• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding metals, finance, politics, government and many other topics"

Satoshi Nakamoto and the Civil-War Within Bitcoin

Nomis Elpmis

Minimalist
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
331
Reaction score
315
BSV is Bitcoin.
Craig S. Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.
BTC has been captured by 'The Banks'.
The Lightning Network is the means by which 'The Banks' have captured BTC.
BSV is a 'second chance' for a global scaling, free market digital currency.

Video:
 

GOLDBRIX

God,Donald Trump,most in GIM2 I Trust. OTHERS-meh
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
17,803
Reaction score
26,551
BSV is Bitcoin.
Craig S. Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.
BTC has been captured by 'The Banks'.
The Lightning Network is the means by which 'The Banks' have captured BTC.
BSV is a 'second chance' for a global scaling, free market digital currency.

Video:
I went ahead and watched the 1st video too. Interesting too. DYODD
 

Fiat Metaler

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,967
Reaction score
991
Very interesting video, the first 11:30 any. (After 11:30, the video is about the real identify of the founder of BitCoin, Satashi Nakamoto, which is an interesting question and bears on different camps' credibility, but since the answers are not conclusive its not necessary to watch the second half).

I'm a bitcoin novice (I had to watch it twice) but I found the video interesting for the following reasons:

- there is a civil war among Bitcoin enthusiasts that centers around the size of a bitcoin block. As originaly
- a big bitcoin block size allows it to have quick processing times and compete with Visa, paypal, etc.
- small blockers, as was intended by the founder, don't care about speed because they view bitcoin as a long term store of value. Also, large blocks will make bitcoin hard to handle for some computers, concentrating power in the owners of big computers.
BitCoinXT at 2mg was implemented as a compromise. However, it was not widely adopted, perhaps due to some foul play.
Later, Bitcoin cash at 8mg split off. And then Bitcoin SV was spun off with no size limit.
Then it discusses a private company called Blockstream (literally funded by the president of the Bilderburg group) with lighttning hubs that solve the limitations of Bitcoin by acting a a middleman that charges transaction fees, report to the government on antimoney laundering, fraud, etc.. (sounds like a bank)

Author concludes that the Banks have co-opted BitCoin.
 

Nomis Elpmis

Minimalist
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
331
Reaction score
315
I went ahead and watched the 1st video too. Interesting too. DYODD
Yeah, the first on is good too. Shows that Bitcoin didn't come out of nowhere. There were precedents to it. Philosophical origins are Libertarian.
 

oldgaranddad

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
6,593
Reaction score
14,047
Location
On the top shelf.
If Adam Back is indeed Santoshi Nakamoto then maybe this whole bitcoin thing could have been a long game con?

What better than to develop a so-called anonymous currency to entice nefarious people and state actors to use all the while using ciphers that you know certain actors can break while everyone else think it is unbreakable and then use the transactional information for leverage or advantage?

Maybe I'm just too jaded but you do have to admit it is not beyond the realm of possibility.
 

Buck

Trying Something Different!
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
18,426
Reaction score
22,223
create the environment and they will come...like moths to a flame
 

Buck

Trying Something Different!
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
18,426
Reaction score
22,223
If Adam Back is indeed Santoshi Nakamoto then maybe this whole bitcoin thing could have been a long game con?

What better than to develop a so-called anonymous currency to entice nefarious people and state actors to use all the while using ciphers that you know certain actors can break while everyone else think it is unbreakable and then use the transactional information for leverage or advantage?

Maybe I'm just too jaded but you do have to admit it is not beyond the realm of possibility.
they created epstein, look at what he did

i'd suggest you're probably correct in your supposition
 

Fiat Metaler

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,967
Reaction score
991
What better than to develop a so-called anonymous currency to entice nefarious people and state actors to use all the while using ciphers that you know certain actors can break while everyone else think it is unbreakable and then use the transactional information for leverage or advantage?

I'm not a techie, but my understanding is that's what they did with the dark web or silk road - it was created by the FBI to catch bad guys, but they had to let it operate as a legit tool to entice.

The situation with Bitcoin is differnt on a couple of levels. First, it was created to avoid that result. Second, the guy most likely to have created it - Adam Back - is the guy most culpable for corrupting it later. Third, the powers that be, the banks, etc. have a strong interest in getting ahold of this but they probably weren't at the table when it was created, and they are having to play catch-up. Fourth, there are perhaps 5000 crypto currencies in addition to BitCoin, so perhaps the genie is out of the bottle?

Elaborating on the first point, Bitcoin at its simplest is an electronics payment mechanism. But there are others - the Visa network Fedwire, Paypal, Mastercard, Discover, ACH. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. But substitutes are readiliy available. Its this easy availability of substitutes that make you ask yourself why was a payment system - gold, silver, bitcoin - successful in the first place? If its clear that the banks have co-opted BitCoin, then people will trade out of that currency into another.
 

