/biz/ - Business & Finance

Buy as many as you can.

>>13516595
No fucking shit sherlock.

Soon...

Why is ethereum the most divisive coin on /biz/? Half of you think it's a guaranteed moon, half think it's going to zero.

PoS is a scam.

>>13516595
Gotta love the mother fuckin Ethereum network!

>>13516595
How much is the market cap of pic related going down when the #2 coin goes POS?

>>13516595
ETH printed 72 million ETH for their investors and devs. This is more than half the current supply of ETH. If you go PoS, those people will remain rich and control the entire network until the end of time because they have > 51% control of the supply.

They are literally fat cats that do nothing and get money forever. And you want to participate in this network? It makes no fucking sense.

I'm not even talking about how shitty PoS is from a technical perspective either.

>>13516682
At least the eth devs keep trying to make their stake worth more. BTC distribution was fair but there's fuck all development now

>>13516682
doubt they have 51% anymore. a lot sold their bags in the last bullrun.

>>13516595
https://blog.stellarx.com/the-great-filter-why-you-shouldnt-ico-on-ethereum/

ethereum is shit. fuck that autism coin

>>13516741

BTC 0.80 just released 0.80 I think. Plenty of development if you read the release notes. The thing is, BTC is always building software to be backwards compatible so things are done with a soft fork. You have the option to not use it.

ETH forces everyone to upgrade pretty much. And they change the amount of ETH produced at will. No one got to even vote on it or anything.

No one know how much ETH there will be and what kind of system ETH will be on next year or even 2 years.

They're always just riding the hype of whatever new tech but no one uses it except for making more alt coins. Then when someone actually makes a dapp like crypto kitties, it grinds ETH blockchain to a halt.

>>13516742
no one knows for sure, you can sell and you can buy... in fact the more you have the bigger of a whale you are and you can easily manipulate the market. Considering that more than half of ETH's supply wasn't fairly distributed (via mining), this is very likely. Again, no one knows what ETH's supply will be a year or two from now

I mean if you want to invest in the short term (aka buy on the rumor and sell on the news) that's fine, but don't think it's actually valuable.

>>13516682
Are you retarded? Do you think they're still holding all of that eth? You fucking cretin

>>13516654
That statement alone is bullish.

Proof-of-STAKE 100% let’s do this RDD is good to!

>>13516813
There is probably going to be a shit ton more FUD as Ethereum nears important developments. Newfags will be confused af, lmao.

Price predictions? Are we going to see $1400 again or higher in the next 1-2 years?

>PoS
>P O S
>Piece Of Shit
it's right there in the name
good luck

>>13516776
>No one know how much ETH there will be
It's going to be capped basically, due to severe slowing of issuance and such. I've heard some say at 110 million ether. Don't listen to bitcoin maxipads. They want you to believe it's an out of control printing press.

>>13516811

So you're telling me they only sold and never bought? The bigger bags you have the more you can manipulate the market.

To assume they can only sell is just wrong. When they do sell a noticeable amount, you'll see a huge crash in ETH's price. Just wait.

>>13516825
dude before PoS people are going to be buying hard af for those juicy staking rewards

>>13516595
They're so far from being able to switch to proof of stake.

https://medium.com/whiteblock/introducing-hobbits-a-lightweight-wire-protocol-for-eth-2-0-b1bfae5e4843

^-- libp2p is a bit of a clusterfuck in that the only viable implementations are in Go and Rust, and people who want to implement Etherereum 2.0 clients in other languages were fucked until this Hobbits initiative came along.

>>13516811
JEJLKd

>>13516831
KJEJKd

>>13516838
>we're fucked until...
forever. it's trash. adding layers of complexity on top of it makes it worse and there are too many competing blockchains that can do more and aren't programmed in autistic solidity. when adoption hits ethereum will be the dinosaur shit coin that never made it.

>>13516837

That's ironic. People that want PoS are people that say

"I have money and if I have money I should get more money by doing nothing"

And they still call themselves capitalists.

>>13516682
logic is really hard for commies. i bet you had a hard time in school. probably not good wit the ladies either

>>13516860
fiat money is proof of stake
proof of stake is another word for (((interest)))

>>13516863

I'm the guy that's saying people should innovate (which costs money) and protect the network.

But you're the guy that says "I have money, I should get more money by doing nothing"

and you call me the commie? lol ok

Post the wallets, let's find out...

