/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>54331500
>> retard says something retarded

>>54331500
Funny how you maxiniggers sucking the dick of saylor and gary, meanwhile they are your worst enemies, youll learn it the hard way, looks like....

>>54331500
This sounds like a retarded, pedantic, "um ackchually" style argument between to twitteroids

Saylor seems to be pointing to a general trend of the hash rate increasing (in comparison to the rest of the world's computing power I suppose) and asics getting more efficient per unit

Eric(a) [tranny?] seems to be sperging about how technically yes if asics get more efficient attackers/miners will just add more until they reach equilibrium, or possibly alluding that this process will go on to le infinity! Xd

Literally just two brain dead bird app people talking past each other, what a surprise

Does the amount of energy that it takes to mine actually stay constant? So if the hash rate increases, and the difficulty adjusts to match it, does it take the same amount of energy to mine? Do more efficient hardware have no impact on network efficiency then?

>>54331634
It's not sperging, it's a critical point and rebukes Saylor's sophistry.

Here Saylor is trying to imply that the trend of Bitcoin is greener and more efficient, but this is clearly not the case as increasing hash efficiency will simply yield a greater difficulty, resulting in more hashing required.


POW is fundamentally flawed in this way.

>>54331754
>POW is fundamentally flawed in this way.
POS is even more flawed. not permissionless fundamentally. the entire concept of money is flawed. we are just trying to find the least flawed money. until it disapears as a concept at one point in time

>>54331754
>Here Saylor is trying to imply that the trend of Bitcoin is greener and more efficient
It's true.
>but this is clearly not the case as increasing hash efficiency will simply yield a greater difficulty
No, it results in inefficient hardware being taken out to pasture. Just like when ASICs showed up, it took the GPU market out to greener pasture. Eventually, no one will be at home mining because at home electrical grid prices won't compete with off-grid prices, short of the government shooting itself in the foot with a miner tax.

>>54331843
exactly. saylor is correct from a perspective and the tranlord just wants us to see his other perspective which is also kinda true. but he's scammy about it cause he is a tranny who did not accept the reality that he is a man and will never be a woman so why should i listen to him. he can't even handle the truth.

>>54331843
You're conflating efficiencies
There's too types of efficiency
Efficiency of hashes per watt
Efficiency of Bitcoin's security in watts

Improving the efficiency of the former has ZERO effect on the later, which is what actually matters.
The former just makes old hardware redundant and causes miners to have to upgrade to the newer stuff to compete.

>>54331500
lmao, Sailor is such a clown, doesn't even understand the 51% attack, the most basic thing about bitcoin.
I'd be more worried about bugs on the messy ass code though, than a dumbass 51% attack that is never even attempted on BTC

>>54331500
Holy shit Saylor genuinely doesn't understand the game theory behind Bitcoin being INTENTIONALLY resource intensive. Calling it now - when he gets redpilled on this simple fact he's going to become an Eth maxi. PoS is the only logical conclusion.

>>54331702
The security they're talking about is the 51% attack prevention, and that is based on how much money you need to perform it, not how efficient the miners are at popping out new hashes

>>54331935
>PoS is the only logical conclusion.
Just like how the only conclusion to democracy is dictatorship? Or the only conclusion to decentralisation is centralisation? Fuck off mETH head.

>>54331500
What people have to realise about Bitcoin and its deflationary token model is that it actually consumes less of the planets resources, even though the PoW algorithm is energy intensive.

To illustrate my point I will use an example.
Light dumbs are engineered today to have a certain number of hours before they need to be replaced, this is because an inflationary currency like the USD devalues the holdings and wealth of corporations because its debt based currency.
Not made like they used to be is a real.
We can actually make light bulbs that last for over
100 years, but no company would still be in business, with a inflationary fiat currency system, but if we used Bitcoin as a means for trade and exchange, people would purcahse a lightbulb and expect it to last forever, because Bitcoin is a deflationary token, meaning the company that holds bitcoins over time will generate value from the coins, meaning that the lightbulb would need to last.

This is why we face an exerstential climate emergency, because the money is designed to consume and proiduce more in a disposible economy, we need a proper digital money backed by a Austrian style economics model where the people own things that last, no one will part with BTC today if it will be worth more tomorrow, unless the thing they purchase is forever, meaning we consume less and increase quality.

Thank you for reading my blog post.