GOLDBRIX

God,Donald Trump,most in GIM2 I Trust. OTHERS-meh
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
17,803
Reaction score
26,551
Beyond my comprehension level. I'll stick with "shiny".
 

Fiat Metaler

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,967
Reaction score
991
This article describes why Nick Szabo most likely isn't SN and in doing so mentions why Adam Back probably isn't SN either. SN may have not been one of the Cypherpunk Anarchists. To me, this small clue and others point to Craig Wright.

https://news.bitcoin.com/why-nick-szabo-probably-isnt-satoshi/#:~:text=Bit Gold creator Nick Szabo is probably not Satoshi.,not the creator of Bitcoin.

So I get that the identity of SN is a mystery, and its interesting to some, but can you explain the significance if its Craig Wright? What are your thoughts about the involvment of banks?

To me, the interesting things was when the CME created a futures product that allowed "banks" to short Bitcoin. Very quickly we saw its price cut in half. Why does that seem familiar?
 

chieftain

Too much pawpcorn
Joined
Jan 4, 2020
Messages
3,004
Reaction score
4,394
I'm not a techie, but my understanding is that's what they did with the dark web or silk road - it was created by the FBI to catch bad guys, but they had to let it operate as a legit tool to entice.

The stupid fucks at the FBI couldn't have created the "dark web", it took them a decade just to work out how to get on that train, let alone do anything meaningful from an enforcement perspective. The onion network was the bane of its existence for many years, so much so that they went on a hiring spree recruiting "white hats" to do their bidding.

Had Syverson, Reed, and Goldschlag not published their article in the IEEE "Journal of Communications and Networks" in 1998, the world would have never known about onion routing (link and attached):


Heads rolled over that one.

Oh and as big as the visible internet is, there are multiple parallel global networks completely separate from the internet that are each orders of magnitude larger than the internet.
 

Attachments

  • JSAC-1998.pdf
    320.6 KB · Views: 3
Last edited:

Nomis Elpmis

Minimalist
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
331
Reaction score
315
So I get that the identity of SN is a mystery, and its interesting to some, but can you explain the significance if its Craig Wright? What are your thoughts about the involvment of banks?

To me, the interesting things was when the CME created a futures product that allowed "banks" to short Bitcoin. Very quickly we saw its price cut in half. Why does that seem familiar?
Here's an article that kind of draws parallels between 'The Wright Brothers' and 'Craig Wright' and their respective inventions. The WBs were called liars and frauds for many years before they got credit for there invention. IMO, history is repeating.

https://equitydiamonds.medium.com/three-wrights-dont-make-a-wrong-a37ea19ed636
 

newmisty

Transcending the 5 Elements
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
35,609
Reaction score
56,656
Location
Qmerica
If Adam Back is indeed Santoshi Nakamoto then maybe this whole bitcoin thing could have been a long game con?

What better than to develop a so-called anonymous currency to entice nefarious people and state actors to use all the while using ciphers that you know certain actors can break while everyone else think it is unbreakable and then use the transactional information for leverage or advantage?

Maybe I'm just too jaded but you do have to admit it is not beyond the realm of possibility.
Of course it's a long game con
 

ds_mustang

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
1,012
Reaction score
768
Many of us have known about Craig Wright for years now and how bitcoin was taken over. Craig proved who he was to Gavin Andresen years ago by signing some bitcoin controlled by Satoshi. However nobody cares about Bitcoin Cash or Bitcoin SV. And it's all a moot point as the center of the crypto space has now shifted to Ethereum. Nothing much of interest is happening in Bitcoin or its spinoffs or clones. However the entire financial world is being changed by Ethereum and its DeFi markets. The entire art, collectables, ticketing, and property-tracking world is being changed by Ethereum and its NFTs. Even more of our world will be disrupted by Ethereum as the years go by and new projects come out.

Bitcoin and Satoshi were obsoleted in 2015. The action is elsewhere now.
 

Nomis Elpmis

Minimalist
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
331
Reaction score
315
Many of us have known about Craig Wright for years now and how bitcoin was taken over. Craig proved who he was to Gavin Andresen years ago by signing some bitcoin controlled by Satoshi. However nobody cares about Bitcoin Cash or Bitcoin SV. And it's all a moot point as the center of the crypto space has now shifted to Ethereum. Nothing much of interest is happening in Bitcoin or its spinoffs or clones. However the entire financial world is being changed by Ethereum and its DeFi markets. The entire art, collectables, ticketing, and property-tracking world is being changed by Ethereum and its NFTs. Even more of our world will be disrupted by Ethereum as the years go by and new projects come out.

Bitcoin and Satoshi were obsoleted in 2015. The action is elsewhere now.
Ethereum isn't able to scale and transaction fees are too high. Everything that is done on Ethereum can (and will) be done on BSV (on chain) with transaction fees that are fractions of a penny. Companies will encounter scaling problems and be forced to move over to BSV which can accommodate large amounts of data of any kind on chain. BSV is a second chance to be in at the beginning again, as BTC (and ETH) are captured by large money interests overlaying their purposely inferior 'rent-seeking' system onto crypto. BSV is the original protocol restored, with the 'handicaps' created by 'small blockers' removed.
 
