6 ms·

Counterexample: when I recently read about its energy consumption (per byte stored), I sold my bitcoins in disgust, at roughly today's prices. I've held almost

Counterexample: when I recently read about its energy consumption (per byte stored), I sold my bitcoins in disgust, at roughly today's prices. I've held almost continuously since 2011, although I trimmed my position a few times. If I come across something that works without PoW, is safe against quantum computers and somehow eliminates the threat of forks (seems impossible), I'll invest in that.

noxer 6y ago
As per my original message you should look into FBA. Its not a coin but some coins do use it. Whether you want to buy such coins and which one is none of my business, but the tech is there and works since years.
olah_1 6y ago
> when I recently read about its energy consumption (per byte stored), I sold my bitcoins in disgust You fell for the meme... Energy consumption as compared to what? What energy sources? This line of argumentation feels very misleading to me and always has because it is presented with a very specific framing. Here's an alternative framing for example: https://unchained-capital.com/blog/bitcoin-does-not-waste-energy/ https://unchained-capital.com/blog/bitcoin-does-not-waste-en... At least you sold high, so good on you!
elixirist 6y ago
This will likely be dismissed as shilling of a shitcoin, but on the off-chance anyone is actually willing to take a look, this cryptocurrency meets your criteria (which is exactly why I bought it): https://www.algorand.com/ https://www.algorand.com/. The pedigree of the team behind it is ridiculous, most notably its creator: Silvio Micali - one of the co-inventors of zero-knowledge proofs as well as other cryptographic primitives. EDIT: it's not quantum-safe yet, but that's a problem they're actively researching, and given the team they seemed credibly positioned to solve it. See: https://www.algorand.com/resources/blog/chris_peikert_joins_algorand https://www.algorand.com/resources/blog/chris_peikert_joins_... and https://www.algorand.com/resources/blog/algorand-contributes-2-post-quantum-standards https://www.algorand.com/resources/blog/algorand-contributes...
- mortehu 6y ago
  Can you explain how this prevents forks? An example of a fork would be someone creating a new client that rejects transactions from old clients.
  - capableweb 6y ago
    What exactly is the "threat" of forks? Being able to fork the network is often seen as a feature, not a issue. If you're building a decentralized network, you sometimes have to have consensus when doing upgrades globally. This is in reality a fork but everyone agrees to keep with one of them. Those who don't agree, can continue running the other one if they feel like it.
    - noxer 6y ago
      unwanted/unplanned forking is a "threat" in the sense that it causes uncertainty. Idk about this specific project and how they handle this but for example the XRPL has amendments which come with software update but are not enabled they are open to votes. Each amendment must constantly get over 80% positive votes for 2 weeks to be accepted. The validator nodes who voted against it are overruled by this they must install the latest version to be able to vote on the amendment therefore they do have the code and if the consensus is to enable the new code their node will do so. This prevents forking. Intentional forking as a feature is ofc still possible. Validators owner who disagree with an amendment to the point that if it is accepted they would want to stay on the "old chain" and thus fork it, can simply remove the "yes" votes from their validator list essentially ignoring their votes and thus separate from each other. By the time one cluster enabled an amendment and the separated cluster does not, a fork happens*. This requires some kind of coordination and is unlikely to happen unexpected. A largely unpopular amendment would simply not reach the 80%. And one that reached 80% is unlikely to be consider so bad by the remaining 20% that they would want to fork. But the possibility is there it just never happened in the 8+ years its running. *ofc it would also go the other way around. An amendment that wont reach 80% could also cause a cluster to intentionally separate and enable it there which would also case a fork.
cyphertruck 6y ago
Good. I hope you git rid of your hair dryer as well. It’s not too late, you can get back in, though you will have a tax bill. Maybe it can be a wash trade. But if FUD that’s dishonest about bitcoin mining scared you off then you haven’t learned enough about bitcoin yet. This us how bitcoin seeks the strongest hands. HFSP
- mortehu 6y ago
  The hair dryer, unlike a blockchain, is not a technology for durable, immutable and highly available storage, so I wouldn't judge it based on energy per byte second.
  - cyphertruck 6y ago
    That us not the purpose of bitcoin. (There is no “blockchain technology”) While bitcoin is a record of transactions, and as such a database, it was not created to be a database. Did you read the OP article?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

noxer 6y ago

As per my original message you should look into FBA. Its not a coin but some coins do use it. Whether you want to buy such coins and which one is none of my business, but the tech is there and works since years.