>>13516855
That's possible.

>>13516860
I've noticed quite a few jews in the Ethereum dev community.

>>13516867

Oh yeah, let's model our money after fiat. That's a great idea and completely not why crypto started in the first place.

you stake but you don't do anything to protect the network from external attacks and you do nothing to protect against collusion between big stakers. In fact, if a 51% attack happens on ETH, no one can stop it because the attack happens and continues to happen for free. All they need to do is stake the ETH and run zero costs after that

There's so many problems from a technical perspective.

>>13516595

It has always been a piece of shit. Slow, high fees and unscalable. there's a bunch of better alternative.

>>13516893
Wow, /biz/ actually has a genius on board, who is smarter about crypto than the collective knowledge of the biggest crypto developer community. Fuck yeah.
I also like to write empty words. I also like to imply that 51% on PoS would be easier than on PoW and the largest stakers will group together to collectively destroy their asset.

>>13516595
$10,000 by 2020 guaranteed or I eat my fucking dick

>>13516893
It takes much more than 51% to launch a successful attack on the proposed POS protocol for ETH, though. 51% attack resistance was kind of one of the selling points for developing POS for ETH in the first place.

>>13516948
> Wow, /biz/ actually has a genius on board, who is smarter about crypto than the collective knowledge of the biggest crypto developer community. Fuck yeah.

If that's your take, then no one should take my advice or your advice. So not sure what the point of posting is. This board doesn't get a lot of traffic either so I'm just kicking it with bizbros for the hell of it. I don't expect to influence any prices. Are you also claiming people that believe in ETH is the biggest crypto community?

You need to realize ETH didn't have a fair start. At day 0, all 72 million ETH belonged to investors and devs.

Even now, they control 68% of the supply. You can say some sold but some could've bought and you can buy for the sole reason of manipulating the market. That's an incredible amount of control because if you say "let's vote" on something, they'll always win. Can you even call that voting?

51% on PoS is definitely easier than PoW. Because to continue the attack it costs 0. If you compare it to BTC, to start a 51% attack you need to buy however miners there is right now, the electricity, the infrastructure to run it. After a maximum of 1 week, difficulty doubles so you need to buy twice as many miners now to continue the attack. The costs are astronomical and not even possible because the first time you need to buy 2 milion miners and the electricity to run it, next week you need to buy 4 million miners and the electricity to run it. You can't make 4 million miners in a week, the infrastructure for that simply doesn't exist, not to mention you need 8 million miners the next week.

PoS you just need to buy the initial amount of ETH that's it.

51% attack is just one example. That's an internal attack within the network (collusion). With PoS you also open up yourself to external attacks. On bitcoin, hash rate protects against this but on a PoS system, it is not protected.

>>13517028

How so? 51% is all you need to win any vote on a PoS system. What more do you need?

why is eth spassing out right now

>>13517031
So what's the argument when 98% of the btc supply is owned by one singular entity? Aka Digital Currency Group aka DCG aka Barry Silbert aka Blockstream aka Shapeshift aka Kraken aka Coinbase aka ETC aka ZEC aka you get the point. So you are saying ETH is more centralized than boomer coin? Hmmm the coin that came out in 2009? More centralized with 4 Transactions Per Second (TPS) compared to Ethereums 15+ TPS? Which came out 6 years later? kek. And better than Ethereum's future PoS model with 1 Million TPS (literally by 2020) that will build the foundation for Web 3.0? With the most devs (and the best devs by far) committed and building on ETH? KEK ok.

By the way, for all those arguing for ETH PoS, you should agree that

"It is ok for the creators to have printed 72 million ETH for their investors and developers and right now, those ETH accounts for 68% of the total supply"

AND

"The people with money should have more money by doing nothing"

AND

"If the ETH investors' funds somehow got stolen, Vitalik, our lord and savior, will roll back the blockchain so those investors can get their money back. But if it happens with anyone else, Vitalik doesn't give a fuck about how much money you lost."

That's literally what you're arguing for. This is their governance model.

People these days have lost the respect for why the blockchain exists. It's to enforce decentralized, permission-less, trust-less, system with an immutable ledger. You get everything for BNB (which isn't even open sourced) to XRP (they literally printed all the xrp tokens for themselves and they say it's worth money and sell it to you).