Last edited:

ds_mustang

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
1,012
Reaction score
768
Ethereum isn't able to scale and transaction fees are too high. Everything that is done on Ethereum can (and will) be done on BSV (on chain) with transaction fees that are fractions of a penny. Companies will encounter scaling problems and be forced to move over to BSV which can accommodate large amounts of data of any kind on chain. BSV is a second chance to be in at the beginning again, as BTC (and ETH) are captured by large money interests overlaying their purposely inferior 'rent-seeking' system onto crypto. BSV is the original protocol restored, with the 'handicaps' created by 'small blockers' removed.
I was there following along when Craig signed those coins for Gavin. I was part of the move away from Bitcoin to Bitcoin Cash when it was taken over and the lightning network was pushed. But it doesn't matter now--nobody cares. The Bitcoin forks failed and bitcoin isn't the future regardless. Nobody cares who Satoshi really was (and it's irrelevant), nobody cares about Bitcoin forks, nobody cares about "original protocols being restored" or whatever you're telling yourself is important. Try to get some perspective and look at what is actually happening. Where is the action? Where are the developers? Where are hundreds of new companies being created and existing companies going? Where are the people paying billions of dollars in fees to participate? Where are the ground-breaking projects that are changing the world coming from? What project spawned the tokens for nearly all of the top 50 coins in the crypto space? What project allows you to use decentralized exchanges and borrow and lend without banks TODAY? If you're not in the space that is exploding NOW, you're doing it wrong.

Ethereum is scaling through multiple methods right now and into the future. The idea that Ethereum can't scale is like saying the early internet couldn't handle streaming so streaming will never happen. It took well over a decade for bandwidth and tech improvements to make internet streaming what it is today, but even back then people still used the lousy streaming because that's what existed. It's the same thing with Ethereum scaling--what exists today is being used and more is coming online through multiple strategies over the next several years. Because space on Ethereum is limited and so many projects and users want to use it, fees are high and only the best projects make it on Ethereum. Having so many people want to use you that you can't handle them all is a nice problem to have. Every other smart contract chain can only wish they had Ethereum's problems.

Everything Ethereum is doing now could be replicated on any other chain, and other smart contract chains exist but nobody uses them because the network effect is already on Ethereum. Ethereum is THE smart contract chain with a massive lead, any competitor has an impossible task of moving everyone away from the leader. The number of projects and developers working on Ethereum solutions is massive.

What is happening in the ETH space is astounding. It's so much bigger and more important than anything happening on bitcoin or its various clones and forks. You are deluding yourself if you think otherwise and need to take a look at what is actually happening. The DeFi market itself is huge and that's just one category of project. People are making 80%+ returns in various liquidity and yield strategies in the DeFi space even with the high fees and those returns will bring more and more people as ease-of-use improves. NFTs are now blowing up. Entirely new concepts are being developed on Ethereum constantly.

Do yourself a favor and stop obsessing over what should have happened, accept what did happen, and get involved while it's still in early adoption.
 
Last edited:

Nomis Elpmis

Minimalist
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
331
Reaction score
315
My first BTC. Currently I don't own any. All in on BSV. Mistake? Deluded? Crazy? Well, was I those things back on 12/11/13?
1stbtc (2).png
 

ds_mustang

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
1,012
Reaction score
768
My first BTC. Currently I don't own any. All in on BSV. Mistake? Deluded? Crazy? Well, was I those things back on 12/11/13?

View attachment 206873

I own a number of crypto including a few Bitcoin Cash and SV because I'd rather cover my bases than depend on being right. However my largest position is in Ethereum for all the reasons I've stated above and more. Bitcoin and its forks and clones all suffer from the same problem: they are rapidly being left behind by the incredible developments that are happening in smart contracts. ICOs were ground breaking (even though they largely got regulated away), NFTs are making big waves and getting a lot of attention, and DeFi... well DeFi is in its own category. Some guy on reddit described seeing first hand what's happening in DeFi being like the scene in Jurassic Park where the doctors see dinosaurs walking around eating foliage for the first time and their jaws hit the ground, stupefied. That's not an exaggeration. And that's just the big things created on Ethereum so far; there will be many more things invented in the years ahead. Bitcoin and the bitcoin clones have none of that.
 

