511–520 of 822 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Easy, you put the transaction in the previous block. So the miner can only mine a block if they have already made the expenditure.
What stops me from doing a hard fork to roll back both blocks?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
and now the weaseling starts. i asked a very specific question: 1. once the "leader" is "elected" 2. do they have a choice of what block to append? you said they do, which is fundamental lack of understanding of how bitcoin works.
The question that you asked was: > when the leader is elected every 10 minutes, do they get a choice of what block they append to the chain? and the answer is yes, the miner that gets elected chooses which transactions to append to the chain. Do they pick the transactions after getting elected? No, they pick them before getting elected. In fact, it doesn't matter whether they pick the transactions before or after get…
Whether PoS will work, I don't know. But the author didn't realize that PoW is certainly doomed. PoW miners tend to spend more and more resources on finding blocks, until the cost approaches the rewards. But the rewards go up as the cryptocurrency becomes more popular, because the price and transaction fees go up. Therefore, a PoW cryptocurrency tends to "eat the world" as it becomes bigger. That's why Bitcoin is alr…
Electricity will not be a problem for the world in the next 30 years... 1. We will all move to renewal or nuclear 2. Bitcoin will decentralize more as the miners will move where electricity is cheaper and thus will cover geography of whole world hydro,thermal,solar,wind etc.. 3. Bitcoin can be the main chain and all side chains can rollup and commits. 4. The btc uses will be huge and there will be no dearth of transa…
Bitcoin’s been around for what… 13 years now? Seems to be speculators, scammers, money launderers, and phishing/hacking rings still.
Everything that tries to accept bitcoin for payment seems to stop doing so relatively quickly.
It’s intentionally deflationary so anyone who holds a bitcoin is incentivized to hold it, not use it.
Just bizarre.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't take a discussion of climate change seriously unless it specifically addresses a single-percentage problem?
A single percentage problem today. In order to become a mainstream everyday currency, use of Bitcoin will have to increase by three, four, possibly five orders of magnitude.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bitcoin uses about .1% of the worlds power currently. 10x less than you have suggested: https://nydig.com/research/report-bitcoin-net-zero The bitcoin reward also halves every 4 year, so even if price continues to appreciate, the effect is evened out by the fact that less is created every block over time. Lastly, bitcoin mining to could sustained solely by using stranded energy, which would otherwise be unused. Flare…
> Flared gas in texas, for instance, could provide more power than the network currently uses. While the amount of gas that is flared off is immense (25-30% of the actual consumption of the US and Europe), the problem is that it is only flared off because there are no pipelines to transport the gas away and the amount that the small oil wells produce is too low to justify the cost. If it were for me I'd force oil wel…
If you want you can build a generator near those wells. It's just cheaper to get the energy from somewhere else, because energy is fungible. A watt is not good or evil, it's the same as any other watt. Which means crypto energy consumption can be offset just like anything else, and is exactly as evil as any other convenience - driers, for instance, or flood lights, or inefficient heating, or anything else.
Focusing on crypto in particular says more about the author than anything else.
He lost me at the part where he thinks you can sign messages after withdrawing your stake. The whole point of proof of stake is that you can only sign blocks or messages while you have something staked. When you withdraw you are no longer allowed to sign anything. He also didnt need to spend 1000 words going on about the history of bitcoin and proof of work. This is literally just a filler piece with a provocative cl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't take a discussion of climate change seriously unless it specifically addresses a single-percentage problem?
He probably speculates, like the degenerate speculators, that it won't end up there. Why push around everyone to consume differently while distributing vast amount of tax money that immediately go into more wasteful crypto ? It will not stay at 1% and I agree with the OP that it's going to be difficulty to reduce electricity wastage on one end while ignore the elephant baby in the crib taking over the room. I'm a ran…
Reality matters :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously I can’t change your decision to use this terminology, but ponder this: when the leader is elected every 10 minutes, do they get a choice of what block they append to the chain? No they don’t. So was it election of the leader or election of the block? And if it was an election, wouldn’t the result always be the same with largest miner always winning because they have most votes? As I said in a sibling thread…
I’ve been reading this thread. I have no idea why these people insist on using the word “leader” when it doesn’t fit. Is there some ideological reason for this?
This is expanded upon in the peer-reviewed Bitcoin-NG paper that both of you are refusing to read, which breaks down the Bitcoin protocol into distinct parts (which was why I linked it--not because I am proposing that it replace the Bitcoin protocol, but because I thought it would be useful for you to understand how Bitcoin performs leader election already). Specifically, it analyzes the effects of splitting up leader election and block commit parts of the protocol. As it turns out, it has essentially no effect on Bitcoin's security guarantees, which is not surprising--because the fact that block selection and leader election happen at the same time is an implementation detail that doesn't actually matter! Once you realize this detail that you are obsessing over (the block being decided at the same time the leader is) is not important for the protocol, you will also see that the leader election is in fact the critical part.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>PoW miners tend to spend more and more resources on finding blocks, until the cost approaches the rewards. But the rewards go up as the cryptocurrency becomes more popular, because the price and transaction fees go up. Therefore, a PoW cryptocurrency tends to "eat the world" as it becomes bigger. Are Google and Facebook eating the world? They are processing petabytes of data on daily basis and every year there is mo…
What you're saying is tautological in a sense that for for it to be true, you need to postulate that every human activity is also based on economy and game theory (otherwise, why would people behave as you say they would behave) . So your argument essentially is that governments banning bitcoin is also based on economy and game theory. Which is fine by me.
And yes majority of people behave according to game theory because if they do not then they lose or in extreme cases die.
PoW systems rely on the "phone a friend method" as well. When you download a Bitcoin client from a "friend", you are trusting them to honestly introduce you to the network. If you fall asleep for a period of years, you have to trust your friends to honestly inform you of all of the PoW forks and policy changes that have occurred over that interval. The only difference is that PoS blockchain clients must be bundled wi…
not really, if you fall asleep for a period of years, you can still get a signal of how genuine any proposed fork is by observing the chain of blocks and their difficulties. that's the crucial bit of any PoW system - you can't fake the energy that was spent producing the chain. that's a way to externally validate the honesty of a system and a major scientific breakthrough that satoshi discovered. also, hi, long time!…