/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>17526247
your not wrong, that why anyone with half a brain knows that proof of stake is the new shit. Again most people don't know the tech right now, they're just invested on muh bitcoin.

Exactly which is why ETH will flip in 2 years. 95% of biz will not make it.

>>17526270
Oh so its two years now

>>17526247
its not the greatest, which is why most modern cryptos are evolving from PoW to PoS or a flavor of PoS

but in the beginning, you really cant knock Bitcoin for going with proof of work
it makes sense, if you want to attack Bitcoin you have to have more hardware than 50% of the people mining BTC
not a very easy task for the most part. the resource wasting is a shitty downside, but it's foolish to pretend like PoW was dogshit from the start

>>17526270
true. these fucks aren’t going to get rich off btc and erc20s.... all these idiots do is follow whatever coin is vogue on twitter at the present moment. right now, it’s xtz and link.

hilarious. xtz is ark 2.0, and if you don’t understand the connection, then DYOR

>>17526283
>Get tons of funds
>Short the shit out of btc, 100x leverage
>Bomb BTC with a 51% attack, breaking the entire network
>Take profits when BTC hits 1 USD

An Arab sheik could destroy BTC in less than a day if he wanted to

>>17526247
>>17526260
>>17526270
>>17526283
You faggots need to go back.Don't ever talk bad about papa bitcoin ever again

>>17526359
that isn't how it would pan out, retard. all the miners would create a 2nd chain

>>17526359
yet the us government cannot. hmmm

>>17526359
basically what >>17526377 said

it would be an Ethereum vs Ethereum classic fiasco again
except this one would be a lot more of a scandal and probably put a stain on crypto for the rest of eternity

that, and the fact that there are so many genuinely turbo autistic NEETs watching the BTC blockchain that if anyone came close to performing a 51% attack it would be found out the very second they turned their mining farm online, and any reputable centralized exchange would halt all withdrawals, and disable margin trading within minutes

>>17526247
>2100
>dyson spheres all over the galaxy computing sha-256 for PoW

>>17526247
you don't even know what is a Davies–Meyer one-way compression function and you state your opinion about this as truth, imagine, kek

>>17526377
>>17526420
There is a reason it's called a 51% attack, you don't just defend against it. Coins that are constantly getting 51'd literally dissapear, they become stale and die. The sheik in this story will move his hashing power to the "safe" chains over and over until they isappear, because he has all the power he needs to do so. The 100x is guaranteed to win, it only takes a lot of money and the guts to do it.

>>17526359
geez, users should pass a sanity test before being allowed to post here

>>17526498
>fork the algo
>sheik needs to shell out another $100M to 51% the new algo
>he does this
>fork the algo again
??

>>17526498
>what is social consensus

>>17526527
That's exactly how it works. Dude, sheiks have tons of 1M cars collecting dust, vomit inducing expensive real state properties and more. You really think they care about money at all?

>>17526545
The longest chain is the one that's valid. Social consensus has nothing to do with it. You can dump and dump each chain one after the other until your shorts nets you enough gains.

>>17526247
Proof of stake is the dumbest shit ever
Newfags never heard of peercoin

>>17526644
you probably don't even know what the difference is between peercoin and eth pos, kek

>>17526602
this is why ETH's solution of slashing deposits works. yes, technically in POW a farm could decimate every chain that pops up. such wouldn't be possible in eth 2.0, unless they were to buy 51% of eth of every single new chain that arises....

>>17526602
Attacking a chain costs money. If the social consensus dictates that an unattacked chain is the valid chain, then you're wasting money attacking because you always fork to a chain no one is using.

>>17526282
It’s 2 years forever anon...

>>17526666
>FUCKING CHECKED

>>17526480
You don't need proof of work to process hash functions you cretin.

Your existance is a waste of massive amounts of resources, dumbfuck

>>17526956
t. chink miner

>>17526359
Doesn't a 51% attack just let you double spend a transaction for 10 minutes?

>>17527007
no, because the adversary is the consensus. longest chain wins based on consensus.

bump

>>17526247
>Prove me wrong.
You wrong

while everyone is arguing about POW vs POS and ETH vs ETH 2.0, lets take a moment to thank the Ethereum community for giving birth to the one true token thats destined for real world adoption, Chainlink.

