zk proofs supposedly resolve that issue.
monereo, zcash, and eventually ethereum
the concept seems to make sense but I'd be curious how to audit such an obfuscated system
349 karma · joined October 16, 2017
monereo, zcash, and eventually ethereum
the concept seems to make sense but I'd be curious how to audit such an obfuscated system
https://priceonomics.com/when-the-great-alpaca-bubble-burst/
(1) The asset not the product is the thing being marketed (i.e. live alpacas, not fiber)
(2) investors have unrealistic expectations (alpaca fiber would replace wool, despite the lack of infrastructure; and besides the fact that people don’t really wear that much wool)
(3) information is controlled through industry sources (most of the information the researchers were able to dig up was put out by breeding associations)
if you're concerned about security just use the official client
Satoshi could have used a linear growth curve. Instead he used a log curve, giving himself and the smallest user group possible (first users to run the software within the limited timeframe where the hyperinflation took place) control of the majority of the supply for the least amount of work possible.
All users entering the system late beyond users before them are needlessly exploited.
The way you and many others approach Bitcoin as a tool to horde and sell to other rubes is indicative of the manipulative design where unsuspecting new users don't understand the history.
If you actually understand Satoshis algorithm and history you'll take notice at how the supply was intended to benefit the first few users to run the software during the brief phase of hyperinflation and production for minimal work, while later users are punished merely for running the same protocol and offering the same computational work equivalent to prior users.
If you consider how easy a linear curve could have been chosen by Satoshi instead of the reverse log curve, you'll understand the manipulative nature of how Bitcoin exploits new users.
The supply inflates every 10 minutes, this by definition is inflation.
The irony is the mythos of bitcoin being "deflationary" is not historically accurate and the supply is inflating every 10 minutes.
What Bitcoiners conveniently omit from explanation in Satoshis protocol is the initial "dump" of the supply to the first few users who ran the software. This is a malicious design decision intended to control the supply early.
Any user who joins the network must than attempt to psychologically exploit new users by selling their asset previously generated for less effort/work/watts as the protocol increases in difficulty to any new user.
Why?
To control the supply early and exploit later speculators.
Anti-sybil attacks would be immensely beneficial. Encouragement of honest economic activity. Scaling of bandwidth and fees.
The ideal solution is a PoW that is computationally useful and desirable, BOINC, folding@home. Ethereum almost does this, but PoW algos as they exist now are anti-scale by design, where increasing computational power does not improve the network at all.
The foreseeable longevity of PoW is ungodly waste, when a world wide distributed computing network has potential far far beyond brute force hash puzzles.
Satoshi designed the supply to rapidly mint the majority of coins to the smallest group of users for the least amount of effort/capital/work input.
It's designed to manipulate any user who joins the system after you.
Satoshi could easily have chosen a linear curve to align with time, user growth, and increase in work input yet instead the manipulative log curve was chosen.
Old users are now incentived to attempt to psychologically exploit new people by selling the asset for far more than the cost of production or acquisition.
A better comparison to energy usage would be other distributed computing systems.
Bitcoin is insanely wasteful by design because it's requiring clients brute force guess the hashes in increasingly rising difficulty.
Computational work in cryptosystems of the future would ideally provide useful work that provides value other than brute force hash resistance.
Satoshi used a production model that produced the most amount of coins for the lowest amount of work/capital input, to reward the smallest user group.
Satoshi could just as easily have used a linear growth model knowing more users and more hash power should match the production output. Instead, Satoshis algorithm exploits new users.
Old users than have incentive to manipulate new users and psychologically propagate the myth of rarity when in fact the abundance of the supply was taken early easily and users are attempting to sell for more capital than it takes to acquire or produce, often simply by hording these low effort counts coins.
ecash should not exploit new users.
New cryptocash systems can easily be started.
Less computational energy and the least amount if users produced the most coins (for minimal external capital input).
Satoshi could have used a linear curve anticipating network growth matching minting and computational increase, but instead choose to exploit late adopters.
Early adopters will attempt to psychologically exploit new users by selling their asset for more than the cost of production and acquisition.
This has directly created the situation where utility is not in use but in exploitation of passing the hot potato to greater fools.
ecash should not exploit new users.
Start fresh.
Early adopters of BTC are trying to con new users into buying coins produced for minimal capital/computational work. The flaw in BTC is inherent to the malicious minting algorithm designed to harm new users.
There's other cryptocurrencies who are far out pacing the BTC core team.
Currently tether is presumed to be manipulated by its maintainers.
There are many other blockchain designs now, so Bitcoin is already obsolete.
All versions of Bitcoin share the exploitative inverse log curve for distribution and work input.
Bitcoin cash further changed the difficulty algorithm to benefit ASIC miners during a very brief window of time. Fees are reduced, and bandwidth has increased but the same design flaws are shared from Satoshi's algorithm.
So you're completely incorrect.
>Wealth disparity is at record levels and the ultrarich have cornered the market on every asset class, but with bitcoin, an entirely new economy has sprung into existence. That's the pitch for decentralized cryptocurrencies: They offer hope that there might be another, fairer way of doing things.
The irony here is Bitcoin, like most other cryptocurrencies are structured similar to a pyramid scheme and highly favor existing capital to control the supply and exploiting users who join the network past a certain date where barrier to entry increases.
They tell the story of acquiring this digital asset for a small capital sum, and simply passing it off to someone else for a greater sum. The intention is not utility but psychological exploitation of greater fools.
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/86/is-it-possible...
http://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-inequality-2014-1
Best estimates (2014) are that there are
about one million holders of
Bitcoin; 47 individuals hold about
30 percent, another 900 hold a
further 20 percent, the next
10,000 about 25% and another
million about 20%, with 5% being
lost. So 1/10th of one percent
represent about half the holdings
of Bitcoin and 1 percent close to
80 percentOne can imagine the ability of China to mobilize capital infrastructure to dominate mining space, especially when they're manufacturing all the bitcoin ASIC hardware.
It seemed like there were grave concerns once ASIC hardware hit BTC, locking normal people out and introducing an attack vector disproportionately favoring existing capital to take over the network.
What type of system do you think cryptocoins facilitate?
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertari...
No one else is allowed to generate the supply.
PoS coin supplies should be avoided, as the production cost or input work is not worth the speculative asset produced.
XRP is a case study in how they've created artificial scarcity and can flood the market with sell orders from their reserves.
https://www.coindesk.com/ripple-jed-mccaleb-settle-suit-over...
LA Weekly still had better instigative journalists than the times.
onzi received a letter from a company in Spain asking about the advertising catalog. Inside the envelope was an international reply coupon (IRC), something which he had never seen before. He asked about the IRC and found a weakness in the system which would, in theory, allow him to make money.
The purpose of the postal reply coupon was to allow someone in one country to send it to a correspondent in another country, who could use it to pay the postage of a reply. IRCs were priced at the cost of postage in the country of purchase, but could be exchanged for stamps to cover the cost of postage in the country where redeemed; if these values were different, there was a potential profit. Inflation after World War I had greatly decreased the cost of postage in Italy expressed in U.S. dollars, so that an IRC could be bought cheaply in Italy and exchanged for U.S. stamps of higher value, which could then be sold. Ponzi claimed that the net profit on these transactions, after expenses and exchange rates, was in excess of 400%. This was a form of arbitrage, or profiting by buying an asset at a lower price in one market and immediately selling it in a market where the price is higher, which is completely legal.[8]
The output is actually completely inverse. More work, more users, less output.
The consistency you're thinking of is likely the algorithm that adjusts blocktime to 10 minute intervals.