leishman

10 ms·

61.
by leishman 5y ago
Bitcoin’s energy consumption is completely unrelated to how many transactions it can process.
62.
by leishman 5y ago
There have not been “mass” protests. They have been quite small. And a large chunk of those protestors are countryside people paid by US funded NGOs. I’ve been to ES multiple times recently. The fact is most people there are ambivalent abou
63.
by leishman 5y ago
It would have no impact. It’s such a tiny amount it’s not even material to the markets.
64.
by leishman 5y ago
> I wish this were talked about more. This is talked about all the time in Bitcoin dev circles.
65.
by leishman 5y ago
> All service interfaces, without exception, must be designed from the ground up to be externalizable. That is to say, the team must plan and design to be able to expose the interface to developers in the outside world. No exceptions. I
66.
by leishman 5y ago
Now replace "attacker" with "somebody the largest stakers don't like" and see how dangerous this becomes.
67.
by leishman 5y ago
> How does this view of PoS governance explain how Ethereum protocol governance has operated in reality for the past five years? As far as I can tell, the power held by miners has been minimal. Miners have no power because ETH governance
68.
by leishman 5y ago
There is a very big difference. PoS collapses governance into a single group: custodians. With PoW governance is a push and pull between miners and custodians. Additionally, PoW miners need to constantly sell Bitcoin to cover operating cost
69.
by leishman 5y ago
Sure but the difference with mining is that having a majority of hashrate doesn't allow you to maintain that majority in perpetuity. You have constant operating expenses that require you to sell your Bitcoin, along with constantly grow
70.
by leishman 5y ago
Because they're all largely funded by U.S. based VC funds.
71.
by leishman 5y ago
Yes, but they then need to maintain that edge by selling their Bitcoin and buying more computer power. They have constantly growing operating expenses and there is no force that centralizes control. PoS playbook is 1) get a stake, 2) set it
72.
by leishman 5y ago
I'm mostly talking about governance. The biggest "users" and governance decision makers of any PoS protocol will be regulated financial institutions (e.g. Coinbase) operating on behalf of end users. In theory Joe Schmoe can b
73.
by leishman 5y ago
You can mine anonymously, you can't stake anonymously.
74.
by leishman 5y ago
No it's very different. Bitcoin consensus is achieved through a combination of mining actors and economic actors. PoS collapses this into a single group: custodians.
75.
by leishman 5y ago
Funny how everyone complains it's wasteful yet I see absolutely nobody complaining that they have some sort of electricity shortage because of Bitcoin miners.
76.
by leishman 5y ago
There are a few distinctions: 1. In PoS you actually never know who mined a given block with certainty. You can mine anonymously making censorship pretty difficult. This is not the case in PoS. 2. In PoW miners risk losing money by not buil
77.
by leishman 5y ago
PoS will be controlled by US-based custodians, which certainly have a tremendous incentive to siphon as much value from the currency as possible. PoW has a much more diversified set of actors with competing interests, which makes it much mo
78.
by leishman 5y ago
It's very relevant. Mining is very easy to geographically diversify. PoS coins will almost all be controlled by US based custodians subject to US regulations. PoS coins will be controlled by the US financial industry at the end of the
79.
by leishman 5y ago
It is very different: The difference is that PoW is censorship resistant. Anybody can be a miner and existing miners cannot censor new miners. Performing new work is external to the network state. In PoS, existing stakers can prevent new st
80.
by leishman 5y ago
See my comment to another in the thread. Existing stakers can prevent new people from staking. Existing miners can't do this in a PoW system
81.
by leishman 5y ago
The difference is that PoW is censorship resistant. Anybody can be a miner and existing miners cannot censor new miners. Performing new work is external to the network state. In PoS, existing stakers can prevent new stakers from registering
82.
by leishman 5y ago
Proof of Stake is already how our current financial system works. The people with the most money make the decisions. Proof-of-Work is provably resistant to this, as evidenced by the 2017 blocksize debate where almost every large miner and b
83.
by leishman 5y ago
For those who don’t know what Taproot is: https://river.com/learn/what-is-taproot/
84.
What is Taproot and how will it benefit Bitcoin?(river.com)
4 points by leishman 6y ago|0 comments
85.
by leishman 6y ago
River Financial | Senior Software Engineers | SF, CA | Onsite or Remote (US) | https://river.com River Financial is a Bitcoin private "bank". We have already seen tremendous growth this year and are scaling up the engi
86.
by leishman 13y ago
Their button group doesn't look right when you click the button. The border glow gets covered.