>>17526375
No you need to fucking go back to plebbit you subhuman boomer loser
ETH will flip BTC you will kys
fuck off

>>17526247
>>17526260
it takes literally only a few days worth of infrequent deductive reasoning to come to the conclusion that the proof-of-work consensus model that had existed in bitcoin prior to blockstream's intervention is an extraordinarily sensible way to make a currency that does, in fact, have actual, fundamental value—and in fact has equally as much actual, fundamental value as it does protection against attacks on the network

you're not necessarily "wasting" power if you're making it so that anyone who wants to destroy the network or steal everyone's money has to either use a massive bank of the current meta in mining hardware and still "waste" as much power as the entirety of the network's other miners are, or has to literally come out with an actual breakthrough in computer technology or an unprecedented algorithm exploitation of such a caliber as to enable them to achieve half of the network hashrate with this new technology (presumably at less net cost than the first option).
arguing that bitcoin would be made better by incorporating proof-of-stake, or arguing that bitcoin is made obsolete by proof-of-stake are arguments befitting of clown world.

>>17527922
>t. Seething leftist ETH pedocuck

>>17528045
Sad that you even have to spend the time to explain this to nubiz

>>17526247

>>17528045
All "proof-of" protocols are bullshit. They don't actually solve any problems. It's all arbitrary and leads to worse outcomes.

>>17526247
>dJ+rwP0O
>P0O

>>17528173
this is not an argument
if you're not looking to refine your ideas through arguments and rationalization, then why did you make this thread

>>17528159
it's disheveling to the mind to think that i might have been like this at one point

>>17528162
the usual staggering brilliance i would expect from central planners—the ccp moreso

>>17526468
Oh fug

>>17528045
>proof-of-work consensus model that had existed in bitcoin prior to blockstream's intervention
can you explain the difference between the PoW model that existed before and after blockstream's intervention?

>>17528275
It's a fantastic argument. Proof of work is an arbitrary supply dump masqueraded as a consensus mechanism. You don't need any "proof of" protocol to validate transactions and come to consensus. In fact, you're better off without it as you can actually efficiently contribute computing power to the network instead of solving bullshit puzzles.

>>17528290
truth be told, i'm 100% concerned with the economics of bitcoin and not much else, so my understanding of this may come off as a little bit shaky being not so inclined technically as i am economically—but that said:
blockstream intends to integrate off-chain solutions into bitcoin (BTC) in a purported effort to address what is known as "the scaling problem", which is essentially a limit on bitcoin's transactions per second as a result of its 1mb blocksize. blockstream—from what i can tell—cites concerns over a fully on-chain protocol (e.g. increasing the blocksize) naturally mandating that all miners must use more expensive hardware and expend more energy as a reason for wanting to use off-chain solutions.
the integration of off-chain solutions to assist transactions invariably throws miner rewards into question; if miners aren't getting transaction fees, then what reason do they have to keep their miners running once the supply runs out? what implications will this have LEADING UP to the time that the supply runs out?
i recall an exchange with a supporter of blockstream when i had raised this point, and they had claimed that blockstream did, in fact, have a solution to this problem—and i honestly can't remember exactly what it was, but from what does come to mind it was merely a pretty typical keynesian-minded central planner's "solution" that ignored the fundamentals of what makes bitcoin valuable—that being, mining.
this, of course, doesn't even take into consideration what other fundamental attributes of bitcoin blockstream will be willing to axe in the future; the less mining, the more vulnerable and centralized the results, at least.

>>17528360
no, mate—a statement, let alone one that entirely ignores everything i'd said and is merely a paraphrasing of your opening post to which i was responding, is not an argument. i'm not repeating myself to you, and it's past my bedtime; take what i've written into consideration, if you so care.

>>17528059
>seething corecuck retard alt left loser

>>17528601
Look who's not making an argument now. Pathetic! Also, Bitcoin has value because it was the first well designed digital currency, not because of mining.

