81–90 of 144 posts
"nobody can destroy or seize your coins" "keeping your investment safe is not simple" Hmm...
"People are making a fortune buying government-seized bitcoins" http://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-price-government-auct...
"nobody can destroy or seize your coins" "keeping your investment safe is not simple" Hmm...
Compare with the Business Insider headline "People are making a fortune buying government-seized bitcoins" http://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-price-government-auct...
But not even that: If you're in China and the original blockchain is censored and all your node will ever see is the StateChain, you have misplaced your trust.
I’ve reacently read the Burnskie book about crypto assets in the hope that I might come away more enlightened about the market and how to assess it. The opposite was the case. After reading the book and looking into it more, it’s very hard to see these things as assets at the moment, or to see much utility in the technology. Don’t get me wrong, there certainly is some and it is certainly ‘cool’, but right now blockha…
> Don’t get me wrong, there certainly is some and it is certainly ‘cool’, but right now blockhain feels like a solution looking for a problem. "Blockchain" is probably fine. I suspect that it will eventually get some nice implementations where you want to be able to attest to integrity over time/space where multiple trusted parties evolve and change. A "distributed digital notary" if you will. Cryptocurrencies as cur…
Monero is the go-to privacy coin. Unfortunately, I am not as experienced with privacy/security, but it appears to be good enough for many. Perhaps someone else can speak to its efficacy?
Finally, there are decentralized crypto exchanges. None that take fiat in (AFAIK) but there are definitely decentralized exchanges. Don't know of any off the top of my head, but I'm sure they're just a quick google search away.
Those are the things that stuck out to me about your post.
> Chris Burniske and Jack Tatar suggest that crypto assets have low/negative correlation with traditional asset classes The DJIA and Bitcoin charts seem well correlated, at least over the past month: DJIA: https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/index/djia Bitcoin: https://bitcoincharts.com/charts/bitstampUSD#rg30ztgCzm1g10z... In my opinion people treat it as they would any speculative asset.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not quite a complete discussion without mentioning the transaction rate/scaling limitations and also Ethereum's sharding approach to this.
I tried to mention that scalability is a moving target. As you mentioned Plasma, Raiden and sharding are different approaches to solve it
Proof of stake is a pipe dream. Such a system can’t reliably achieve consensus due to the nothing-at-stake problem. Additionally, randomly selecting a winner in a distributed yet unpredictable way continues to be an unsolved problem.
Sharding has the cost of weakening security.
Bitcoin is addressing scaling better than any other blockchain. It’s making transactions more efficient through technologies like Segwit and Schnorr. It’s adding robust smart contracts and instant payments using second layer sidechains like rootstock and lightning.
Ethereum is already imploding under its own weight — it’s impossible to even sync a full node on basic hardware. In a few years it’ll be dead.
> Chris Burniske and Jack Tatar suggest that crypto assets have low/negative correlation with traditional asset classes The DJIA and Bitcoin charts seem well correlated, at least over the past month: DJIA: https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/index/djia Bitcoin: https://bitcoincharts.com/charts/bitstampUSD#rg30ztgCzm1g10z... In my opinion people treat it as they would any speculative asset.
Huh? You can’t cherry pick your data and claim something is “well correlated”. Well researched data shows bitcoin has no correlation to any exising asset class which is why it’s a great risk reducer to add to a portfolio.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh? You can’t cherry pick your data and claim something is “well correlated”. Well researched data shows bitcoin has no correlation to any exising asset class which is why it’s a great risk reducer to add to a portfolio.
Your retort would be more convincing if you linked to some sources.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I tried to mention that scalability is a moving target. As you mentioned Plasma, Raiden and sharding are different approaches to solve it
Raiden is a poor and incomplete implementation of Lightning. Bitcoin has 3 independent implementations and a developing ecosystem of software around it. Proof of stake is a pipe dream. Such a system can’t reliably achieve consensus due to the nothing-at-stake problem. Additionally, randomly selecting a winner in a distributed yet unpredictable way continues to be an unsolved problem. Sharding has the cost of weakenin…
Raiden is a comprehensive implementation that includes Lightning Networks for ERC20 tokens, something that Bitcoin doesn't even have.
>>Proof of stake is a pipe dream.
Your information is incorrect. Ethereum's proof of stake is close to complete conceptually and the first version, a hybrid PoW/PoS protocol called Casper the Friendly Finality Gadget, is currently under development and will be implemented in Ethereum soon.
>>Such a system can’t reliably achieve consensus due to the nothing-at-stake problem.
Your criticism is long out of date. Vitalik Buterin addressed how the Nothing at Stake problem can be solved in 2014:
https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/11/25/proof-stake-learned-lov...
>>Bitcoin is addressing scaling better than any other blockchain. It’s making transactions more efficient through technologies like Segwit and Schnorr. It’s adding robust smart contracts and instant payments using second layer sidechains like rootstock and lightning.
Bitcoin's lack of Turing Completeness at the base layer is a critical weakness that limits the range of second layer solutions that are possible. Ethereum has far more sophisticated and numerous scaling solutions in development as a result.
>>Sharding has the cost of weakening security.
That is not certain to be true. There are a lot security impacting variables at play that sharding affects, and some of them positively. Even if security were reduced, it wouldn't mean the trade off for more scalability wouldn't be worth it. Sharding enables massive scaling while preserving the ability for consumer grade nodes to contribute to validation. That seems like a good trade off.
>>Ethereum is already imploding under its own weight — it’s impossible to even sync a full node on basic hardware.
That is highly misleading. SSDs have been syncing fine. HDDs have been having syncing problems, but that was solved in the most recent Geth release.
>>In a few years it’ll be dead.
Disingenuous FUD.
Ethereum is the primary Dapp platform, with 30X more developers working on it than the next most active platform. It has a multipronged scaling strategy that is in an advanced state of development and dwarfs that of any other blockchain. It is now the most widely used blockchain in the world, processing 3X more transactions per day than #2 Bitcoin. And in all of these categories, its momentum is growing.
> When Satoshi Nakamoto released the Bitcoin Whitepaper he defined it as a peer to peer electronic cash system. How do we know Satoshi is a he ?