It's a shame.

>>13517090
Okay sock puppet DCG shill faggot

>>13517035
Go read the specs for specifics, IIRC in videos from like last year Vitalik was describing how only like 30% of nodes need to be honest in order for the attacking nodes to get their stake slashed.

>>13517090
at least with PoS if a bad actor starts approving fraudulent transactions, people will pull their money out of the coin and since they are so heavily invested, they risk losing a massive investment

with proof of work you just have to pool mining pools together and you could potentially steal from the big whales in a communist uprising

>>13516654
Because 80% of /biz sat through 2017 with cock in hand when ETH was beating ATHs nearly every month (except the summer lull)

>>13517077

You're literally arguing that to store information on a decentralized, permission-less system until the end and have it be broadcasted until the end of time should be free. You think TPS is all that matters and you don't even consider the storage cost and bandwidth costs for each node. You have to realize every block of however big of size is multiplied by the number of active nodes for storage and bandwidth. That needs to happen until the end of time, plus any new nodes that join the network.

BTC is the most decentralized. Have you tried to run an ETH node before? The blockchain is bigger than BTC already and it's only been around for 4 years where as BTC has been around for 10. If you tried to get a ETH archive node, the storage itself is 2.2 TB right now.

The larger the blockchain, the higher the cost for node operators, which leads to centralization. But then again you probably never ran a node in your life and you keep all your coins on binance or some shit.

The only way to scale a decentralized system is with L2 solutions. ETH needs it way more than BTC (as their blockchain is growing at a much faster rate than BTC) but people bash BTC yet it's the first one to put L2 solutions on the table. Funny now ETH says they want to do L2 after BTC already did it and people call BTC "old tech".

No offense anon but this "he's a shill for x, he's a shill for y" thing is stupid. I look at the technical code and proposals not who promises what.

>>13517130
Not sure what that means. When there's a disagreement on PoS, the majority always wins. You don't know who's honest and who's not, that's the point. If you somehow make the minority (aka 30%) have that much of an effect on a majority ruling, that sounds really bad.

>>13516600
>>13516607
>>13516639
>>13516662
>>13516820
>>13516837
>>13516953
PoS is a scam. Look at how much DASH node operators paid for a node last bull run, they're all underwater. ETH switching to a PoS model means two things
>price will spike as retards fomo in to buy enough to run a node
>price will then dump when node operators find themselves with """free""" money and market sell thinking they are all financial geniuses
Do yourself a favour and sell a week to three days before PoS. Cap this, faggots

>>13516656
>>13516682
>>13516748
>>13516827
>>13516855
Based and Proof of Dogshit pilled

>>13517180
Okay, I'll spoonfeed you.
https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Proof-of-Stake-FAQ

>>13516682
>They are literally fat cats that do nothing and get money forever. And you want to participate in this network? It makes no fucking sense.

You gotta be realistic. Nobody on 2019's /biz is gonna be able to rent/buy proper server storage, get the industrial electricity hookups, THEN buy the miners, configure them and most importantly MAKE MONEY with bitcoin or anything else out there. However it is still possible to get 32 ETH and make it with staking. As for
>muh premine
yeah no shit black man, how did you think Ethereum foundation got off the ground? Thats besides Vitalik selling 25% of his stash at $5 per ETH to prevent bankrupcy in early 2017 before Consensys money came through.

>>13517161

> with proof of work you just have to pool mining pools together and you could potentially steal from the big whales in a communist uprising

See >>13517031
> 51% on PoS is definitely easier than PoW. Because to continue the attack it costs 0. If you compare it to BTC, to start a 51% attack you need to buy however miners there is right now, the electricity, the infrastructure to run it. After a maximum of 1 week, difficulty doubles so you need to buy twice as many miners now to continue the attack. The costs are astronomical and not even possible because the first time you need to buy 2 milion miners and the electricity to run it, next week you need to buy 4 million miners and the electricity to run it. You can't make 4 million miners in a week, the infrastructure for that simply doesn't exist, not to mention you need 8 million miners the next week.

A 51% attack doesn't let you steal. You can try to double spend but you have the situation quoted above. Now to even start a double spend attack, you need to have a bunch of BTC in the first place before the attack so you already put in money into the BTC network. Just like 51% attack on ETH, stakers would need to have ETH.

