Re: "Failure to Understand Bitcoin Could Cost Investors Billions" (Bitcoin's flaws)
Note the following quoted posts were deleted only because I have retained all their comments in my reply. Keeping the thread concise as possible.
No, "Proof of Stake" is a synonym for "trusted central entity". Security is only a concern to the extent that you can't trust the rich guy to competently manage money.
If blablahblah makes me repeat this again, I will delete his post and not reply to it. You are repeating the same claim that we don't need decentralization. I already replied to you twice upthread as follows. Trust in centralization is precisely the power vacuum that leads to abuse of power that causes the individuals to lose their freedom, money, and lives. Thus it is synonymous with no (false sense of) security. I provided enough examples already in the Max Mad thread which is linked from the OP. We don't need to redo that debate you and I already did in the Mad Max thread. You like centralization. Understood. So you go that way, and those of us who want to bet on decentralization will go the other direction. We will see in a few years when we are on the rim of the cliff staring at you down in the abyss (if you are still discernible down there).
=================AnonyMint==================
I shouldn't need to point out the blatantly obvious...
The premise of the OP is the internet is decentralized and their is a huge demand for a decentralized money to enable internet enterprise to be as freedom-oriented as the decentralized publishing of web pages and other internet activity.
If you prefer a centralized internet, then please feel free to continue to using Paypal, VISA and other centralized payment systems.
=================AnonyMint==================
When the sheep are asleep, a 51% attack could also be insidious similar to the horrific power vacuum with "trusted" centralization outcome. The attack would be noticed by experts, but the sheep might not care.
Proof of work does not solve the Byzantine Generals Problem. You still have to trust that the majority chain is honest. Hence the so-called 51% attack vectors.
But if you disagree, be a good sport and tell us how the Generals would:
a) agree on which Bitcoin-like system they should all use,
b) be sure that the majority coordinator is honest.
In decentralized PoW the majority chain has no coordinator. There is absolutely no trust. Any participant who doesn't follow the protocol is rejected by the protocol. All participants are competing for highly random entropy to be the chosen winner of the next block confirmation. Perhaps you need to read Satoshi's seminal Bitcoin whitepaper again.
This will be the only warning.
Posts such as the above which add no substantive reasoning, will be deleted. We can probably assume and attribute 2 of the "No" votes came from these two. This is not a thread for lazy "because we want it to be so regardless of logic and technical understanding" spammers and fanboys.
As usual, LaudaM's post have 0 information content (its usually more a feeling of empathy than angst, at least in a self-moderated thread where I can block him). I can assume that davidgdg is implying that anonymity should be up to each individual user and not mandatory, which I already explained in footnote [2] in the OP causes all anonymous users of and thus Bitcoin to be subject to easy control by the government (taxation and law enforcement). If he has another implied meaning, he needs to write it. I will not tolerate posts which are not a sincere attempt to convey information clearly.
Update davidgdg replied:
The "how much better", why Bitcoin can't "evolve" were specifically addressed in the OP (c.f. the links where it says "insurmountable (also) flaws" in the OP). Read again more carefully, read the linked threads, read and read and think. Sorry the OP has a very high information content and it is not for the lazy readers.
Those who vote "No" are going to miss an opportunity to attain massive fortunes. I am very happy if 99% vote "No". Leave more wealth for me
I am not technical person and I don't know how PoS is secure but at first glance it seems to remove the 51% attack problem. If the viability of the coin depends on people which have the most of it, then it's very secure (fairness concerns put aside).
PoS means the elite control the transaction processing, i.e. the 51% attack is built-in by design. We are right back to same problem again.
No, "Proof of Stake" is a synonym for "trusted central entity". Security is only a concern to the extent that you can't trust the rich guy to competently manage money.
If blablahblah makes me repeat this again, I will delete his post and not reply to it. You are repeating the same claim that we don't need decentralization. I already replied to you twice upthread as follows. Trust in centralization is precisely the power vacuum that leads to abuse of power that causes the individuals to lose their freedom, money, and lives. Thus it is synonymous with no (false sense of) security. I provided enough examples already in the Max Mad thread which is linked from the OP. We don't need to redo that debate you and I already did in the Mad Max thread. You like centralization. Understood. So you go that way, and those of us who want to bet on decentralization will go the other direction. We will see in a few years when we are on the rim of the cliff staring at you down in the abyss (if you are still discernible down there).
=================AnonyMint==================
...blablahblah ... has a preference for centralized outcomes.
Your prejudice against all things centralised or structured "top down" (aka: weasel words for social structures that you emotionally dislike),
I shouldn't need to point out the blatantly obvious...
The premise of the OP is the internet is decentralized and their is a huge demand for a decentralized money to enable internet enterprise to be as freedom-oriented as the decentralized publishing of web pages and other internet activity.
If you prefer a centralized internet, then please feel free to continue to using Paypal, VISA and other centralized payment systems.
A "51% attack" is a theatrical assault on the public ledger. I.e.: actual damage is caused, and it appears to be caused by some evil elite, so that people panic and are herded into other markets.
2 completely different things.
2 completely different things.
When the sheep are asleep, a 51% attack could also be insidious similar to the horrific power vacuum with "trusted" centralization outcome. The attack would be noticed by experts, but the sheep might not care.
Only proof-of-work solves the Byzantine Generals Problem. See my first rebuttal to blablahblah.
Proof of work does not solve the Byzantine Generals Problem. You still have to trust that the majority chain is honest. Hence the so-called 51% attack vectors.
But if you disagree, be a good sport and tell us how the Generals would:
a) agree on which Bitcoin-like system they should all use,
b) be sure that the majority coordinator is honest.
In decentralized PoW the majority chain has no coordinator. There is absolutely no trust. Any participant who doesn't follow the protocol is rejected by the protocol. All participants are competing for highly random entropy to be the chosen winner of the next block confirmation. Perhaps you need to read Satoshi's seminal Bitcoin whitepaper again.
Too much 'not so useful text', a simple answer would be no. Bitcoin won't be replaced by a random altcoin regardless of its features.
This sounds marvellous. Will it also do my shopping and change the wheel on my car when it gets a puncture?
This will be the only warning.
Posts such as the above which add no substantive reasoning, will be deleted. We can probably assume and attribute 2 of the "No" votes came from these two. This is not a thread for lazy "because we want it to be so regardless of logic and technical understanding" spammers and fanboys.
As usual, LaudaM's post have 0 information content (its usually more a feeling of empathy than angst, at least in a self-moderated thread where I can block him). I can assume that davidgdg is implying that anonymity should be up to each individual user and not mandatory, which I already explained in footnote [2] in the OP causes all anonymous users of and thus Bitcoin to be subject to easy control by the government (taxation and law enforcement). If he has another implied meaning, he needs to write it. I will not tolerate posts which are not a sincere attempt to convey information clearly.
Update davidgdg replied:
Sure I will spell it out. Your argument seems to be that Bitcoin will be replaced by some hypothetical Perfectcoin. But Perfectcoin does not exist. So your argument really amounts to "bitcoin will fail because it will be replaced by something much better". Well maybe. But that depends when, how much better, whether bitcoin can evolve, so on and so forth. You don't address any of these points.
The "how much better", why Bitcoin can't "evolve" were specifically addressed in the OP (c.f. the links where it says "insurmountable (also) flaws" in the OP). Read again more carefully, read the linked threads, read and read and think. Sorry the OP has a very high information content and it is not for the lazy readers.
Those who vote "No" are going to miss an opportunity to attain massive fortunes. I am very happy if 99% vote "No". Leave more wealth for me