Best typo of the day:
"The farmer can sell his organs today for goods a year from now."
Well, I mean, I am a libertarian, but...
17zmPi…WWU2
17zmPibuXUuDsPnW5B4UVsV9jin35HWWU2
- 0 Following
- 0 Followers
- 206 Posts
Activity
The world of ideas has almost no people in it.
The world of public commentary has lots.
If you have a healthy brain and the desire to learn, it is impossible to not learn.
Learning is more fundamental to humans than walking, as we have to learn how to walk.
Oopsie. The paper claiming that hydroxychloroquine was seriously dangerous has been retracted.
When individuals are mindless, the vacuum is filled with other minds.
Trivially true, since you've defined out of existence the possibility that multiple variables change together
It's a common aprioristic reasoning fallacy in Austrian circles that I used to make, too
Article summary:
Core devs acted in their self-interest.
Therefore, Core devs understand economics.
A real masterpiece of economic theory.
Something like a public forum where people pay to participate.
We need a way to set a price to comment on an individual thread.
A new funding mechanism for public intellectuals to profit from high-quality conversations.
Don't pass around a hat. Make money from people who are engaged enough to pay a 50c a comment.
Made $20 from the troll toll in the past day. Who knew getting trolled could be so lucrative?
/trolltoll set @7208 $5
"A mounting fee pressure... results in urgency to develop decentralized off-chain solutions. I’m afraid increasing the block size will kick this can down the road and let people relax until it’s again time for a block chain increase."
--Van der Laan
Another way of phrasing it:
To the extent that majority hash is dishonest, the system breaks. It only resumes working correctly if majority hash becomes honest.
It's completely fine not to like PoW, but that's how the system works.
Large governments can afford to burn trillions of dollars blowing things up. If they wanted to destroy a PoW coin any time soon, they could do it.
No. Bitcoin was built from the beginning to require a majority of honest hashrate. That's a fundamental assumption, even in the white paper.
The hope is for massive global scale that keeps the costs extremely high for hashrate.
Yes, there's a mistake here.
There is no way for minority hashrate to permanently add blocks to the chain if the majority hash is dishonest.
Majority hashrate literally defines the state of the blockchain.
I don't understand how it "beats" them.
Scenario 1: they fork off all blocks which contain valid tx's. Your high fees are ignored.
Scenario 2: they wait until fees are extremely high, push a big block containing the tx's, profit, and do it again.
How would it become a minority miner? No miners would be making tx fees if majority hash wants to censor all transactions.
If anything, it's the remaining honest hash that would be crushed, since they operate with profit, not taxes.
Well, this is another way of saying "The system requires majority hashrate to be honest."
If you're saying that there's an incentive, in the long run, for majority to be honest, then I tend to agree (though the State question is actually a hard one.)
Outrageous arrogance.
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/007890.html
Time 1: Honest miner adds valid block to the chain w/tx fees.
Time 2: Dishonest miners make a competing chain with larger accumulated PoW without any tx's. This becomes the main chain.
Time 3: Blocks with valid tx's are no longer in the chain.
Blocks are added to the chain with the majority proof of work.
Even if a minority miner adds a block at time 1, the majority can extend a longer chain and re-org him, so that the longest chain has no valid tx's.
That's not how it works. There are no "external" miners. If they are majority hash, they control which blocks are added to the blockchain ultimately.
If a minority miner adds a block, then the majority hash will create a longer chain and reorg.
Yep - it's a critical race for all miners. Worst case scenario: you make a valid block that can't be propagated in time to the other miners.
Better increase your bandwidth and connection to the rest of the network.
Another is the concept of "beating" the State by paying them a massive amount of money. That's not a great system. Pay the state even higher ransom fees to move your money? Why not just use a different system.
Another is that hashrate is added with ASICs, which have to be manufactured. If it's a state attack, they'll just buy up the new machines.
Since they don't rely on profits, they can outbid anybody for new hardware.
You'll have to ask them. Could be related to their bandwidth constraints for down/up.
There are several problems with that idea.
One is that majority miners could just fork off the minority miners that want to create blocks with any txs.
If the State gains majority hashrate, all Bitcoins will fail. Empty blocks, re-orgs, double-spends. The system would break until a PoW change, and even then it would still require majority honest hash.
Better to not have PoW in such a scenario.