However, the difference is, for the attack to continue, you need all that shit I described above for BTC but you need nothing for ETH.

I don't get people calling BTC communist (a system where you have to constantly innovate and protect the network to get BTC)... but not a system system where the rich get richer by doing nothing (doesn't protect the network) as good and not communist.

What the actual fuck?

>>13517196
I've looked through some of this before.

Ok anon, suppose there's a disagreement on the network

51% of the network says "alice paid bob"
49% of the network says "alice didn't pay bob"

Which one is correct and what should the network add to the blockchain?


> The fourth can be recovered from via a "minority soft fork", where a minority of honest validators agree the majority is censoring them, and stop building on their chain. Instead, they continue their own chain, and eventually the "leak" mechanism described above ensures that this honest minority becomes a 2/3 supermajority on the new chain. At that point, the market is expected to favor the chain controlled by honest nodes over the chain controlled by dishonest nodes.

This sounds to me like, 49% would stop building on that chain, so 51% has 100% of the votes now on the main chain. the 49% would build their chain in secret and leak it. Then somehow, that 49% needs to gain 2/3 supermajority and say this chain is valid, and have the entire network agree on it? How is that possible when you only have 49%? How do you get supermajority? It makes no sense how you're going to get 67% when you only have 49%. Building your chain in secret while the main chain is running then leaking it doesn't get you more majority. In fact you'd reject some chain that came out of nowhere and claim to be the real chain.

If I owned 30% of staked ETH wouldn't I be able to fuck with the network this way? I don't even need to have 51%.

ETH FUD gearing up is an indicator of Beacon chain progress. The FUD singularity during the launch will be hilarious.

>>13517291

FUD how? Show me where I'm wrong.

By all means, buy the rumor and sell the news to make money but don't believe in your own lies.

>PoS soon

When? WHEN? Its been 5 years

>>13517180
You are worried about storage costs? That's your argument? I work in automation and IT and we piss out storage of 1000 TB and that is with 5 year old tech. What is your argument besides that?

>>13517319
>only big companies with dedicated data centres will be able to run a node
>don't trust, verify
Which is it?

the CoreCuck desperation in here

>>13516682
>This is more than half the current supply of ETH. If you go PoS, those people will remain rich and control the entire network until the end of time because they have > 51% control of the supply.

The problem facing crypto right now is that literally nobody is developing real games on the technology and any time a dev does attempt to get something setup they get stone walled with bullshit excuses, a lack of development for practical functionality and a massive lack of game design experience.

Being worried about shit like what you mentioned i peanuts compared to the fact we could already be playing a fucking crypto runescape MMO by now but the everyone is too fucking retarded to work together.

>soon

>>13517031
Did you not get it that it needs to be more than a 51% attack once PoS?

More like 98% sustained, with risk of slashing.

ETH will be 5-10k by end of 2020.

>>13517180
It is not 2.2 TB.
https://etherscan.io/chart2/chaindatasizefast

>>13517401
>what is fast sync

>>13517035
if a 51% attack happens they can just revert to an earlier state and the attack will only have cost a shit load of eth

>>13516600
>>13516607
Anons ignore the fud, if you think a programmable money platform or distributed super computer has value. ETH is the best shot WE have.

>>13517331
Versus one company running an entire crypto called btc? I can buy 1000tb and I'm one person. What's your point?

>>13517405
Sync with state, no need to do every tx ever.
Good luck making it in this new paradigm.

t. BTC/ETH maximalist

>>13517411
Thanks buddy. I'm just arguing because I'm way too good natured for this ass board.

>>13517411
>distributed super computer
>super computer
more like shitty computer given the amount of calcs per second it does... don't throw buzzwords around this cheaply thx

isn't pos possible now, but the actual problem is sharding and they figured it was easiest to do both at once?

>>13517458
Yeah they delayed it for a year to implement both solutions at once.

>>13517425
I'm glad that you are even aware of ETH. As long as you keep paying attention to crypto you will make it over the next few years once you capitulate into the new paradigm.

Don't get left behind.