olah_1 6y ago

> when I recently read about its energy consumption (per byte stored), I sold my bitcoins in disgust You fell for the meme... Energy consumption as compared to what? What energy sources? This line of argumentation feels very misleading to me and always has because it is presented with a very specific framing. Here's an alternative framing for example: https://unchained-capital.com/blog/bitcoin-does-not-waste-energy/ https://unchained-capital.com/blog/bitcoin-does-not-waste-en... At least you sold high, so good on you!

elixirist 6y ago

This will likely be dismissed as shilling of a shitcoin, but on the off-chance anyone is actually willing to take a look, this cryptocurrency meets your criteria (which is exactly why I bought it): https://www.algorand.com/ https://www.algorand.com/. The pedigree of the team behind it is ridiculous, most notably its creator: Silvio Micali - one of the co-inventors of zero-knowledge proofs as well as other cryptographic primitives. EDIT: it's not quantum-safe yet, but that's a problem they're actively researching, and given the team they seemed credibly positioned to solve it. See: https://www.algorand.com/resources/blog/chris_peikert_joins_algorand https://www.algorand.com/resources/blog/chris_peikert_joins_... and https://www.algorand.com/resources/blog/algorand-contributes-2-post-quantum-standards https://www.algorand.com/resources/blog/algorand-contributes...

mortehu 6y ago
Can you explain how this prevents forks? An example of a fork would be someone creating a new client that rejects transactions from old clients.
- capableweb 6y ago
  What exactly is the "threat" of forks? Being able to fork the network is often seen as a feature, not a issue. If you're building a decentralized network, you sometimes have to have consensus when doing upgrades globally. This is in reality a fork but everyone agrees to keep with one of them. Those who don't agree, can continue running the other one if they feel like it.
  - noxer 6y ago
    unwanted/unplanned forking is a "threat" in the sense that it causes uncertainty. Idk about this specific project and how they handle this but for example the XRPL has amendments which come with software update but are not enabled they are open to votes. Each amendment must constantly get over 80% positive votes for 2 weeks to be accepted. The validator nodes who voted against it are overruled by this they must install the latest version to be able to vote on the amendment therefore they do have the code and if the consensus is to enable the new code their node will do so. This prevents forking. Intentional forking as a feature is ofc still possible. Validators owner who disagree with an amendment to the point that if it is accepted they would want to stay on the "old chain" and thus fork it, can simply remove the "yes" votes from their validator list essentially ignoring their votes and thus separate from each other. By the time one cluster enabled an amendment and the separated cluster does not, a fork happens*. This requires some kind of coordination and is unlikely to happen unexpected. A largely unpopular amendment would simply not reach the 80%. And one that reached 80% is unlikely to be consider so bad by the remaining 20% that they would want to fork. But the possibility is there it just never happened in the 8+ years its running. *ofc it would also go the other way around. An amendment that wont reach 80% could also cause a cluster to intentionally separate and enable it there which would also case a fork.

cyphertruck 6y ago

Good. I hope you git rid of your hair dryer as well. It’s not too late, you can get back in, though you will have a tax bill. Maybe it can be a wash trade. But if FUD that’s dishonest about bitcoin mining scared you off then you haven’t learned enough about bitcoin yet. This us how bitcoin seeks the strongest hands. HFSP

mortehu 6y ago
The hair dryer, unlike a blockchain, is not a technology for durable, immutable and highly available storage, so I wouldn't judge it based on energy per byte second.
- cyphertruck 6y ago
  That us not the purpose of bitcoin. (There is no “blockchain technology”) While bitcoin is a record of transactions, and as such a database, it was not created to be a database. Did you read the OP article?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]