keymone

99 ms·

961.
by keymone 8y ago
PoS was known way before PoW. It simply doesn't solve the problem at hand - decentralized consensus between mutually distrusting parties.
962.
by keymone 8y ago
> Remember that time when someone managed to generate 184 billion bitcoin? you're being intellectually dishonest or even outright manipulative here. there were never 184 billion coins created on bitcoin chain, there was a bug in val
963.
by keymone 8y ago
> the difference in bootrapping between PoW and PoS is in PoS, a hash of a block is also needed from a trusted third party. so far so good... > In both cases, a trusted third party is needed wait, what? when did that thing sneak into
964.
by keymone 8y ago
> It's necessary for bootstrapping your claim was consensus rules AND hash of most recent block are necessary. this is false, hash of most recent block is not necessary for bootstrapping. > your argument makes absolutely no sense
965.
by keymone 8y ago
> awful environmental impact of proof or work compared to what? you can't have free cheese and environmental (and social) impact of existing fiat systems is far worse. > Ethereum folk are at least trying to find a solution to PoS
966.
by keymone 8y ago
> just like you can choose which consensus rules to follow, other people can choose which chain to follow. the two are not the same. consensus rules dictate how to validate the chain. following the chain without knowing the rules and val
967.
by keymone 8y ago
there is no "real" bitcoin. everybody decides for themselves which consensus rules they deem "correct". it's your money, it's your choice and it's your responsibility. the point is that when you choose con
968.
by keymone 8y ago
> The information is in the block headers > You still have to download all the block headers from block 0 and check if they are valid, including the PoW and other hashes.. and unless you validate those blocks you don't know if th
969.
by keymone 8y ago
> PoS requires that you get the consensus rules AND a hash of the most recent valid block from a trusted source. no, nothing in PoS requires that. just a sad state of affairs with most centralized insecure PoS coins these days. > With
970.
by keymone 8y ago
The two are very different. Knowing consensus rules I can verify the chain and if I notice something fishy - I go back to figuring out if I’m being attacked. If instead I simply accept what chain I should follow - I have no guarantees I was
971.
by keymone 8y ago
Lightning network is not Bitcoin. I was asking what’s unstable about Bitcoin.
972.
by keymone 8y ago
i make a choice and i VALIDATE THE FUCKING BLOCKCHAIN what is so hard to grasp about this?
973.
by keymone 8y ago
> without off chain transactions, it's not ready for any more transaction volume and Lightning is still very much alpha at this point. that's a pretty stable thing you're describing. and lightning is actually in beta now a
974.
by keymone 8y ago
it is true that bitcoin has a reference specification, but only a small subset of that code is actual consensus code, but the rest of your message is just bs. knowing consensus rules is the easy bit - code is open source, there are multiple
975.
by keymone 8y ago
from the internet. are you now going to argue that there is no difference between knowing a couple pages of text that describe how a system should work from downloading and running opaque binary from untrusted source?
976.
by keymone 8y ago
you are misunderstanding. you're given a state of accounts and it has "correct" signature (according to a third party) - without verifying every transaction that contributed to building that state you cannot be certain it d
977.
by keymone 8y ago
No you don’t. You only need to know consensus rules. You can use any software, you can build it yourself, you can order an audit, you can write software yourself . Proof of work committed to the chain that is valid according to consensus r
978.
by keymone 8y ago
What’s unstable about bitcoin apart from the price obviously?
979.
by keymone 8y ago
> you're just trusting the network initially Yeah, let’s “just” trust random strangers’ computers to tell us the state of financial system. What could possibly go wrong. If you don’t understand importance of “don’t trust, verify” th
980.
by keymone 8y ago
You say “check merkle proof”, how do you know what it’s supposed to be? Trust somebody gives you the right hash? There is no difference between BTC’s UTXO model and Ethereum’s account model in this sense - both are aggregate structures and
981.
by keymone 8y ago
So one has to trust distributors of the software? I mean it’s been known about PoS systems since inception, it’s just funny how it’s supporters never like to admit it.
982.
by keymone 8y ago
Or $200.
983.
by keymone 8y ago
The sitting desks are overrated. There is not enough evidence to support the claim that sitting desks improve health. Sitting desks are a ploy by chair manufacturing industry to make you buy expensive chairs even though all experts agree th
984.
by keymone 8y ago
oh yeah, ofc, those two are just centralized pre-mine scams. that's even worse than PoS imho. the biggest question is why do people even consider them cryptocurrencies.
985.
by keymone 8y ago
unless they sent money to themselves to make it seem like a credible solution to possible victims
986.
by keymone 8y ago
Who is to blame for environmental harm is not a philosophical question. Act of consumption is not harmful, act of production is harmful. The fact that demand creates incentive to produce from shitty sources doesn’t change the actor that is
987.
by keymone 8y ago
> No, it's the chemical reaction that the oil plants use, not the owners of the said plants poor attempt, try again. > without specifying what the attack is stake grinding, long range and other attacks are widely known. all compl
988.
by keymone 8y ago
it’s probably the right amount of orders of magnitude, it’s free market after all, everybody is free to long and short accordingly to their beliefs.
989.
by keymone 8y ago
First, talking of environmental impact of PoW is misguided. It’s producers of energy that do harm, not consumers. Second, stake grinding is an attack. You’re the one who has to prove your PoS system is not affected by it. As far as I’m conc
990.
by keymone 8y ago
Just because something can be attacked doesn’t mean it can be attacked cheaply. Besides, your argument cuts both ways - if you think PoS are so much better and PoW will eventually be worthless, show me how much BTC you shorted today or ever

More ›