>>13517493
Based. And my 3 hour return was 99% useless. Thank you for reminding me cuz biz sucks fucking big time

>>13516776
>>fairly distributed (via mining)
>rich gooks with warehouse mining rigs hoover up the supply to dump on round eye gaijin
>’fairly distributed’

>>13516924

we’re not talking about btc m8

>>13517264
you don’t understand how PoS works. based on this post i’m not sure you even understand how PoW works. or what a 51% attack is. or where your ass is even

>>13517407
so you want to revert an immutable ledger? What's the point then? Just use JPMcoin

>>13517624

I make detailed explanation, you just post "I don't think you know how it works"

Sure bro...

>>13517392
please provide source

ETH price will go up no doubt, that's because people buy on the rumor but they sell on the news

I'm interested in how you need 98% of staked ETH to pull off a successful consensus attack

>>13517421

So trust, don't verify is a good standard to take.

Sounds the typical trader with a binance account and never ran a full node in their lives.

I mean as long as the "crypto" goes up in price the fundamental principles doesn't matter right?

>>13517655
Because any node submitting falsified transactions would have to have 32 ETH staked on it, and that would risk some portion of each node's stake for submitting "bad" transactions over and over.

32 ETH times 51% of the network.

Good luck

lol I'm reading some of your comments and people are saying

> "you need 70%"
> "no you need 98%" (no source)
> "you don't know what you're talking about" (with no follow up on how it actually works and no source)
> "Of course, the rich should get richer by doing nothing" you communist!
> "I'm fine with ETH devs and investors printing 72 mil ETH for themselves"
> you don't need to verify, trust it
> you're worried about storage costs? I can shit out 1000 TB

Except you don't realize that you and EVERYONE else needs to have 1000 TB of storage too, upload 1000 TB for EVERY node that comes online, until the end of time. You and EVERYONE else needs to buy hard drives as the blockchain grows and bigger bandwidth pipe as the network / blockchain grows, until the end of time. You don't think that leads to centralization? All you can say is "so what?"

Jesus christ, I'm going to let you guys circlejerk. I think most of you are here just to make some money, which is fine but pretending this is good for ETH is not good for ETH in the long term. Then again, ETH investors & devs own the majority share so if it comes to a vote they'll get whatever they want and you guys will just have to go along with it and do some mental gymnastics.

ETH is going to moon so fucking hard when Casper launches Phase 0 of Beacon Chain. So many ETH about to get staked and locked up for those passive gains.

>>13517724

>Not understanding what sharding is.
>Too retarded to understand how a 51% attack against proof-of-stake works.

>>13517180

I've honestly never understood the whole storage issue thing. Yes, 2.2 TB is a lot. But even at 100TB there would still be plenty of people willing to kit out a server rack and run a node that aren't corporate actors. The hard drive GB/$ ratio is getting better everyday and IT nerds aren't exactly poor on average. 100TB is less than 5,000$ rn, and by the time a node would need that much 100Tb will likely less than 500$.

> Okay, maybe an average Indian couldn't run a node. I care why? Maybe you're running a pentium 3 and XP but no one else is bud.

>>13517719

What are you talking about? When you collude, you already have 51% of the staked shares on the ETH network. This is assumed as that's the requirement for the attack. Are you saying it's impossible to own 51% of staked shares? What does 32 ETH have to do with anything?

Once you 51% of staked shares decide to collude, the game is over. Once they have gained the majority, is is the minority that'll lose their stake because the consensus algorithm will punish the minority, aka the 49%.

Anyway, I'm out. You guys keep circle jerking. Really a great capitalist system where the rich get richer by doing nothing, and printing tokens out of thin air is fine.

>>13517740
As some other anon already linked

> https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Proof-of-Stake-FAQ

and go to

> What would the equivalent of a 51% attack against Casper look like?


and see my comment about >>13517264

If you've read what I've read, please explain to me where I'm wrong.

>>13517748
Sure, I'll explain because you are clearly fucking retarded.

Find me an individual or group that will successfully convince 51% of all staked nodes to sign different blocks then the rest of the network. Not only that, but there's sharding, so you would have to propagate these entirely new blocks to all these malicious nodes instead of just a fraction of them.

Tell me how you would conduct a 51% attack on a transaction that's a part of layer 2 scaling.

>>13517748
a 51% with pow just costs enough money to currently run all of that hashing power

a 51% with pos costs 51% of all eth currently staked

when they figure out it was malicous they'll take all of the eth you have staked, the attack costs a lot more

>>13516595
Yes, Ethereum will dethrone Bitcoin.

>>13517757
ethereum can't even figure out a multisig wallet lol you think they really have any idea what they are doing?