Nomis Elpmis

Minimalist
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
331
Reaction score
315
I own a number of crypto including a few Bitcoin Cash and SV because I'd rather cover my bases than depend on being right. However my largest position is in Ethereum for all the reasons I've stated above and more. Bitcoin and its forks and clones all suffer from the same problem: they are rapidly being left behind by the incredible developments that are happening in smart contracts. ICOs were ground breaking (even though they largely got regulated away), NFTs are making big waves and getting a lot of attention, and DeFi... well DeFi is in its own category. Some guy on reddit described seeing first hand what's happening in DeFi being like the scene in Jurassic Park where the doctors see dinosaurs walking around eating foliage for the first time and their jaws hit the ground, stupefied. That's not an exaggeration. And that's just the big things created on Ethereum so far; there will be many more things invented in the years ahead. Bitcoin and the bitcoin clones have none of that.
It's very hard to tell a 'cult' member that they are in a cult. :-) You 'pump your bags' (ETH) and I will 'pump my bags' (BSV. We will also let the gold and silver bugs, pump theirs too. (BTW, still a member of that cult :-)
 

ds_mustang

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
1,012
Reaction score
768
It's very hard to tell a 'cult' member that they are in a cult. :-) You 'pump your bags' (ETH) and I will 'pump my bags' (BSV. We will also let the gold and silver bugs, pump theirs too. (BTW, still a member of that cult :-)
I don't do cults. I observe what is working and drawing the crowds and get on board. If something else was working, I'd be on board that.

The reason why is simple. Whatever becomes super successful spends a LONG time working and drawing crowds, being at all time highs, and generally kicking ass. Things that fail spend a long time making promises that never pan out. Bitcoin SV and the other forks are making promises that haven't panned out. Only cultists would be interested.
 
Last edited:

Nomis Elpmis

Minimalist
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
331
Reaction score
315
I don't do cults. I observe what is working and drawing the crowds and get on board. If something else was working, I'd be on board that.

The reason why is simple. Whatever becomes super successful spends a LONG time working and drawing crowds, being at all time highs, and generally kicking ass. Things that fail spend a long time making promises that never pan out.
Ethereum currently can't scale. They are going to implement Ethereum 2.0 (Proof of Stake) in order to scale. Proof of stake equals, 'those who have the gold make the rules'. There is no 'honesty' in a 'Proof of Stake' system. 'Proof of work' is an 'honest' system.

Here's an article about 'Proof of Stake' which Ethereum is moving to : https://medium.com/@BobMcElrath/whats-wrong-with-proof-of-stake-77d4f370be15

Here's a very balanced current article about Ethereum: https://www.coinbureau.com/education/ethereum-2-guide/

BSV is staying with a 'Proof of Work' system with 'Big/Unlimited Block Size' and 'everything' will run on it.
 

ds_mustang

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
1,012
Reaction score
768
Ethereum currently can't scale. They are going to implement Ethereum 2.0 (Proof of Stake) in order to scale. Proof of stake equals, 'those who have the gold make the rules'. There is no 'honesty' in a 'Proof of Stake' system. 'Proof of work' is an 'honest' system.

Here's an article about 'Proof of Stake' which Ethereum is moving to : https://medium.com/@BobMcElrath/whats-wrong-with-proof-of-stake-77d4f370be15

Here's a very balanced current article about Ethereum: https://www.coinbureau.com/education/ethereum-2-guide/

BSV is staying with a 'Proof of Work' system with 'Big/Unlimited Block Size' and 'everything' will run on it.
Proof of stake has little to do with scaling. But even ignoring that, your claim is the opposite of the truth, and your supporting article is 5 years out of date. Bitcoin is centralized with a very few big miners controlling the coin who have access to expensive mining hardware and cheap energy and cooling. Proof of stake allows anyone to participate with inexpensive hardware--the playing field is level. The result is many more nodes running in more hands and broader decentralization. The proof is in the results... after starting the move to proof of stake late last year, Ethereum flipped bitcoin's node count and is now more decentralized than bitcoin:
I'm running an Ethereum node & validator myself on a small, inexpensive intel NUC right now, because it's actually possible to do and it's profitable even for small players. I couldn't do that with bitcoin.

Bitcoin mining also uses something like 1000x more energy than Ethereum's PoS, which is a complete waste. Most new coins do PoS these days as the modern and efficient way to secure a blockchain.

As for what BSV is doing, nobody cares. It's a nearly unused fork of another nearly unused fork.
 

Nomis Elpmis

Minimalist
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
331
Reaction score
315

Proof of Stake: Why It’s Not a Valid Option for Cryptocurrency​

Proof of Stake (PoS), it’s a mining algorithm popular with altcoins — the big one being Ethereum, which plans on switching to PoS from the “traditional” Proof of Work (PoW) setup it currently has. Many people believe Proof of Stake is better than the Proof of Work algorithm, made popular by Bitcoin. But that’s not really the case. In fact, it might be the worst hashing setup a cryptocurrency can have.


Proof of Stake: Why People Love it​

PoS proponents mainly love this algorithm for its energy efficiency. Bitcoin mining via PoW, they say, consumes dangerous amounts of electricity. And, they continue, if PoW continues on as the primary hashing algorithm for cryptocurrency, our favorite monetary technology could create a global energy crisis.

