keymone

34 ms·

301.
by keymone 5y ago
Ok, I have best single thread performance on my validator machine. What if I have two of those machines?
302.
by keymone 5y ago
PoW has nothing to do with throughput.
303.
by keymone 5y ago
Why can’t it be parallelized?
304.
by keymone 5y ago
Nothing is slashed if attacker doesn’t publish the alternative chain until they have successful attack. PoS is absolutely driven by rich and helps rich get richer faster than everybody else. If I get 10% stake - I get 10% of any future issu
305.
by keymone 5y ago
The difference is that PoW is permissionless and PoS is permissioned system. Another difference is that in PoS you pay once and get benefits forever, in PoW you must actively choose to spend energy mining. One more difference is that once y
306.
by keymone 5y ago
Maybe I can reformulate my position then, so that it’s clearer: people have demand for certain kind of security of their financial assets - security that guarantees any attacker would have to spend some amount of energy to perform a success
307.
by keymone 5y ago
> You are assuming that the energy is being spent for some tangible benefit I don’t assume, I know what it’s being used for - security against chain overrides/rollbacks.
308.
by keymone 5y ago
But that’s where the analogy breaks, because with airplanes it’s indeed a backward way of describing it, but with bitcoin it’s what actually happens. Airplanes are means of travel, they can be more or less energy efficient. Bitcoin is a mea
309.
by keymone 5y ago
> I have no idea about how these planned future improvements work. they already work. every on-chain bitcoin settlement can represent trillions of BTC exchanges. same as interbank settlements - done once a day, represent millions or bill
310.
by keymone 5y ago
if you want to see it that way, sure, but i'd say it's stretching. airplanes convert energy into miles travelled. bitcoin converts energy into security of an asset. if nobody needs to travel or nobody needs the security - no energ
311.
by keymone 5y ago
> Bitcoin transaction use energy. The proof is that if no more transaction happened no energy would be spent in bitcoins. That is not proof that bitcoin uses energy, in fact bitcoin only does about 2k on chain settlements every 10 minute
312.
by keymone 5y ago
Well, your question assumes that bitcoin is using energy and anybody thinking differently must be ridiculed. Bitcoin isn’t using any energy, bitcoin is a marketplace where security of financial asset is represented in terms of energy expend
313.
by keymone 5y ago
AMD, Intel, Apple, Samsung and all the other mobile chip makers.
314.
by keymone 5y ago
> You are creating a false dichotomy: security is an integral component of bitcoin transactions, and if security costs, transactions cost as well that would be true if only on-chain settlements would count as transactions in BTC ecosyste
315.
by keymone 5y ago
wow, it's amazing how you got that completely backwards. saying "guns kill people" is exactly the same as saying "bitcoin uses energy" - it's a way to shift blame from the real perpetrator to the instrument.
316.
by keymone 5y ago
> When people say "transactions cost X amount to process", they mean "in the current state of bitcoin", not in the past when there were very few transaction validators there are only so many miners (and so much energy
317.
by keymone 5y ago
yeah, nothing but ad hominems, people with your level of ignorance don't have much else.
318.
by keymone 5y ago
Categorically false. Exactly zero energy is required to produce a block. If your statement were true and bitcoin required Switzerland’s worth of energy to produce a block - how on earth did satoshi mine all the early blocks by himself? Your
319.
by keymone 5y ago
How about a reason not to get poor slowly through inflation and constant dilution of money?
320.
by keymone 5y ago
Block subsidy doesn’t provide any security, if you made a fork of bitcoin that paid 100 times the subsidy of the original, your fork wouldn’t be any more secure. Much less secure in fact.
321.
by keymone 5y ago
Bitcoin uses zero energy.
322.
by keymone 5y ago
Zero carbon footprint and zero carbon in transaction costs. You simply don’t understand what is that energy used for. It’s definitely not for processing transactions.
323.
by keymone 5y ago
Yes?
324.
by keymone 5y ago
but he's not an expert, he clearly doesn't understand how any of it works, you can see it by simply reading that document
325.
by keymone 5y ago
in this case it's a hater that wants to stand in other people's way to have multiple options to invest in bitcoin.
326.
by keymone 5y ago
> Some of those do calculation that are actually useful on their own. That means that there are coins with better, as you say, fundamentals. no, getting anything valuable out of PoW function besides security of the chain is a subsidy to
327.
by keymone 5y ago
is it not? only tiny fraction of bitcoin's lifetime -- two months out of 12 years -- has it been at higher levels than today.
328.
by keymone 5y ago
> What do you even mean when you say "on fundamental level"? Fundamental properties of bitcoin are its decentralization and security achieved via and expressed in, very transparently and using very simple formula, in terms of e
329.
by keymone 5y ago
it's part of the larger argument: proof of stake systems give up explicit and transparent cost of decentralized permissionless currency for obscure and hidden costs of centralized and permissioned currency. and that cost is generally h
330.
by keymone 5y ago
well would be good to clarify, because there's no project that followed that is better on fundamental level. lots of solutions that trade decentralization and independence for performance, lots of hype and marketing, lots of bells and

More ›