>>54331963
light bulbs*

>>54331500
His role is not to understand, it is to provide exit liquidity for the rest of us. We should be thanking him for his willingness to baghold at any price.

>>54331962
Imagine thinking democracy is a good idea when politicians just import the demographics statistically most likely to vote for them until they achieve utter dominance.

PoS is a more efficient and generic form of PoW. PoW is really just staking with extra steps where your stake is locked in mining equipment.

>>54332049
Except you always have to defend your stake through mining equipment upgrades. Unlike PoS, which is basically a legacy finance rebrand, where everything is guaranteed and your position within the hierarchy is cemented based on how early you got in. GTFO methfag

>>54331500
almost none of the faggot crypto thought leaders understand the basics of the bitcoin white paper, and I doubt a majority of them even tried. This obvious fact going unrecognized for years on end, just tells you how dumb the space is. I regret not making a shit coin and astroturfing bullshit hype. you dumb-fucks deserve to go broke.

>>54331500
Is eric wall a confirmed tranny then? Bullish as he'll rope soon.

>>54332122
>Except you always have to defend your stake through mining equipment upgrades.

Just some arbitrary extra step of no real game theoretic benefit, which does not nearly justify having 1000000x more resource consumption. Literally who the fuck cares if the billionaire node operator has to swap out his GPUs once in a while. Now you have a landlocked major player with a target on his back, ripe for government coercion. Congratulations. Meanwhile I can stake on my laptop without a massive datacenter that will just get bombed by antifa. That is real decentralization.

>>54332122
>Except you always have to defend your stake through mining equipment upgrades.

Just some arbitrary extra step of no real game theoretic benefit, which does not nearly justify having 1000000x more resource consumption. Literally who the fuck cares if the billionaire node operator has to swap out his ASICs once in a while. Now you have a landlocked major player with a target on his back, ripe for government coercion. Congratulations. Meanwhile I can stake on my laptop without a massive datacenter that will just get bombed by antifa. That is real decentralization.

>>54332258
… you literally have to do nothing except exist to maintain your position within the system, which is exactly how the legacy finance system works. In fact, it’s actually worse because you don’t even have the same inflation pressures constantly robbing you and forcing you to chase a yield anymore. Congratulations, you’re now worse than George Soros.

Good luck when the “security” brigade comes for you. I’m sure they’ll love the “bUt It’S pRoOf Of StAkE” argument.

>>54331754
Kek, no. Mining simply becomes unprofitable and that's the end of mining

>>54332399
Doing nothing is impossible. Holding a position in ether is an active choice that has its own set of financial implications. The eth holder pays an opportunity cost that isn't fundamentally different from mining costs.

Lol at the security argument. The last resort of btc maxis who can't win on merit - hoping that daddy government will help crush their opponents. Not happening with Ether.

>>54332545
proof of stake is not permissionless or open. if you don't get this then its over for you.

>>54332589
>proof of stake is not permissionless or open

>>54332589
>"I don't need anyone's permission" he says to himself while paying Jihan Wu thousands for a year old, moderately used ASIC.
>"No one can stop me" he thinks, before begging his electricity supplier to not cut him off for abnormally high usage needs

>>54332444
Isn't mining how the processing power of the blockchain is actually created? So once the miners are no longer paid in coins, transaction fees will have to rise in their place?

>>54331766

PoS doesn’t even solve the timestamp problem, it is an utter scam.

>>54332589

What's the difference between buying coins versus buying ASICs. Mining uses more power and creates more e-waste, because you can't use abundant Computer hardware and ASICs can't be reused or repurposed for anything, once it becomes unprofitable to mine on it is trash.

With the CPU mined PoW it's different, at least you could build a botnet to mine with, or steal power for inefficient hardware to mine with, so you could find a way to participate even if you're in Uganda.

>>54331935
>dood you don't understand, this makes bitcoin just as scarce as gold!!
lel oh lel

>>54331843
>>54331883

retards

>>54331894
this

>>54331963
>with a inflationary fiat currency system
Maybe this is the problem to begin with and fiat paper currency should have never been decoupled from physical tangible wealth

>>54332669
>Isn't mining how the processing power of the blockchain
nope, you can just run a node

>>54332722
Still less of a retard than you, though I guess that doesn't take much to achieve.

remember when that eric wall dude BTFO all the linkies by writing about all the reasons why chainlink is garbage? good times

>>54331500
Saylor and his merry band of finance bros are the cancer that its killing bitcoin.