This sentiment has reached the mainstream, with several articles making the rounds in 2017 warning of the dangers created by bitcoin mining.

Proof of Stake, on the other hand, boats a much higher level of energy efficiency, with blocks mined from “staking” wallets holding a certain amount of coins rather than specialized mining rigs. Essentially, anyone can mine a PoS coin if they have enough unspent currency in their wallets.

Thus, PoS essentially offers mining without mining. Perfect, right?

Hardly.

Unlimited Inflation​

Why PoW Works​

While many technical flaws in PoS have been highlighted, the biggest shortcoming is an economic one. Theoretically, with PoS, coins using the algorithm can have unchecked inflation, since it does not have a PoW-style mining difficulty calculation to limit the amount of blocks produced relative to the demand for money.

Under Proof of Work, mining difficulty adjusts based on the amount of miners currently on the network. And since miners work for profit, difficulty adjustments are linked to the value of the PoW coin.

Thus, when the price goes up, miners dedicate more resources towards that coin. In response, difficulty rises, making the process more resource-intensive and slows growth in supply, preventing the total supply from skyrocketing and devaluing the coin.

On the other side, when the price goes down, miners dedicate less resources to the coin. From there, difficulty drops, which helps remaining miners remain profitable. Simultaneously, since there are less miners on the network on the whole, the lower difficulty does not result in inflation, since there are a smaller total amount of machines mining coins.

What this process does is ensure that the growth in supply of the PoW coin is dynamic — regulated by supply and demand. And as long as demand for the coin remains constant or continues growing, the total supply will not reach an amount where inflation occurs.

So, under Proof of Work, the tech and the markets work together to ensure the coin remains deflationary — i.e., good money.

Why PoS Creates Bad Money​

With Proof of Stake coins, no cooperation between the tech and markets exists to regulate and maintain a deflationary supply.

Mining is determined by balances in the wallets of coin holders. Blocks are produced on a set schedule, and the distribution of new coins is determined proportionately based on how many unspent coins staking wallets possess.

Essentially, Proof of Stake, removes the cost of mining entirely, leaving no room for a market mechanism to emerge and regulate inflation. Theoretically, then, the growth in supply of PoS coins remains constant, regardless of its value and staking profitability.

This completely destroys any market-sourced monetary rules that keep supply in check. As a result, even with a total supply cap, supply shocks will plague a PoS-based monetary system, leaving no room for stability and making it hard to have reliable economic growth.

The Worst Kind of Centralization​

There also exists another insidious activity enabled by Proof of Stake. Under this algorithm, changes to protocol code is not determined by miner consensus, but by a vote from staking wallets. Additionally, the protocol weighs votes based on the holdings of staking wallets. So whoever has the most money has the most influence over a vote.

This means that a small group of wealthy stakers can control the entire network, voting on changes that benefit them — even at the cost of the rest of the network. Under such a system, a large entity or wealthy group, such as a central bank, can use fiat money to purchase vast quantities of a PoS coin, hold them until their wallets become eligible for staking, and then take over the network.

Once the network has been infiltrated and seized by these interests, they can do things that make the PoS system less efficient and more dangerous than it already is. For example, controlling interests in a PoS network could vote to remove the supply cap. And since they have the highest holdings of staking coins, they get the highest cut of the new coins — giving them majority control over the monetary supply.

Such a vote would essentially create a central bank, allowing controlling stakers to use and distribute newly-minted coins as they please. In other words, they can conduct central banking monetary policy.

Consequently, economic cycles, politics, and corruption will enter the equation, throwing the PoS-based economy into chaos.

Repeating History​

If and when that happens, a PoS monetary system will be no different from a central banking fiat system. And in that case, what was the point of creating a cryptocurrency in the first place? Nothing will have changed.

From a libertarian perspective, cryptocurrency exists to remove centralized influence from the monetary system, facilitating sustainable growth and a gradual increase in wealth for everyone through deflation.

Cryptocurrency is supposed to bring back the era of good money, but PoS just enables the reign of bad money to continue with a tech upgrade.

In short, if you value monetary freedom, be very, very weary of anything PoS. Sure, Proof of Work is expensive, but it can change the world for the better.


https://bitsonline.com/proof-stake-...ieve Proof of,setup a cryptocurrency can have.
 

GOLDBRIX

God,Donald Trump,most in GIM2 I Trust. OTHERS-meh
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
17,803
Reaction score
26,551
Somebody is always trying to make better by cheapening the production the way I read these articles. As in most productions the first to suffer is quality, and security.
Faster and cheaper seldom equals safer.
 

Fiat Metaler

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,967
Reaction score
991
I don't know enough about the technology, players, or history to have a view on which coin is best.

