https://news.bitcoin.com/proof-of-work-ban-removed-from-europes-proposed-crypto-regulation
Proof-of-Work Ban Removed From Europeโs Proposed Crypto Regulation
- 12
- 6
Top Poster of the Day:
JOHN_GYALTT
Current Registered Users: 28,022
37% Vaxxed
46% Infected
Current software version: 91939c4
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Is PoS ETH really gonna happen?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
ยฏ\_(ใ)_/ยฏ
PoS really defeats the point of most crypto, especially non-private transactions. But I don't put it past vitalik and eth devs to actually implement it. apparently their testnet is already on PoS or something.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I heard an argument that PoW isn't actually as bad for the environment as detractors say.
Because the hashrate evolves based on demand it should reach equilibrium and the best solution is to keep investing in renewables.
Any weight to this?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The power usage a reasonable tradeoff for a currency that becomes the global standard (think of all the bank activities and energy that would be saved from shuffling bills, gold ingots around and paying for air-conditioned banks), but the likes of bitcoin will NEVER become a global standard due to it's low transaction throughput of 1MB/10mins.
Also, most of the energy isn't in mining, but like making these shitty ASICs that just get thrown out when the next ASIC comes out that makes them unprofitable. In that sense, GPU mining is a good thing because at least you can sell them to g*mers afterwards. Or CPU mining like RandomX where you need to setup a botnet to mine profitably.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yeah people do paper over the energy trade off of our current banking system pretty quick.
What currency do you think has the most likely chance of running a world economy (on paper, it seems like everyone likes centralized shit).
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Most likely monero, zcash or llitecoin. Maybe eth but I doubt it. But who knows, if these "CBDCs" are implemented well like DigiCash was, it will completely wreck the crypo industry. In europe there is apparently some talks of Gnu Taler behind closed doors, so who knows. CBDCs provide all the security of crypto with (potentially) some of the privacy, the only problem is that they're centralized but like you said normies don't care. Bitcoin is def. going to die- the "lightning network" is basically CBDC-backed bitcoins but worse.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
What's the point of a CBDC if it doesn't use a blockchain. Isn't that what we have now?
Yeah I've been banking on Monero, it seems to get just about everything right, but it's hard to convert into fiat. (Cake wallet seems to be the best way rn?)
GNU Taler is something I haven't heard of in a while, it seemed built around real world challenges (you have to pay taxes, sadly) but it didn't seem like it was as private or as decentralized as a blockchain.
Can you fill me in on the Lightning network more, I never dug into it but I follow a guy who swears by it.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Well the idea behind the CBDC is that you use digital signatures to send money so it's more secure. The current credit card / SWIFT system is just secured by open source information like your name and address that anyone can get a hold of and steal, or credit card numbers / PINs that any vendor can just scrape off you. You can even use blind signatures to get some privacy for the spender. Gnu Taler is not decentralized, but it is like a FOSS payment system where anyone can set up a compatible bank or wallet. Compare that to visa/mastercard/paypal's vendor lock in. Stallmann and the FSF designed it like that because they are more left wing liberal as opposed to libertarian I guess and they want to be tax compatible for european countries (which is charged to the buisness unlike in the US).
Yeah... that is the sad thing. All bitcoin maxis (bitcoin maximalists) are in huge denial. So basically the problem is that Satoshi set the blocksize to 1MB to prevent spam, and planned to increase the blocksize to 8MB later on, but never got around to it. There is this tradeoff between blocksize (how much more hard drive space it takes to store the block chain every 10 mins) and transaction speed (how many transactions can happen every 10 mins).
Eventually the transaction fees got so high around the 2017 bubble that bitcoiners were like "okay, we need to increase the darn blocksize like satoshi said". The problem was that increasing the block size isn't reverse compatible (called a hard fork) which stupid fricking bitcoin r-slurs thought was "big deal". Keep in mind that bitcoin has successfully done many sensible hard forks in the past, it was only once these 2017 bandwagon dipshits got involved that it became a problem. Anyways the guys that wanted to upgrade the bitcoin network got banned from /r/bitcoin and named their hard fork BCH, or "bitcoin cash" which never took off.
The lightning network is a reverse-comparable "soft fork" that sort of fixes transaction rates (and maybe privacy depending on the implementation). How it works is that the transactions happen on a side-chain outside of the bitcoin network and there is some cryptographicially-secure way of cashing out. The actual implementations of the lightning network vary from mediocre to terrible. For example, some implementations (El Salvador) are just completely custodial, closed source, and require your personal identification. Might as well just use a credit card. Lightning networks are NOT the bitcoin that satoshi intended to create. It results in a fatal loss of decentralization. Not to mention the lightning network ecosystem is completely fractured and you can't send payments between different lightning networks (Huh, it almost sounds like it would be simpler to do a single hard fork than creating this insane rube goldberg machine on top of bitcoin).
But see the thing is, if you had a bitcoin before the bitcoin cash fork, then you have a bitcoin on the legacy network as well as a bitcoin on the bitcoin cash network. If you bought after the fork, you only have a bitcoin on the legacy network. So if you bought in after 2017 like a sucker, then you basically have to shill the lightning network like your savings depend on it. That is why bitcoiners are always talking about the lightning network and "layer 2". it is complete crap but it is their only hope that bitcoin will ever become somewhat useful.
The Cryptonote guys (Monero, Bytecoin) knew this bitcoin shit wasn't going to work out for various reasons (like back in 2013 or 2014), and that they had to start over again. There is a bunch of controversy over Bytecoin's history too but I'm not going to waste your time with that. The only cryptocurrencies that can actually improve themselves in any meaningful way are ones that do hard forks (Etherium, Monero, Zcash) or ones that can do more extensive soft forks (Etherium).
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Thanks for the effort post, I'd love for you to waste my time explaining Bytecoin's history.
Seeing that the lightning network isn't related to btc is wild. I was pretty much up to speed on the problems with small block size, but I never got who the two camps were. Who was against increasing the chain size so much?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context