>>54332049
>>54332258

you are Dunning-Kruger as fuck

The entire point of mining is to have a way to objectively validate the order of transactions in a decentralized ledger in order to solve the timestamp problem. It works because the expense of energy required incentivizes honest record keeping. Thermodynamics ensures that wasted attempts to alter the ledger via malicious attack results in irreversible loss of energy.

PoS attempts to simulate this by having a rule where dishonest nodes have their stake slashed (an attempt to solve the “nothing at stake” problem). The issue with this is that only nodes which were present since the start of the “blockchain” will be able to know what the “real” order of transactions is. The entire premise of Proof-of-Work is at allows any observer to check the validity of hashes (not just the original nodes). Because it costs nothing for PoS nodes to generate alternate chains (because no mining) they have to rely on centralized checkpointing or “phone a friend” to determine which chain is the true one.

Vitalik himself said that such weak subjectivity would be considered a critical security flaw in PoW blockchains, but he dismissed this as being acceptable because he was willing to tolerate having his “blockchain” based on social consensus, completely invalidating the entire premise of decentralization.

So basically, PoS is a scam.

>>54331634
>tranny?
in bitcoin? is there even any question lmao

>>54332879

cont. and that’s not even getting into how PoS has a radically different attack surface to PoW (hint. it’s much worse). PoS is vulnerable to long range attacks and other forms of attack. PoW may be expensive in terms of energy, but it actually solves the timestamp problem. PoS doesn’t solve the timestamp problem. It’s a fucking scam. Just use a database at that point, you don’t need a “blockchain” if it can’t even solve the timestamp problem.

>>54332884

If you support PoS you are a spiritual tranny and Vitalik is a pedo faggot russian scammer subhuman

>>54331500
if you care about bitcoin consumption, look at the cambridge index, and look at how much bitcoin consumes compared to the world total energy consumption (currently around 0.2%)
if it stays that low, that means bitcoin is efficient
hashrate has nothing to do with this kind of efficiency or security, it's all about energy use, which is not bad by itself

>>54332879
the biggest problem I see with pos is that people that have power can manipulate people through media in order to manipulate market prices and increase their stake in the network, which is easier than consuming asic type energy

>>54331555
checked and funneh pic xD

Surprising how the only rebuttal people ITT have is "he's a tranny"!

Bravo. You win the argument on merit.

>>54332141

>>54332825
Post it

>>54333596
ask chatgpt to google it for you

>>54331500
So is the argument Maxis make that energy costs over time will trend towards zero bearish as fuck for btc

>>54332879
Lmao that’s not even what nothing at stake is. Since everything is virtual you don’t have to chose a chain to mine but “mine” them all without losses. In your word salad trying to discredit POS you pointed out one of its main strength, being able to slash fraudulent participants making it even less incentivized to cheat. You can’t destroy mining equipment.

>>54332924
Also fuck are you going on about the “timestamp” problem, what is that even? Tell me what it is clearly and it’s likely ethereums implementation of POS has a better solution for it. Ethereum always meant to release POS since day0 and other project trying to frontrun it with dogshit implementations that failed doesn’t mean ethereums is flawed.

>>54331500
he likes to take with idiots and love to hold a monologue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YV67Jai4k6A

>>54332719
>>54332645
>>54332625
maxis BTFO YET AGAIN

>>54331634
>he is le ackchually man!
>he’s right, but contrary to popular belief
This is the average bitfuck

>>54333890
is that seth rogan?

>>54331500
kek
Commies digging ditches for no actual value because "work creates value".
Can't make it up.

>>54333890
Seen this probably 40 times. JUST noticed that this guy is just a larger version of the child behind him. Like exactly.
Have I missed the point the entire time? Obviously the point is he's a manchild, but how can the universe be THIS kino?

It's tripping me out now.

>>54334067
Didn't notice that either, that's great

>>54333810

retard

>>54333842

>he doesn’t even know what the timestamp problem is

mETH heads, everyone…

>>54331766
>POS is even more flawed.
Proof of Stake and Proof of Work are just Sybil Control Mechanisms, by itself they say nothing about decentralization, security, speed or permissioned/permissionless.