But I will point out that the truly dangerous part of our current banking system is the fact that it is a fractional reserve banking system. The problem is not so much the fiat part and that government can conjure money up out of thin air as it is the fact that the banks are loosely regulated subsidiaries of government and (in any fractional reserve system) have an even greater power to conjure money up out of thin air equal to the inverse of the reserve ratio (e.g. a 10% reserve ratio means they can conjure money equal to 10X of their reserves).

The crypto system is preferable to the current system for so long as we avoid the abilty to conjure crypto out of thin air.
 

the_shootist

I identify as already vaccinated so I'm good!
Midas Member
Sr Midas Supporter +++
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
59,363
Reaction score
114,414
Location
Earth
Somebody is always trying to make better by cheapening the production the way I read these articles. As in most productions the first to suffer is quality, and security.
Faster and cheaper seldom equals safer.
It's ALWAYS about the money!
 

ds_mustang

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
1,012
Reaction score
768
I don't know enough about the technology, players, or history to have a view on which coin is best.

But I will point out that the truly dangerous part of our current banking system is the fact that it is a fractional reserve banking system. The problem is not so much the fiat part and that government can conjure money up out of thin air as it is the fact that the banks are loosely regulated subsidiaries of government and (in any fractional reserve system) have an even greater power to conjure money up out of thin air equal to the inverse of the reserve ratio (e.g. a 10% reserve ratio means they can conjure money equal to 10X of their reserves).

The crypto system is preferable to the current system for so long as we avoid the abilty to conjure crypto out of thin air.
They key to avoiding problem banks have is to always be clear what is the asset and what is the debt. In traditional banking there basically is no difference--debt is dollars and dollars are debt. In crypto it's clear when you're holding the crypto asset itself or holding a loan of the crypto asset because they are very different.
 

ds_mustang

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
1,012
Reaction score
768

Proof of Stake: Why It’s Not a Valid Option for Cryptocurrency​

Proof of Stake (PoS), it’s a mining algorithm popular with altcoins — the big one being Ethereum, which plans on switching to PoS from the “traditional” Proof of Work (PoW) setup it currently has. Many people believe Proof of Stake is better than the Proof of Work algorithm, made popular by Bitcoin. But that’s not really the case. In fact, it might be the worst hashing setup a cryptocurrency can have.


Proof of Stake: Why People Love it​

PoS proponents mainly love this algorithm for its energy efficiency. Bitcoin mining via PoW, they say, consumes dangerous amounts of electricity. And, they continue, if PoW continues on as the primary hashing algorithm for cryptocurrency, our favorite monetary technology could create a global energy crisis.

This sentiment has reached the mainstream, with several articles making the rounds in 2017 warning of the dangers created by bitcoin mining.

Proof of Stake, on the other hand, boats a much higher level of energy efficiency, with blocks mined from “staking” wallets holding a certain amount of coins rather than specialized mining rigs. Essentially, anyone can mine a PoS coin if they have enough unspent currency in their wallets.

Thus, PoS essentially offers mining without mining. Perfect, right?

Hardly.

Unlimited Inflation​

Why PoW Works​

While many technical flaws in PoS have been highlighted, the biggest shortcoming is an economic one. Theoretically, with PoS, coins using the algorithm can have unchecked inflation, since it does not have a PoW-style mining difficulty calculation to limit the amount of blocks produced relative to the demand for money.

Under Proof of Work, mining difficulty adjusts based on the amount of miners currently on the network. And since miners work for profit, difficulty adjustments are linked to the value of the PoW coin.

Thus, when the price goes up, miners dedicate more resources towards that coin. In response, difficulty rises, making the process more resource-intensive and slows growth in supply, preventing the total supply from skyrocketing and devaluing the coin.

On the other side, when the price goes down, miners dedicate less resources to the coin. From there, difficulty drops, which helps remaining miners remain profitable. Simultaneously, since there are less miners on the network on the whole, the lower difficulty does not result in inflation, since there are a smaller total amount of machines mining coins.

What this process does is ensure that the growth in supply of the PoW coin is dynamic — regulated by supply and demand. And as long as demand for the coin remains constant or continues growing, the total supply will not reach an amount where inflation occurs.

So, under Proof of Work, the tech and the markets work together to ensure the coin remains deflationary — i.e., good money.

Why PoS Creates Bad Money​

With Proof of Stake coins, no cooperation between the tech and markets exists to regulate and maintain a deflationary supply.

Mining is determined by balances in the wallets of coin holders. Blocks are produced on a set schedule, and the distribution of new coins is determined proportionately based on how many unspent coins staking wallets possess.

Essentially, Proof of Stake, removes the cost of mining entirely, leaving no room for a market mechanism to emerge and regulate inflation. Theoretically, then, the growth in supply of PoS coins remains constant, regardless of its value and staking profitability.

This completely destroys any market-sourced monetary rules that keep supply in check. As a result, even with a total supply cap, supply shocks will plague a PoS-based monetary system, leaving no room for stability and making it hard to have reliable economic growth.