>>13517760
and how can 49% prove they're legit?
they can't, and it's nearly impossible to sync a fully validating ETH node anyways so you're going to be all mixed up when that happens

>>13517771
>>13517777

>>13517743

In a distributed system, you need to consider the cost of the entire network, not just one node.

Say you have a network of 1000 nodes,

If you push out 1 GB blocks every 10 minutes. Then the network has to handle 1 GB * 1000 of storage and bandwidth every 10 minutes.

From the perspective of just one node, you need to have

1 GB * 6 * 24 * 30 = 4.32 TB per month. So you need to add this much storage, to your node, every month. You need to download 4.32 TB and to keep the network healthy, the network also has to upload that much. Per month.

Consider a new node. If your distributed network has been running for 1 year, you need to download 4.32 TB * 12 of storage and the bandwidth. If you turn off your node and want to sync it a year later, you'll have to have 4.32 TB *12 of storage and bandwidth to do so.

This is just 1 year. Think about what happens in 10 years because the blockchain always grows. If you look at the entire network, it's 1000 times whatever I said. If you want to maximize decentralization, this simply cannot happen. This is why on-chain scaling doesn't exist, because the cost to store any amount of data on a truly decentralized network is not zero, especially as the network grows.

Hence, why you need offchain scaling on L2. I'm glad ETH is finally looking into this but BTC has done it first yet people say BTC is old tech.

>>13517724
implying chink mining cartel + blockstream capping 1mb is more decentralized.

both are absolute shitcoins at this point

>>13517771
>fucking Gavin Wood and his Consensys disaster x2
Nice job critiquing the protocol. An actual multi-sig wallet is a basic smart contract by the way.

>>13517777
vitalik's addressed this that they can just fork if it were to happen

with sharding the difficulty in 51% everything would require something around 80% of staking

stop spreading fudd, what's your coin you prefer instead

>>13517784
anon-kun you seem like a high iq individual. whats your opinion on decentralized oracles / chainlink

>>13517757

I explained a theoretical possible situation. You don't refute the possibility but you're asking me to find a group to do it...

Yeah, ok...

As for L2, if you can attack the underlying the blockchain then you can't even go to L2

If you can't get an onchain 2/2 multisig to go through, you can't open a payment channel on L2. Similiarly, if you want to close a payment channel and you can't put a transaction on-chain, you can't close the payment channel on L2

>>13517798
did vitalik address why miners have gas throughput control and if that control is given to the supernode stakers?
it's a horrible design no matter how you put it

>>13517789
>chink mining cartel
ETH gave miners control you stupid faggot
bitcoin prevented that and you act like 1mb is bad
this shows just how much of a newfag you are

>>13517798

The "fork" would be to revert transactions on the blockchain. The blockchain is supposed to be immutable. That's why there's a blockchain in the first place. If a group of people can just revert transactions at will (which Vitalik has done for ETH investors), then there's really no point. Why would you even want to participate in this system?

>>13517816
so +100$ fees are fine you nigger kike? lightning is vapor and segwit helps like +70% more, wow. fees were already back at 3$ in this last meme pump.

kys you blockstream kike

>>13516595
3x32 ready here

>>13517832
fees are 1-5 cents right now and I operate my node for less that $5 a year

>>13517845
>1-5 cent
straight up lie. literally google or send a tx you faggot. also undisputable fact that fees will rise to triple digits again once we enter a bull market so where is your point?

btc is a piece of shit with kikes crippling base layer to push people into a broken 2nd layer

>>13517872
red pilled

>>13517872
https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#0,2h
1sat/byte cleared 2 blocks ago
4 sat/byte cleared 1 block ago

I just send this to freeross right now for 3 cents
lets see how long it takes
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/b2cb695fd1e6dc82b3433f80f2eb0164eba5be5bc5bd62679c4d41435676d49f

>>13517872
>fact that fees will rise to triple digits again once we enter a bull market so where is your point?
the only reason why we will have future bull markets is because bitcoin remained decentralized so what's your point?

>>13517800

Really long explanation but it will most likely not work. The main issue is because a computer doesn't know truth, it can only try to get consensus.

This gets me into smart contracts so I'll give you the short version:

Smart contracts are bullshit for various reasons. When you put your property on a smart contract, when you lose your keys are you going to move out of your house now? If you die, is the property gone forever and can't be owned by anyone ever again?