>not permissionless fundamentally
Example: Running a Solana Validator is permissioned as it is bottlenecked by its classical Consensus Protocol and there is only a limited amount of Validators, on Avalanche its permissionless as the Network can scale to millions of Validators.

>>54332879
Slashing is not something fundamental to Proof of Stake, see Avalanche for example.
Proof of Stake and NO slashing.
if you want to blame someone dont blame PoS, blame Vitalik for making shitty design choices.

>>54334329

irrelevant, PoS fundamentally doesn’t solve the timestamp problem.

>>54333842
Ethereum has a really shitty Proof of Stake implementation, you'd have to be retarded to think otherwise so lets compare:

>ETH staking withdrawals will not be available right away
Avalanche withdrawals are available since Mainnet launch YEARS ago
>The current plan is to deploy the withdrawal functionality in a software update 6 mo - 1 year after the Merge.
essential stuff like this was never missing on Avalanche, this means you have to stake ETH for up to a year, maybe even longer while on Avalanche you can Stake for 2 weeks minimum or 1 year maximum or anything in between.
>The current projected income rate (for ETH) is around ~4% APY
Running an Avalanche Node has a proven 9% - 12% APY (paid in AVAX) since Mainnet Launch 2 years ago.
If you run a Node you get Staking rewards, % of your delegators rewards and Tokens from validating several Subnets. (The Golden Subnet Bullrun has not started yet).
>Also the withdrawal system will be implemented as a queue to limit the amount of ETH that can be withdrawn per day,
there is no queue on Avalanche, its instant, sub second, its finalized faster than you can press F5. thats all transactions or smart contract interactions on Avalanche, even when you go crosschain between X Chain and P chain and C chain and other Subnets its instant. Sub Second finality.
>Transactions take 14+ Minutes until they are finalized
I repeat: on Avalanche transactions are almost instant.
>Ethereum has Slashing which means you can lose your stake due to a Hardware or Software bug
No such thing as Slashing on Avalanche.

>>54334379
irrelevant nothingburger, as we can see with Avalanches Staking, its working flawless.

>>54331754
>POW is fundamentally flawed in this way.
Troon noises

>>54333596
https://ercwl.medium.com/whats-wrong-with-the-chainlink-2-0-whitepaper-for-simpletons-d50f27049464

>>54334313

just use a web server bro, there is no point to PoS, it’s a scam that doesn’t solve the timestamp problem.

>>54334404

>having no way to objectively verify transaction order is a nothing burger

stop being a ducking imbecile

>>54334456
see >>54334404

>>54334476
Proof of Stake works fine on Avalanche.
no idea about your imaginary problems.

>>54334313
>>54332645
This is not an argument about efficiency.
Think of a state actor who wants to come on board and take part in the consensus.
In PoS it has to rely on some market and that there are enough people who want to sell. Otherwise it cannot take part. While this might be ok for nobodies this could become a real problem for big institutions.
In PoW on the other hand no permission is required to take part in the consensus. With enough effort it will always be able to get it's transactions onto the blockchain at a reasonable price.

>>54331500
The guy is arguing semantics over something that takes more than a tweet to explain.

Also new ASICs aren't that efficient over under volted old generations.
Then comes the price to generate the electricity, and Saylor is 100% right that got more efficient.

Nobody is plugging in miners at their home unless it's to heat water or game some efficiency no one else has. .

It all trends towards efficiency, and attacking it has cost sinks built in and geographically distributed.

>>54334587
>With enough effort
what about without enough effort?

>>54331754
Nuclear powerplants are balancing load with Bitcoin miners, go suck a dick loser

>>54334688
"enough" hereby depends on how much time you got to win a block. If you have plenty of time or luck it's possible with very little effort to get transactions in even under adversarial conditions.

>>54334587
>Otherwise it cannot take part.
you can also find out who the big stake holders are and take their stake, if you are the goverment dude. there's so much ways to obtain majority stake.

>>54334715
sounds like a lot of unnecessary mumbo jumbo
I'm just going to buy xrp

>>54334587
>In PoS it has to rely on some market and that there are enough people who want to sell.
required Staking Amounts are not set in stone and can be increased or decreased through on Chain Governance.
so basically another nonissue nothingburger.
>In PoW on the other hand no permission is required to take part in the consensus.
Proof of Stake can be permissionless too, see Avalanche for example.

A bitcoin maxi is retarded. Color me surprised. Not.