The Worst Kind of Centralization​

There also exists another insidious activity enabled by Proof of Stake. Under this algorithm, changes to protocol code is not determined by miner consensus, but by a vote from staking wallets. Additionally, the protocol weighs votes based on the holdings of staking wallets. So whoever has the most money has the most influence over a vote.

This means that a small group of wealthy stakers can control the entire network, voting on changes that benefit them — even at the cost of the rest of the network. Under such a system, a large entity or wealthy group, such as a central bank, can use fiat money to purchase vast quantities of a PoS coin, hold them until their wallets become eligible for staking, and then take over the network.

Once the network has been infiltrated and seized by these interests, they can do things that make the PoS system less efficient and more dangerous than it already is. For example, controlling interests in a PoS network could vote to remove the supply cap. And since they have the highest holdings of staking coins, they get the highest cut of the new coins — giving them majority control over the monetary supply.

Such a vote would essentially create a central bank, allowing controlling stakers to use and distribute newly-minted coins as they please. In other words, they can conduct central banking monetary policy.

Consequently, economic cycles, politics, and corruption will enter the equation, throwing the PoS-based economy into chaos.

Repeating History​

If and when that happens, a PoS monetary system will be no different from a central banking fiat system. And in that case, what was the point of creating a cryptocurrency in the first place? Nothing will have changed.

From a libertarian perspective, cryptocurrency exists to remove centralized influence from the monetary system, facilitating sustainable growth and a gradual increase in wealth for everyone through deflation.

Cryptocurrency is supposed to bring back the era of good money, but PoS just enables the reign of bad money to continue with a tech upgrade.

In short, if you value monetary freedom, be very, very weary of anything PoS. Sure, Proof of Work is expensive, but it can change the world for the better.


https://bitsonline.com/proof-stake-not-valid/#:~:text=Many people believe Proof of,setup a cryptocurrency can have.
There's basically two arguments in that article:
1) Several variations on PoS is inflationary and then a lot of detail how expanding coins supply is bad.
2) PoS gives control to those that actually hold the currency rather than a cabal of miners in China with no stake in the currency.

Point number 1 is again an out of date argument. The repeating theme here is you are aware of what's actually going on in crypto and how PoS has changed. In particular Ethereum is changing to create new coins via PoS, and then destroying coins via burning transaction fees when the network is used. Stakers receive newly created coins to secure the network while users of the network pay fees that get destroyed. The overall effect is actually deflationary, not inflationary. I know the favorite argument of the bitcoin crowd is Ethereum is inflationary, however with PoS that's no longer the case. Sorry but most that article is simply out of date.

Do I really need to respond to point 2? Maybe I'm missing something but I don't agree that it's bad the holders of the currency have control rather than someone with no stake in the currency. In particular Bitcoin is just waiting for the moment the few large miners that do all the mining centralize into one and take control of everything.
 

Nomis Elpmis

Minimalist
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
331
Reaction score
315
There's basically two arguments in that article:
1) Several variations on PoS is inflationary and then a lot of detail how expanding coins supply is bad.
2) PoS gives control to those that actually hold the currency rather than a cabal of miners in China with no stake in the currency.

Point number 1 is again an out of date argument. The repeating theme here is you are aware of what's actually going on in crypto and how PoS has changed. In particular Ethereum is changing to create new coins via PoS, and then destroying coins via burning transaction fees when the network is used. Stakers receive newly created coins to secure the network while users of the network pay fees that get destroyed. The overall effect is actually deflationary, not inflationary. I know the favorite argument of the bitcoin crowd is Ethereum is inflationary, however with PoS that's no longer the case. Sorry but most that article is simply out of date.

Do I really need to respond to point 2? Maybe I'm missing something but I don't agree that it's bad the holders of the currency have control rather than someone with no stake in the currency. In particular Bitcoin is just waiting for the moment the few large miners that do all the mining centralize into one and take control of everything.
I'm not technically knowledgeable enough to know if my argument is out of date and will have to research further.

In BSV I can send anyone with a BSV wallet $0.01 and the fee will be slightly less than that. Can you do this in BTC or ETH? Sending someone a penny in cryptocurrency is actually much harder than sending someone $100 because of the fees. I can prove this to you directly.

If you or anyone reading this thread downloads the 'HANDCASH' wallet app and posts there handle/name ($handle), I will send them $0.03 in BSV. ($0.03 should be enough to allow you to send $0.01 to someone else and cover the transaction fee and still have a penny)

BSV can do micropayments across the internet and they are almost instant. BSV will be the dominant currency of the internet for any size transaction. That's what cryptocurrency is about. A currency native to the internet. If you didn't realize, you now have a digital life that you live on the internet and a physical life that you live in the physical world. We have physical money and now we have digital money which is BSV (Bitcoin Satoshi's Vision)

There are opportunities to earn or get free BSV on Twitter and other websites because BSV allows micropayments. The ability to do instant micropayments is the missing link in internet commerce.
 