>>17528626
Ethereum has proven itself entirely useless for anything besides unregistered securities offerings. Enjoy those bags

>>17528601
increasing the block-size is linear scaling, only a second layer could achieve exponential scaling. this doesn't seem like a problem to me - multiple tx's can be packed into one tx on the blockchain - this is great.

>the integration of off-chain solutions to assist transactions
you said it yourself - second layer or off-chain solutions "assist" not "replace" the blockchain. miners still get tx fees as long as people value the security and reliability of the blockchain. there was no intervention by blockstream, that is pure delusion.

>this, of course, doesn't even take into consideration what other fundamental attributes of bitcoin blockstream will be willing to axe in the future; the less mining, the more vulnerable and centralized the results, at least.
again, pure delusion.

>>17528649
>person announces they're exiting the conversation for unrelated reasons after you'd ignored their argument and then put up an entirely new one that you wouldn't have even made if you'd just tried to address their argument in the first place
>you proceed to unwarrantedly mock them in a manner that specifically reveals you as a hypocrite
that's a LOW fucking blow, cunt.
>you don't need any "proof of" protocol to validate transactions and come to consensus
whatever you have in mind here, i have no idea; you're not elaborating on your ideas in any meaningful way. what are you saying? you don't need people submitting proof to the ledger? what the fuck? are you five years old? are you drunk? is that the reason for the lack of any clear meaning in your argument, and your unwarranted arrogance?
>also the reason why bitcoin became valuable is because it was the first coin and not because of proof-of-work
i'd say that it's a combination of both the network effect and the fact that mining bitcoin costs thousands of dollars per coin and counting, but hey man we all get what we deserve—and i deserve to have stayed up until 1:32 am answering some ignorant pissant that has no intentions of improving himself

>>17528786
so, you have the few people who want to pay astronomical fees to use the slow lane subsidizing the cost of operating the entire network for everyone else, when there are projects without off-chain solutions implemented that don't punish you specifically for "valuing security". nice value proposition; really keeps the integrity of the original mining protocol intact. but hey, what the fuck do i know—i was enough of a foolish cunt to assume that you genuinely wanted guidance, and now here i am, after having announced to the whole thread that i'm exiting the conversation, being called "delusional" by people who should reasonably expect absolutely no recourse. fucking class act; gold medalist performance in civility from the both of you twats.

>>17529217
>fucking class act; gold medalist performance in civility from the both of you twats.
>>>/r/eddit

>>17526247
its the only proven way to solve the byzantine general problem in a distributed system in a trustless permissionless manner

>>17526247
proof of work isn't primarily used to introduce supply its used to make cheating the network more expensive than being honest.

It's not stupid to distribute supply by proof of work because you reward those who invest most in the success of the network

>>17528601
>invariably throws miner rewards into question; if miners aren't getting transaction fees,
this is the key point go look at actual stats instead of speculating on your toilet seat you would see that only bitcoin miners get significant reward in fees

reminder segwit fucks up proof of work because you don't have to have a hardfork to move coins you don't have the key for because a hash of a signature is all you need for a segwit transaction to be valid.

segwit makes it cheaper to attack the network

>>17529959
room temperature

>>17529933
>to make cheating the network more expensive than being honest
only works if hashrate participates on your network and is well distributed. an attack on a minority fork would only require the futures market to be profitable. as a catastrophic reorg is absolutely sure to crash the market value of a shtcoin if you can short it you can make more than playing nice.

>>17529959
>segwit makes it cheaper to attack the network
not true there is a problem with segwit fucking with incentives that is eloquently described by peter rizun watch his video... rizun assumes most miners would roll with it instead of raising hell. which is unlikely.

>>17526359
>open massive 100X short
get instantly rekt by a nigger
>Bomb BTC with a 51% attack
go ahead, just try, you cannot rent ASIC to attack or do anything else than mining regular BTC, no pool have any incentive to disrupt the network, and good luck owning the hardware to carry such attack, there is no supply unless you start building and mass-producing your own ASIC

>>17529959
oh and one more point hash collisions are harder and more quantum proof than public keys and all digital signature involves hashing anyhow to authenticate the message. you need to educate yourself nigga.

the other part is segwit does not remove signatures this is a flat faced lie the witness itself is basically a sigscript.

