Actually @Nana_Skalski ⌠how does one go about creating cryptocurrency? Did CCP miss the boat with PLEX? Could PLEX have been a crypto? What if?
No, you have handwaved it away. You have not provided any explanation for how the immense costs of operating bitcoinâs infrastructure simply disappear and donât result in higher transaction fees compared to other payment systems that donât require the same infrastructure costs.
And thatâs just looking at cases where there was a direct attack on the algorithm itself, not even considering side channel attacks where a flaw in the system as a whole allows you to bypass the cryptography math entirely.
Btw, Bitcoin would not be the only thing affected by such a breakdown, but the whole legacy banking and the whole â â â â â â â internet.
Well yes, but the difference is that most things do not depend on a particular cryptography algorithm continuing to be valid. If the cryptography math that secures my connection with my online banking site is compromised the bank (and possibly my browser) can change their software behind the scenes and resume normal operation. If bitcoin is compromised its value crashes to zero, all previous use of bitcoin is immediately invalidated, and the best anyone can attempt to do is create a new cryptocurrency that starts over from zero.
All the bitcoin? right! go all in on the stupid examples that make no sense in the first place! How about you show first how realistic such an algo breakdown is because we look at such outlandish scenarios.
Apparently you donât understand cryptography math. If bitcoinâs algorithm is broken in a way that reduces the difficulty of an attack sufficiently it becomes possible to create fraudulent transactions, instantly mine all remaining bitcoins, etc.
And I notice the fact that you ignored the part about your assumption that the person discovering the security flaw would be an altruist who helps to fix the issue instead of an opportunist who exploits it as much as possible. I guess when you have no counter to that point the only thing you can do is nitpick about the difference between stealing literally all bitcoins and stealing a large number of them.
I favor an asset that is backed by math and energy
Oh really? What guarantee does âmath and energyâ provide that I can turn a particular amount of bitcoin into some other value of a different asset? Because thatâs what âbackingâ means in a currency context.
Having another thought here, what if the âgameâ that is pseudo-citizen-science like behind the coronavirus and planet searching that was Project Discovery is actually us being like an Amazon Mechanical Turk⌠haha
Combine it with the idea that PLEX to be like a crypto, it will need some sort of blockchain right? Now the player is the hamster at the servers.
I think I explained it already, but here again:
- L2 transactions are not on the base layer and they are a separate system to move bitcoin fro person A to B. They donât need proof of work and their fees are negligible. The only time you pay a base layer fee is if you want to get Bitcoin into L2 or out of it.
- Base layer transactions continue to work as it is, the fees there will get quite high because of competition for limited blockchain space, enough to pay the miners. Even today, fees are 10% of what miners earn already and this will increase. Base layer transactions are not for everyday use. They are for high value transactions and bundled L2 channel creation/settlement as well as bundled loop in-out of L2 where users share the fee cost.
The examples you provided support my scenario where there is enough time to migrate away, because that is what actually happened. I was there, I had to adjust â â â â to move to stronger algorithms. It wasnât broken over night, there where weaknesses discovered that reduced the security over time.
You have failed to produce an example where crypto just breaks apart from millenia of computing power to mere seconds like you hypothesized. Iâm waiting.
Actually no, that is completely not what will happen. In every case there would be a severe trust loss and the price would obviously crash. But Bitcoin is not just a program but a community of users which can come together and agree on a hard fork with a new algo that starts from a good checkpoint that will be encoded as a rule. That isnât hypothetical, a similar scenario already played out on Ethereum.
And then you mix transaction validation and block hashing. Ok genius⌠they use completely different algos. Even if the hash algo was compromised they could not forge transactions. They could produce a ton of blocks yes, in which case we would have the scenario from my previous answer play out.
If an attacker would break private key crypto the best he could to was to abuse it for as long as possible without being noticed, which would be a really hard thing to do, but guarantee that he can cash out as much as possible before it gets discovered and the price crashes.
But that is all based on the pretty wild assumption that someone can break that crypto.
It means that Bitcoin has actual value as it costs a lot of energy to produce them, while fiat is produced out of thin air. Both can fail to a point where no one will trade anything for it. I just think this is more likely to happen to the dollar than to Bitcoin.
Looks like all your arguments that are remaining can just be reduced to a very unlikely: âBut what if cryptography failsâ, which I donât think is very likely. I take the risk. HFSP
Repeating the same handwaving about âlayersâ is not an explanation. You still have done nothing to address the basic facts that:
-
Paypal has to spend X CPU cycles to execute a transaction (transferring data over the internet, making a database entry, etc).
-
Bitcoin has to spend the same X CPU cycles to execute the transaction, plus an additional Y CPU cycles to cover a fractional share of the immense cost of generating the next block in the blockchain.
Bitcoin can only function because mining and the speculation market subsidize the costs of its infrastructure. A purely fee-based bitcoin has to pay for X+Y while Paypal only has to pay for X, meaning that bitcoin can not compete with the conventional payment system.
But Bitcoin is not just a program but a community of users which can come together and agree on a hard fork with a new algo that starts from a good checkpoint that will be encoded as a rule.
Do you honestly not realize how thorough an obstacle this is for widespread adoption of bitcoin? For bitcoin to be anything more than a niche hobby it has to work for millions/billions of ignorant users who donât care one bit about a âcommunityâ and have no clue what a âforkâ even is.