Some people say "well you have multisig and have a will, once you die it gets handled"

Except it doesn't. Who decides if you're dead or not? Who has the ultimate say? The doctor? Your spouse? The government? Whoever that person is, you'll have to trust them. Which goes against the whole smart contract idea of removing trust in the first place.

Now people will say that's why you need an oracle (aka chainlink), but an oracle doesn't know either. At best you can aggregate data. So if you want to know who won the football game, you can get data from fox sports, espn, etc. And then you can say ok this team won. Except you're trusting all those sources. It doesn't remove trust. That's because whatever computer, they can't verify things themselves because they don't know how to. How is ETH supposed to know, with 100% certainty, that you're dead? Even doctors call people's deaths and sometimes they come back alive minutes later.

Also, to write a smart contract with no trust, you need to learn ETH coding, be very well versed and hope you don't make a mistake. Because if you do, you can lose all your money or your property. You need to write bug-proof code. As any software developer if that's possible. You need to do this multiple times not just once in a smart-contract world.

>>13517872
see >>13517784

>>13517887
again, what is the average fee anon? its basic math, where do you think fees will be at +500k tx?

>>13517912

In a decentralized system, storing information and broadcasting it forever until the end of time is not free and should not be free. The cost of storing that information is not zero. You're just pushing that cost onto all the nodes. Basically, fuck you I got mine mentality without caring about the health of the network.

If your objective is to minimize transaction fees on-chain, you won't have a decentralized blockchain.

See >>13517784 as an example.

>>13517912
500k transactions batched in schnorr might be a reasonable fee
500k transactions of cryptokitties mashed onto a chain everyone has to verify doesn't make sense

there's balance in this entire system and what you're arguing offsets the balance making the chain worthless
schnorr, batching, loop in loop out, channel factories, all that stuff needs to be developed instead of just bloating the chain with stupid shit and ruining properties of what made it valuable

The only reasons hasn't "already won"

>orientals scamming people on "ETH killers" (Tron, vechain, neo, nem) which are poor models ETH passed on
>losers scamming people on "ETH killers" (Cardano, EOS, Tezos) which are poor models ETH passed on
>ETH being too complex, payments centric (Ripple, Stellar)
>store of value / normies (Bitcoin, litecoin, BCH)
>privacy hawks (dash, monero, zcash)

The reality is:

>the Asians scam
>the losers lose
payment coins speed is going to be too slow
>Bitcoin is old
>no one gives a fuck about privacy

>>13517901
>This is why on-chain scaling doesn't exist
so how will you secure the network when close to all bitcoins are mined?

my 3 cent transaction just got confirmed by the way.

>>13517931
not minimize but totally remove fees. Minimizing fees on chain, for example with compression, makes sense.

>>13517940
transaction fees and merged mined sidechains
if you consolidate 10,000 transactions from lighting onto mainchain for $20 not a bad fee is it?

>>13517940

When you mine a block, you have the block reward (currently at 12.5 BTC) and you collect all the fees for each transaction included in the block.

So if you look at the BTC blockchain

https://btc.com/block

You can see stuff like

12.5 + 0.23244379 BTC

as the reward

that means they also got 0.23244379 in transaction fees.

When no more new coins are made (aka the block reward is 0), miners will still get the transaction fees.

0.23244379 BTC will be worth a lot when there's no more new BTC is being mined. So there's still incentive to mine blocks.

>>13517959
fees will still be high by then, truly a shitcoin

>>13517887
>I just send this to freeross right now for 3 cents
>lets see how long it takes
>https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/b2cb695fd1e6dc82b3433f80f2eb0164eba5be5bc5bd62679c4d41435676d49f

based

>>13517974

BTC's fees are the most capitalist you can get. If you want your transaction to go through first, you pay a higher fee. Miners will mine it because they get paid more.

As I've said, on chain scaling does not work. If you reduce the on chain fee to 0, everyone will just pay at most 1 sat, there's no incentive to pay more. The cost of storing that information gets put on all the nodes until the end of time.

Another way to think is why cities exist. There's a limited amount of space so you have to build up. By doing so, you encourage innovation like elevators, materials like invention of steel, better transport, etc. You advance the tech (that's what all those optimizations like taproot and L2 came about)

If you want to do it the dumb, big blocker way, you're basically building outwards instead of up and you assume you have infinite land. Everything would be made out of wood at best.