>>54334717
>you can also find out who the big stake holders are and take their stake
What?
>there's so much ways to obtain majority stake
Yes because no serious institution cares about PoS shitcoins.

>>54334770
>Proof of Stake can be permissionless too, see Avalanche for example.
no it can fundamentally not be permissonless. as you have to buy stake from someone that has stake. so you have to get permission. in proof of work you just deliver the work. you can always join the network if you deliver work. in proof of stake you have to obtain stake. and this can be denied. also the 51pct of stake decide what happens with the network. "on chain governance" as you said. there is a select group of big stake holders that own the entire network and decide what happens forever. and once you have obtained the 51pct of stake you own the network forever and decide everything. in proof of work you don't decide anything if you own 51pct of bitcoin. fucking proof of stake plebs they haven't been in the market for longer than a few years I'm quite sure.

>>54334770
>required Staking Amounts are not set in stone
My argument has nothing to do with the minimum staking amount
>Proof of Stake can be permissionless too
No it's not. You can't do shit without someone selling you coins first.

>>54334823
>No it's not. You can't do shit without someone selling you coins first.
furthermore if you do manage to obtain proof of stake scamcoins first. and the 51pct of network stake holders don't like you for whatever reason. they can just deny you access to the network again! proof of stake is the wet dream fo a goverment or bank entitiy though. imagine having control forever and it never being challenged!

>>54334382
>Avalanche
Fucking lmao.

>>54334717
>you can also find out who the big stake holders are
and you cant find out who the Big mining farms are?
cmon
>>54334810
>as you have to buy stake from someone that has stake.
just buy it then. not a big problem especially with decentralized exchanges.
>so you have to get permission
no you dont, anyone can use a DEX.
>in proof of work you just deliver the work
you have to buy ASICs to participate so you need permission from someone who sells them.
see how retarded your argument is?
>also the 51pct of stake decide what happens with the network. "on chain governance" as you said.
there is many ways how this can work. its not limited to your example.
>in proof of work you don't decide anything if you own 51pct of bitcoin.
a handful of mining pools decides what tx gets into the next block.

>>54334887
it didnt halt actually.
the block explorer snowtrace just didnt upgrade. all chains and all subnets worked normally.

>>54334898
you don't get it from a fundamental perspective. go learn more. it took me a long time to understand too. i used to be a "proof of work is bad" "boomercoin" sucks guy. but ultimately proof of work is the innovation. proof of stake is banking 2.0 the rich get richer by sitting on their stake. tier scam

>>54332030
First anon to speak some sense

>>54334898
>you have to buy ASICs to participate so you need permission from someone who sells them.
The companies who produce ASICs don't control the consensus. There are multiple countries/companies who can produce ASICs. Your argument is like saying the people who copy the ballots control the elections.

>>54334898
>a handful of mining pools decides what tx gets into the next block.
That's a valid criticism for both PoW and PoS networks. Technically it is possible to have PoW or PoS consensus where the mining pools don't create the blocks.

- Subjectivity: Exponential advances in ASICs entail history rewriting has some probability of happening in both PoS and PoW. None of which are objective, the observer has to make itself aware of all possible forks in order to attest the potential validity of a state. PoS platforms can adopt fallback Proof-of-Work schemes in order to solve conflicts involving attacks acquiring significant voting power close to genesis or checkpoints, with greater efficiency than a maximalist approach.
- Tragedy of the common: All actors in PoW strategically minimize value lost in shared security. (Imagine a country where citizens are free to exploit any tax evading scheme, nobody would pay for its army.) Bitcoin's future is uncertain because deflationary tokenmomics and L2s are self-conflicting with the large fee volume requirement to cover security expenses. Furthermore if you try to save Bitcoin with inflation, maximalism is busted. Other PoW networks who depends on inflation are hazardously over-reliant on perpetual investment inflow to capture fundamental funds, which aggravates the inevitable exposure to financial meltdown. In contrast to PoS which benefits from the inertia of reputation systems and its preserved financial mass relative to external systems.
- Succinctness: Recursive ZKP allows constant-time consensus independently of chain growth. Network synchronization in PoS is faster than PoW.
- Ethics: Profit-seeking miners are incentivized to use their position in ways benefiting their survival, with uncertain outcomes in the context of unregulated monopolistic competition. Game theory structures can not completely eliminate bias as it is fundamental to life.
- Environment: More than 70% of Bitcoin's global energy consumption is generated from non-renewable sources such as coal.

