here's a screenshot i took shortly before it was pushed down, with 9 points and 2 comments: https://assets.journa.host/media_attachments/files/112/961/1... )
When it was on Page 4, it kept accruing comments but not as many points.
It hasn't been on the front page that I know of besides a 20-minute span, from when the post was ~30 minutes old to ~50 minutes old.
Re: Napkin math suggests Bitcoin will perish unless its mining incentives change
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends on whether your goal is a deflationary currency that gives outsized rewards to early adopters.
It's not just the deflationary ones. With one exception, all cryptocurrencies give outsized rewards in early years. E.g. block rewards 20x higher in the first year for Dogecoin. Or 40% of all (soft) supply in the first year for Monero.
Completely agree. The fine article discusses the attack issues with most PoW. The problem is that even the threat of such attack makes success more likely. I don't know that there aren't other issues, but it seems PoS at least has a less obvious failure mode (if you need short term control of $80B ~25% rather than $30M/day or <3% for bitcoin). That could frankly even be a profitable short play.
Re: Napkin math suggests Bitcoin will perish unless its mining incentives change
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
This article explains how Bitcoin will experience severe problems in 20-40 years, not in a "couple of years".
Cryptobros will play negative sum games with greater fools right up until the collapse, and then the meme stock buyers will jump in to get wiped out as well.
I don't "invest" in cryptocurrency and never have. I just use it regularly (a couple times per month) to pay for things. For my use case it really doesn't matter what the silly speculators do in their completely off-chain fiat speculation markets.
Re: Napkin math suggests Bitcoin will perish unless its mining incentives change
#46“Bitcoin security” is a different notion than almost all other popular chains. A prolonged 51% attack on bitcoin implies the ability to double-spend, but not at all the ability to affect prior balances. A 51% attack on most smart contract chains implies the ability to change any and all state arbitrarily. The simplest solution is to wait until the cost of hashing exceeds the value of your transaction by some reasonab…
How is it different exactly? If I had 51% of the hashing power on the bitcoin network, couldn't I change block history and have a majority of the network agree on that new chain?
Re: Napkin math suggests Bitcoin will perish unless its mining incentives change
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cryptobros will play negative sum games with greater fools right up until the collapse, and then the meme stock buyers will jump in to get wiped out as well.
I don't "invest" in cryptocurrency and never have. I just use it regularly (a couple times per month) to pay for things. For my use case it really doesn't matter what the silly speculators do in their completely off-chain fiat speculation markets.
Ah yes, the totally normal "things" that can only be purchased with bitcoin.
Re: Napkin math suggests Bitcoin will perish unless its mining incentives change
#48[dead]
Re: Napkin math suggests Bitcoin will perish unless its mining incentives change
#49That would be a positive. We need alternatives other than just burning energy to base a currency on.
Money is proof of work.
Work is energy.
Money is proof of energy.
Money is bitcoin.
Where am I wrong?
Re: Napkin math suggests Bitcoin will perish unless its mining incentives change
#50That would be a positive. We need alternatives other than just burning energy to base a currency on.
Money is proof of work. Work is energy. Money is proof of energy. Money is bitcoin. Where am I wrong?
The problem with bitcoin is that past work is worth more than future work. More work/energy has to be expended now for 1 bitcoin than in the past. It's just as an unequal system as inflationary fiat.