>>17530042
you don't start 100x you start 10x or 25x then increase to 100x once your position is secured also sv is not even on bitmex.

>>17529976
zero arguments as per usual
>>17530024
a segwit transaction is valid with a hash of a signature, so attacking miners can mine transactions with arbitrary hashes and segwit nodes will accept them because you can't derive a signature from a hash of that signature.
this is cheaper than a bitcoin 51% attack because you can't fake signatures which if you don't have nodes reject

>>17530042
>>17530063
yeah sorry won't really work on btc no but the shitforks are wide open

>>17526689
It's cheaper to attack a chain than to defend it.

>>17530073
>a segwit transaction is valid with a hash of a signature, so attacking miners can mine transactions with arbitrary hashes and segwit nodes will accept them
no this is not how it works man you really need to read up on this also a collision on sha256 is way more expensive than a 51% attack

>>17526247
Newfag arrogance /thread
Imagine being so new you think PoW is shit, Can't wait for the SEC to do their job. Have some rope handy OP

>>17530073
>zero arguments as per usual
why do I have to argue with you to be right? fuck off faggot

>>17530100
it is how it works. the receiver of a segwit bitcoin does no receive a signature from the previous owners private key

>>17530133
to prove you are right

but I suppose people who think segwit is good idea don't understand the idea of proof

>>17530140
but that's wrong a literal lie only true for nodes not aware of segwit from before 2017 segwit enforcing nodes reject transactions and blocks without witness which is to dumb it down for a retard like you the signature.

>>17527268
This so when you do shady shit people fork and your ill gotten gains become worthless.

>>17530171
No. the witness contains a hash of a signature not a signature.
You can not derive a signature from a hash of that signature.

>>17530140
the other thing is bitcoin does not require signature from the previous owner to be transferred to you you are utterly wrong in this also it requires you to be able to provide an unlock script to an unspent transaction output and its yours.

>>17530197
you are a literal brainlet retard or a pajeet liar go read about this shit no you are totally and obviously wrong.

>>17530206
>a payee can verify the signature to verify the chain of ownership

>>17526247
It will work one last round for Nervos (CKB) and that's all that matters.

>>17530087
lol what?
pure bullshit, try to do some basic math

>>17530230
lemme help you out you fucking retard:

here is a multi choice question:
what can you spend as per the bitcoin protocol?
a) signatures, bitcoin is a chain of signatures so i can spend signatures with signatures
b) an unspent transaction output provided you add a valid unlock script that executes to true
c) i'm a cashie retard so the whitepaper!

>digital coin is defined as a chain of digital signatures
a bitcoin is an utxo not a chain of signatures. nor was it ever since first release. satoshi wrote that paper in 2007 but in the first release he already added scripting and smart contract support.
>segwit breaks the chain of digital signatures
no. the witness is segregated to an extension block which is merely a transaction structuring decision with several obvious advantages but the signature is still there when it needs to be.
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/9b0fc92260312ce44e74ef369f5c66bbb85848f2eddd5a7a1cde251e54ccfdd5
there is no chain of signatures it's just an utxo, but it takes a special kind of retard to say it's not bitcoin.

>>17526247
>It's an arbitrary way to introduce supply into the ecosystem.
Not really, Bitcoin isn't going to keep introducing supply into the market forever, it's capped at 21 million for a reason

>>17530230
>>17530285
what bitcoin is:
- a trustless permissionless publicly auditable ledger that is also secure
- a non-custodial peer-to-peer electronic payment system
- a network of nodes enforcing a common ruleset shaping a common reality in a trustless manner
- the longest blockchain under the consensus ruleset with the largest commulative hash proven by a specific form of proof of work
- a protocol that describes how consensus is reached on ordering transactions and how difficulty and coinbase supply adjusts over time
- a greater consensus on the ruleset that governs the protocol
- a standard reference client implementation created by nakamoto and maintained as an open source project
- an unspent transaction output spendable to a script returning true

what bitcoin is not:
- a whitepaper
- a gargantuan garbage dump of stale data stored immutably forever
- whatever satoshi said in a forum post
- whatever faketoshi dreams up in delirium
- whatever sv jeets shrill and rave about currently

>>17530285
>>17530297
the receiver of a segwit bitcoin does no receive a signature from the previous owners private key

segwit creates a new attack for miners; they mine transactions with arbitrary hashes of signatures. Segwit makes this valid whereas it's not possible on bitcoin because a transaction is invalid without the payee receiving an actual signature not just a hash of a signature

we weren't talking about your opinion on what bitcoin is we were discussing how shit segwit is.