>>54334859
>and the 51pct of network stake holder
The Avalanche consensus protocol is designed to prevent 51% attacks by using a different approach to achieving consensus than other blockchain networks.
In Avalanche, nodes reach consensus by repeatedly asking a random subset of other nodes if they agree on a transaction, until a threshold level of agreement is reached.
The protocol is designed to prevent a single entity from controlling the network, as nodes are selected randomly for each round of voting.
This ensures that no single entity or group of entities can gain control of the network and manipulate transactions. Furthermore, even if an attacker manages to control a significant portion of the network, the Avalanche protocol can quickly detect and isolate the malicious nodes, thereby preventing the attack from being successful.

>>54335003
>>54334898
I can still mine on my computer and partake on the network. it just isn't competitive. but I can do it. he doesn't understand it fundamentally.

>>54335017
i don't care about your scam shill dude. muh avalanche. cope scam. enloy getting dumped on by the early ones forever.

>>54334992
Proof of Work and Proof of Stake are just Sybil Control mechanisms, its all about how they are implemented. by itself they arent flawed, its just spam protection.
>>54335003
>The companies who produce ASICs don't control the consensus.
What happens if they stop selling them to you?
how will you take part in the network?
>There are multiple countries/companies who can produce ASICs.
your government makes importing them illegal, what now?
>That's a valid criticism for both PoW and PoS networks.
actually no, its only a problem for leader based consensus, on a leaderless consensus like Avalanche a block can be proposed at any time by any validator.
go read up on it.

>>54335019
>I can still mine on my computer and partake on the network.
you are actually irrelevant. Miningpools run the show and you are just some coper wasting his energy.
>>54335040
>i don't care about your scam
how is Avalanche a Scam?
Its actually as legit as it gets, but clueless laggards refuse to learn about new innovations in the space.
your loss buddy.

>>54335077
printed out of thin air scam.

>>54335058
>its just spam protection.
Yes, "trust the reputation" or "trust that the first-class miners inevitably owning 80% of hashrate behaves selflessly".

>>54334887
Why you didn't post how he got crucified in the replies? It's legit the worst thread of the year, speaking as a majorly ETH bagholder. David is a vile midwit, The final evolution of the CT subhuman influencer, Having this kind of human filth as ETH associate makes me want to vomit

>>54335009
>Exponential advances in ASICs
not happening anymore. Moore's law is dead already.
>PoS platforms can adopt fallback Proof-of-Work schemes
Sounds like PoW with extra steps and obfuscation
>Bitcoin's future is uncertain because deflationary tokenmomics
>if you try to save Bitcoin with inflation, maximalism is busted
Only retards really think BTC with a hard cap is gonna work. Tail emission is gonna happen.
>PoW networks who depends on inflation are hazardously over-reliant on perpetual investment
Just like gold which is at like 2% inflation...

>inertia of reputation systems
What is that even supposed to mean?
>Network synchronization in PoS is faster than PoW
That's just wrong
>Recursive ZKP
That's not specific to either PoS or PoW

>Profit-seeking miners are incentivized to use their position in ways benefiting their survival
Just like stakers
>Environment
We are not comparing apples to apples here. PoW has unique features that cannot be replicated using PoS. It's like saying houses consume less fuel than cars and are therefore better for the environment.

>>54335058
>actually no, its only a problem for leader based consensus
That's what I wrote. Go read up on it.

>>54334887
>Quoting David Hoffman
You think posting an idiotic engagement-farming tweet from this retard is an own? lmao

>>54335090
Where do you think bitcoin originated?

>>54335058
>What happens if they stop selling them to you?
>how will you take part in the network?
Use your computer? How will you take part in a PoS network if you government bans buying crypto and you have none already?

>>54335341
>How will you take part in a PoS network if you government bans buying crypto and you have none already?
simple
>try and earn them through alternative means, such as by providing goods or services and accepting payment in cryptocurrency.
>try and acquire the coins through peer-to-peer (P2P) exchanges

>>54331500
Please stop posting your twitter battle on here Eric you faggot tranny. No one cares about you.