It works, and it's not as hard as inventing steel, but in the long run it'll fail.

>>13517998
>on chain scaling does not work
so basically you and people from blockstream are more wise?

>>13517998
hmmmmm who should i trust

I am going to run 20 nodes myself

>>13518033
Redpilled

>>13518023

It's been 5-10 years later already (BTC released 10 years ago).

Is bandwidth and storage trivial? Can we run 2 GB blocks @ 10 minutes?

Also

> If I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms ...

This is clearly bad.

> "Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical"

is true, with the development of off chain scaling.

The specification around lightning is called BOLT. I believe lightening labs makes LND and eclair makes their own. You do not have to use any blockstream software, which is called c-lightning. There's 2 other options. In fact I think most people use LND and not c-lightning.

The thing is, blockstream can't force you to do anything. Even if you say segwit is made by blockstream, you don't have to use it. Segwit was activated by a soft fork, meaning segwit is optional, not a requirement. You can still run old bitcoin software before segwit and it'll work.

I don't even know why the blockstream thing is even a meme. Not forcing you to use segwit on chain, not forcing you to use c-lightning off chain.

>>13516595
Right in time for Link mainnet, too. :)

>>13518069
>I don't even know why the blockstream thing is even a meme
massive censorship and propaganda to not raise block size for obvious reasons?

idk lad. i think i should trust the creator of this whole thing more than people funded by axa.

>>13518033
Maybe you trust no one. On the other side of the coin is the clusterfuck known as BCH and its stupid forks. Roger Ver, Craig Wright, Calvin Ayre.... all colossal faggots.

>>13518095
I miss having Satoshi around.

>>13518095
that guy is an obvious psycho as shown by the reddit double account fuck up. imagine putting trust into these people

>>13518033
That doesn't make much sense right?

If you're a miner, you want scarce block size so people will pay higher fees and you collect those fees. So as a miner, you want smaller blocks.

Lightning and any other L2 implementation can service people for fees, sure.

Right now people can charge a routing fee on lightning. It can be < 1 sat if you want it to be. But you're providing a service of routing information for extremely cheap. If your fee is too high, no one will route their transaction through you.

No one can force you to go through any node (and you can always just open a direct channel with that node anyway). In fact you can even pay extra if you want just to avoid someone (even though they have cheaper fees). So, the network will always balance itself. Just like miners will always prioritize transactions with highest fees, lightning users will always prioritize routes with the lowest fees.

>>13516595
op you're full of shit unless soon means 2 fucking years. you post this same desperate shill every fucking day. next will be a comment about how eth doesn't need shilling... yet here we are
>another eth shill thread

>>13518095
I don't know about trust. I don't trust anyone. I look at the code and I think about which implementation works out in the long run. After all, bitcoin is supposed to survive for a long time right? If it doesn't survive for a long time why the fuck is anyone buying this shit and how can you even claim it's gold.

So I prefer solutions that work out long term instead of a quick fix whenever possible.

People have their own opinions which is fine. If you want big blocks it exists already in BCH and BSV. People are free to use those if they want, I just don't see the cost of running a node for these systems as "trivial", especially 10+ years down the road... and a node is essential to the network.

where does it say POS soon? Litterally nowhere. It's gonna be at least another year.

>>13516595
It seems to be bound to 160 USD right now, the BTC price is 0.028 which is the lowest in years

and ETH is the only crypto that isn't a total gimmick (I'm not saying that it's not gimmicky or has a real purpose as of now)

t. BTC holder and swingETHer

ps: i also swinglink when I feel like gambling

>>13517344
Fugg this would be the dream

>>13516860
>That's ironic. People that want PoS are people that say
>"I have money and if I have money I should get more money by doing nothing"
>And they still call themselves capitalists.

You mean every rich person?

>>13518179
You better go to r/ethereum with your insights, as here nobody will be able to keep up with you points.

Although I think you're a bit overcritical, because, let's be honest, Most people won't even look a tenth as deep into blockchain tech as you are. They just hear staking and buy the shit out of it.

If you have idelogical interests in regard to blockchain I have a red-pill for you. Greed is stronger than idelogy, you can flush this down the toilet.

>>13517832
I like this guy