But that is all based on the pretty wild assumption that someone can break that crypto.
Iâm not making that assumption. Iâm stating the indisputable fact that it is possible that someone will break it. Youâre getting bogged down in arguing about the precise mechanisms involved in a theoretical attack and ignoring the fact that:
-
Bitcoin has absolute dependence on its technology. If bitcoinâs cryptography math is ever successfully attacked it will destroy bitcoin and there is nothing anyone can do about it. The same free market and distributed nature that you praise for ideological reasons also means that bitcoin is 100% on its own if/when it fails.
-
The conventional financial system is independent of any particular technology. A successful attack on its implementation can disrupt service while the vulnerability is fixed, but there is no single point of failure that can permanently destroy it. If my bankâs software is successfully attacked the worst that will happen is that I will be unable to access online banking until the problem is fixed, any fraudulent transactions or loss of wealth will be covered by FDIC insurance and/or the bankâs own fraud protection guarantees.
In short, youâre trying to apply technological solutions to a problem that is better solved by and has already been solved by regulatory solutions.
It means that Bitcoin has actual value as it costs a lot of energy to produce them
Lolwut? No. That is not how any of that works. I can spend a lot of energy digging a hole in my yard and filling it in again, but no amount of repeating that cycle will ever create an object with any value. Likewise, if the market ever decides that bitcoin is worthless then bitcoinâs value will be zero no matter how much energy is required to create a bitcoin. IOW, bitcoin is not backed by anything.
1 Like
So what coin has these patches fixed from the go?
Years ago I wanted to get bitcoin (wish I did) but I was concerned about large scale day to day transaction. Is there any coin you feel is built to deliver this?
I tried, obviously I canât dumb it down enough for you. Sorry
I donât think there is any point in discussing this further with you. You clearly have no idea or even grasp of the technology, so there is no gain for me. You are repeating the same â â â â over an over that was already addressed and they werenât particularly good arguments to begin with. On the other hand you seem to lack the capability of understanding even simple concepts I explain⌠I donât see a value in this discussion.
Oh look he is a Cardano fanboy 
Say hi to Charles. They have some good ideas, but the whole âgeneration 3 blockchainâ is the most stupid marketing stunt ever. No one uses that chain yet, no one knows if PoS is actually secure. The only examples we have like EOS completely devolved into a shitshow controlled by a cabal of big stakers, such community, wowâŚ
Just in case, I hold some ADA and they already did a 10x from where I bought them. But I do think they will rather look like a clumsy solution (and so will Polkadot and ETH2) when Lightning wallets start to integrate RGB
You failed. Please use the correct terms. And please stop confusing criticism of your handwaving and evasion with a failure to understand the technology.
1 Like
I really failed to dumb it down for you. I already said that. Again, you have nothing interesting to say
You did. And, like every bitcoin fanboy too deep in blind faith to even consider anything that threatens the object of their devotion, you stubbornly insist that there is no possible way that anyone could legitimately disagree with you and therefore anyone who does must somehow not understand the sacred Truth correctly. Bitcoin is your religion, not a rational belief.
The reality is that you explained nothing. You posted a bunch of handwaving and evasions, but nothing that addresses the fundamental issue that bitcoinâs infrastructure is more expensive to operate than what conventional payment processors use and those costs have to be paid.
1 Like
That is based on the fact that there is not a single existing PoS chain that has actual traffic and isnât a complete disaster. Meanwhile the two chains that are actually working and have proven itself are both PoW. I know ETH2 will transition, may cost them their project we will see.
Wow, so much salt. Thanks for that
I explained it in detail. Iâm aware that it doesnât look to you that way if your didnât comprehend a word I wrote. Again, not really worth discussing it with you as this is clearly above your level. Sorry
No, you handwaved it with a wall of text. You did absolutely nothing to address the fact that processing a bitcoin transaction, even with the lightning layer, requires more CPU cycles (and therefore more cost) than processing a paypal transaction.
Again, not really worth discussing it with you as this is clearly above your level.
And yet you continue to post replies to me, demonstrating beyond any question that your ânot worth itâ comments are nothing more than a desperate attempt to evade criticism and distract from your failure to answer it.
How much CPU cycles does a Lightning transaction cost? How much a paypal transaction?
I donât know the exact numbers (because obviously that information is secret), but I already answered this question:
-
Paypal has to spend X CPU cycles to execute a transaction (transferring data over the internet, making a database entry, etc).
-
Bitcoin has to spend the same X CPU cycles to execute the transaction, plus an additional Y CPU cycles to cover a fractional share of the immense cost of generating the next block in the blockchain.
I already told you that Lightning transactions donât need PoW and they donât go into a block
Try again
Lolwut? You do understand that lightning transactions eventually go into the blockchain, right? You spend X CPU cycles within the lightning layer to make the transaction, and then you spend Y CPU cycles when the group of lightning layer transactions containing your transaction is added to the blockchain.
No, lightning transactions never go into the blockchain. Holy â â â â man I suggest you really start to read about the things you talk about before you continue to make a fool out of yourself.
âŚ
Um.
No.
Do you understand anything about your fanboy obsession?