Last edited:

Nomis Elpmis

Minimalist
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
331
Reaction score
315
Here's a website that tracks the metrics of the 3 dominant competing chains of Bitcoin: https://coin.dance/

Of the 4 main tracking metrics: Hash Rate, Number of Nodes, Number of Transaction, Block Size, BSV is currently winning two of them. There is still a competition going on. BSV is going to win tho.:-)
metrics.png
 

ds_mustang

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
1,012
Reaction score
768
I'm not technically knowledgeable enough to know if my argument is out of date and will have to research further.

In BSV I can send anyone with a BSV wallet $0.01 and the fee will be slightly less than that. Can you do this in BTC or ETH? Sending someone a penny in cryptocurrency is actually much harder than sending someone $100 because of the fees. I can prove this to you directly.

If you or anyone reading this thread downloads the 'HANDCASH' wallet app and posts there handle/name ($handle), I will send them $0.03 in BSV. ($0.03 should be enough to allow you to send $0.01 to someone else and cover the transaction fee)

BSV can do micropayments across the internet and they are almost instant. BSV will be the dominant currency of the internet for any size transaction. That's what cryptocurrency is about. A currency native to the internet. If you didn't realize, you now have a digital life that you live on the internet and a physical life that you live in the physical world. We have physical money and now we have digital money which is BSV (Bitcoin Satoshi's Vision)

There are opportunities to earn or get free BSV on Twitter and other websites because BSV allows micropayments. The ability to do instant micropayments is the missing link in internet commerce.
The fees on Ethereum right now are insane so it's easy to find cheaper networks. However the networks are cheaper because they're not used as much, not as powerful, or are more centralized. Generally I'm not very concerned about fees right now because I don't do many transactions and fees are something that will get under control as the technology progresses and scale over time. I'm also not concerned about micro transactions at all.

Micropayments will never happen in the US in any currency that isn't dollar denominated. If you think BSV or some other crypto is going to capture a market in micropayments or in any type of payments in the US you are going to be disappointed. The tax laws are designed such that no other currency than dollars will ever be used as a payment currency in the country. Nobody is going to use BSV for payments when every transaction requires tracking cost basis and potentially paying capital gains/losses. It's not going to happen. If you're into crypto because you think they will do microtransactions or payments or otherwise become a currency in the US, you are wasting your time and money on a dead end.
 

the_shootist

I identify as already vaccinated so I'm good!
Midas Member
Sr Midas Supporter +++
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
59,363
Reaction score
114,414
Location
Earth
Meanwhile in China...

1617823288417.png
 

GOLDBRIX

God,Donald Trump,most in GIM2 I Trust. OTHERS-meh
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
17,803
Reaction score
26,551

Nomis Elpmis

Minimalist
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
331
Reaction score
315
As an example of new decentralized internet commerce, there is a company called 'GENUINE RETWEETS' and they promote companies through advertising on Twitter. If you sign up with them, they ask you to put your BSV wallet address in your Twitter Biography, and then every time you retweet a tweet with their advertising in it, their automated system sends you a micropayment of $0.10 in BSV. There are many other systems and methods of earning micropayments. Did you ever think as a kid, "what if everyone in the world sent me one penny?", well that can happen now.

Edited for Grammar:-)
 
Last edited:

Someone_else

Gold Chaser
Platinum Bling
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
3,484
Reaction score
5,215
"There"?! Didn't you learn homonyms in third grade?
 

Voodoo

Midas Member
Midas Member
Platinum Bling
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
4,079
Reaction score
6,156
Location
Deep Underground Bunker
The fees on Ethereum right now are insane so it's easy to find cheaper networks. However the networks are cheaper because they're not used as much, not as powerful, or are more centralized. Generally I'm not very concerned about fees right now because I don't do many transactions and fees are something that will get under control as the technology progresses and scale over time. I'm also not concerned about micro transactions at all.

Micropayments will never happen in the US in any currency that isn't dollar denominated. If you think BSV or some other crypto is going to capture a market in micropayments or in any type of payments in the US you are going to be disappointed. The tax laws are designed such that no other currency than dollars will ever be used as a payment currency in the country. Nobody is going to use BSV for payments when every transaction requires tracking cost basis and potentially paying capital gains/losses. It's not going to happen. If you're into crypto because you think they will do microtransactions or payments or otherwise become a currency in the US, you are wasting your time and money on a dead end.

If you cant buy a hotdog with the coin then its not going to win. Sure there might be some cool thimhs you can do bit it wont dominate. Personally the competetiom is the best thong going and its probably best that we end up with a couple different systems.
 

Voodoo

Midas Member
Midas Member
Platinum Bling
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
4,079
Reaction score
6,156
Location
Deep Underground Bunker
"There"?! Didn't you learn homonyms in third grade?

There is a difference between thinking a word and then remembering a spelling. I type them wrong all the time as I don't slow down to consider the spelling differences.