>>17530260
this is my bet too
CKB is the last great PoW project

>>17530230
tldr
no bitcoins are utxos an not chains of signatures the unlock script may or may not contain a signature (or more) but it must execute to true that's the only rule in bitcoin. from the first release this never changed.

second segwit did not removed signatures on most segwit tx the witness containse one or more signatures. (yes you are wrong in this also) the witness was moved from the block to an extension block that's all. only non segwit compliant nodes fail to see the signature. segwit enforcing nodes verify the signatures. just read the fucking wikipedia article on segwit you fucking brainlet!

>>17530332
>the receiver of a segwit bitcoin does no receive a signature from the previous owners private key
he does you imbecile.
>
segwit creates a new attack for miners; they mine transactions with arbitrary hashes of signatures.
only on the shitforks without segwit enforcement. you are a retard. a missing or invalid witness would result in a rejected tx or block in bitcoin.
>we weren't talking about your opinion on what bitcoin is
just read it and comprehend it you were throwing in that picture about what you think a bitcoin is. it's not. bitcoin is an utxo from the get go and segwit never changed that. it changed how the block is structured that's all.

don't be a moron grow a braincell!

>>17526584
Then go sick their dick and ask them to please do a 51% attack. They'll ask what the fuck a bitcoin is and then say they want to meet your sister.

>>17530339
>btc is not described by the whitepaper

>segwit did not removed signatures
a payee does not receive a signature from the previous owners private key with a segwit transaction

>segwit enforcing nodes verify the signatures
that's right you literally have to trust miners because you don't get the signature yourself

>>17530362
no he does not, that was the entire point of segwit
>signatures are only needed at the time of validation - peter wuille https://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/hong-kong/segregated-witness-and-its-impact-on-scalability/

>>17530332
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SegWit
>The signature data called the witness would be separated from the Merkle tree record of who is sending or receiving the bitcoins. The witness data is moved to the end

does it say removed? it says moved to the end. signature data is moved to the end. it still has to execute to true. since 95% of miners upgraded to segwit before activation and the rest probably upgraded since there is no possible way for your stupid shit about misspending segwit tx-es to happen on the real bitcoin.

ShitCoin SV and cash is an other matter that fork only sees segwit tx-es as "anyone can spend". but this was never a secret.

so you are wrong on BOTH of your fucking points: bitcoins do not require signatures to spend, and segwit did not remove signatures. you are just plain wrong. and a stubborn braindead fuck also.

>>17530410
>a payee does not receive a signature from the previous owners private key with a segwit transaction
yes he does it's in the mempool it's in the witness block it's public information everyone can verify. don't be so fucking stupid and READ if you don't believe me DYOR who the fuck fed you this lie?
>signatures are only needed at the time of validation
that is absolutely true. but that's a different story.

>>17530438
the witness is a hash. you cannot derive a signature from a hash. a hash is a one way mathematical operation
a hash of a signature is not a signature

>>17530464
>the witness is a hash
just fucking DYOR! no. the witness is a signature. it wouldn't work otherwise. just think you imbecile you thing coinbase would use segwit if a miner could just grab their coins? fucking insanity.

>>17530438
>95% of miners upgraded
a soft fork can be uncomitted without a hardfork.

unlike with bitcoin where this segwit attack would be impossible without a hardfork

>>17530484
it's not like a hardfork can not be undone just as easily. in fact sometimes hardforks can be undone by soft forks but soft forks can only be undone by hardforks.

>>17530474
the witness received by the payee is a hash, they do not receive a signature. this is not controversial

a dishonest miner can mine illegitimate transactions much more cheaply on btc than bitcoin because they don't need signatures only hashes. Segwit transactions require you trust miners

>>17526359
All that would do is a hard fork.