>>54331634
The guy has been posting his twitter "owns" here for over three years now

- Exponential technological breakthroughs are ineluctable and follow peiodic sigmoidal curves.
- Holistic hybrid designs fits the chaotical nature of reality.
- Since PoW is monopolistic, all miner advantages exponentially reflects on their ability to influence consensus with inevitable pressures stemming from security costs. PoS meta-networks do not encapsulate truth into a single resource or physical interaction, therefore providing inclusive space for competition, growth and understandings.
- PoS and PoW are comparable in the context of global consensus. The former may adopt token-less designs to be infinitely more politically decentralized than the latter.
- Gold has inherent real world utility. Whereas all blockchains can trivially be replaced. The value comes from utility and social attachments.
- PoW communities are full of unloving bigots who will own nothing.

Hyperbolically, PoW is the consensus scheme for people who believe violence solves everything. They are right. But they are simultaneously and equivalently wrong.
Love and creativity will melt them down.

>>54331500
They are both right.

It costs less energy to produce the same amount of hashes. This is because of improvements to ASICs.
Yes this is more energy efficient when you look at the J/TH metric but in practise the network adjusts. This does not negate the FACT that there are more hashes per energy spent. Is this useful? Ehhh.. don't ask me.
I do consider the constant increasing Hashrate in the network as higher security since it requires modern equipment to keep up increasing red team cost. Agreed that the effectiveness of this is debatable but it hampers attacks on bitcoin. Currently only Nation States sized actors can 51% attack BTC. The high hashrate which resulted from advancements in ASICs which was a result of the everlasting hash war since every one is scrambling to mine as much BTC as possible. That is the security mechanism in play here; the hash war.
It's arguably not even possible to do a 50% attack on BTC at this time since you'd never be able to gather enough ASICs in time if at all.
And this does make Bitcoin better, more secure.
Let's not forget that its now useless to use CPUs and GPUs to mine BTC. This reduced attack vector of BTC since now botnets can't attack BTC.. There are several ways to look at this.

(Not undermining the significant value of Satoshi's work, but merely pointing out downsides with a more or less playful expression)

>>54335701
You're such a smart and clever tranny Erica. Did anyone ever tell you that? Seems like you need to hear it. Now, can you please fuck off?

>>54331566
Maxipads have nothing other than inertia and institutional dick sucking left

>>54331500
Saylor is retarded.

Bitcoin will be green just like a gasoline gar with 5 million mile range would be more green than an electric car (ignoring that you could use the super gasoline or engine to produce electricity).

The key is scale.

coincarboncap.com

>>54335597
Thank you for your brilliant commentary in this thread. Any blockchain trends or projects you are fundamentally bullish on?

>>54335808
I wish to avoid including or excluding information subsets related to identity, but I assume the Twitter user known as "Erica" wouldn't want to be erroneously associated with this place. I'm not her. I will fox off promptly.
>>54335885
From the perspective of a smart-contract developer, I love Dfinity and Kindelia. I'm aware the former may have controversial shortcomings related to inclusive accountability, but it can be fixed by zkWasm subnets if the alleged feature is deemed necessary. They are likely terrible choice for investors, I can not help you more than this. I'm sorry.

>>54336153
Thank you, I love you! :3

>>54331500
I'll do it again

>>54335412
You got me! I'm exposed!

>>54331500
I guess BitCoin network will be the most secure and efficient when quantum computers break SHA

>>54336377
He's always been a scumbag scammer. Nothing has changed.

>>54336377
he's down very little at this point
even the nicaraguan guy or whatever is on profit
it's not really bitcoin but just the dollar shitting the bed

>>54332049
When are republicans going to import white people?

>>54332736
It was always going to be decoupled you have a zionist occupied government.

We have Bitcoin now so we can control our own ledgers free from the double spending of the banks.

>>54331754
Imagine not factoring in tps. If 1 billion tps can be done with the same hash rate as 7tps then the former is far greener.

>>54337176
There is a good reason why the TPS is limited.

>>54331500
>Eric(a)
that's a man kek

>>54336336

>>54336377

>>54335058
>on a leaderless consensus
avax is now leader based

>>54331500
who cares...this nigger already got liquidated

>>54338063
He did not get liquidated.

>>54334587
Ok so
>Option A: institutions are forced to buy my bags
>Option B: institutions have to buy hardware from some random company
And I'm supposed to prefer option B for some reason? Lol

>>54331500
>twitter tranny argument
This is a huge sell signal for /biz/.

>>54338637
Again with the tr*** non-argument.