Re: Why the economical part isn't mentioned on the whitepaper?
In the White Paper , Satoshi assumed the mining market would stay open.
Error 1: ASICS closed the mining market to the rich elite only.
Error 1: ASICS closed the mining market to the rich elite only.
No he didn't.
He already knew that at some point there will be 'larger' server farms who are mining. And that a single individual won't mine in the future.
And neither is the market accessible to the 'rich elite' only.
Anyone can start mining with a relatively low budget.
Low budget -> low income.
High budget -> high income.
FTFY
Low budget -> Basically No Income if not in the Loss category
Your confusion is only outpaced by your Stupidity.
What you are saying doesn't make sense.
Either it is profitable or it is not.
That you won't earn much with almost no investment, should be obvious.
It is unprofitable if all you do is mine.
(Unless you are stealing Electricity and not paying for it.)
It is profitable ,
1. Sell Mining equipment or cloud mining to Noobs, that think it is more cost effective that just buying BTC
2. If You can use it , to raise money from Venture Capitalist
Error 2: Nodes processing transactions for free are in short supply, if any.
Of course this is due to the energy waste, making free transactions impracticable.
Of course this is due to the energy waste, making free transactions impracticable.
No, they aren't. There are currently ~9100 nodes online.
And how many of those 9100 process transactions for FREE all of the Time?
Because there are some people that would like that, bob.
Each node does process and relay them for free.
You don't need to pay nodes for processing / relaying transactions.
What kind of question is that
Dude read.
Free transactions, mean no transaction fees , not free routing.
But you were probably refering to the miner 'wasting' energy, right ?
Well.. this energy isn't wasted either. It is absolutely necessary to guarantee the integrity and security of the bitcoin network.
Well.. this energy isn't wasted either. It is absolutely necessary to guarantee the integrity and security of the bitcoin network.
Another reason, you're clueless , you actually believe that nonsense.
~4 pool operators guarantee the integrity and security of the bitcoin network , energy expend is irrelevant in their power.
No. Not 4 pool operator.
You seems to have a big lack of knowledge regarding this topic.
The miner secure the network.. not the pool.
If a pool shuts down, the miner will switch to another one.
Miners are securing the network. Not the pools.
Their are 4 mining pools with over 51% on BTC network,
While the miners may point their asics at those pools,
the Pools Operators are determining how that hash is used.
Meaning 4 Pool operators could collude and 51% attack the BTC network at a moment's notice,
it is a known security flaw, even thru the miners can switch pools, it would be after the attack and the damage is done.
Which is why those 4 pool operators are all that is really securing the network, because they are the weakest link.
Your miners energy usage could triple or cut in half and those same 4 pool operators still have the same 51% attack ability
and have had for years now. * Note it is why some members here have been researching a way to remove pooling from bitcoin PoW network.*
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3488/what-can-a-pool-operator-do-with-their-miners-hashpower
Quote
What can a pool operator do with their miners' hashpower?
Commit double-spends, either themselves or for hire.
If the transactions reversed are accepted with 0 confirmations, they don't need a very high hashrate to do this with some effectiveness.
DoS attack on Bitcoin, by including no transactions in blocks and rejecting all other blocks.
This requires ~50% to be done effectively.
Similar attacks on alternative blockchain-based currencies, which is easier since they are usually smaller.
Merged mining - not nefarious in itself, but should be done only at the agreement of miners.
Coin mixing - paying generated coins to people in need of fresh coins, receiving from them independent funds to be paid to miners. (Illegal if done for the purpose of money laundering)
Include too few transactions, making it harder for people to have their transaction accepted.
Include too many transactions in a possible future scenario where a transaction fee equilibrium is obtained by a gentleman's agreement not to include transactions too cheaply.
Things unrelated to Bitcoin, such as password cracking (generally possible only with custom mining software).
Commit double-spends, either themselves or for hire.
If the transactions reversed are accepted with 0 confirmations, they don't need a very high hashrate to do this with some effectiveness.
DoS attack on Bitcoin, by including no transactions in blocks and rejecting all other blocks.
This requires ~50% to be done effectively.
Similar attacks on alternative blockchain-based currencies, which is easier since they are usually smaller.
Merged mining - not nefarious in itself, but should be done only at the agreement of miners.
Coin mixing - paying generated coins to people in need of fresh coins, receiving from them independent funds to be paid to miners. (Illegal if done for the purpose of money laundering)
Include too few transactions, making it harder for people to have their transaction accepted.
Include too many transactions in a possible future scenario where a transaction fee equilibrium is obtained by a gentleman's agreement not to include transactions too cheaply.
Things unrelated to Bitcoin, such as password cracking (generally possible only with custom mining software).
You think Bitcoin will survive on transaction fees alone
when Bitcoin Devs want the majority of transaction in LN offchain network
Don't want to increase onchain scaling of bitcoin
when Bitcoin Devs want the majority of transaction in LN offchain network
Don't want to increase onchain scaling of bitcoin
There are proposals to scale on-chain.
But off-chain is necessary too.
Segwit, schnorr, .. all contribute to better scaling - on chain.
If you are refering to the dumbest possible way to 'scale' - increasing blocksize - then you are wrong because increasing the block size is not scaling, it is postponing the problem.
Off-chain scaling is the most elegant way of allowing a big userbase to enter BTC.
Increasing blocksize is actually the easiest way,
because it require no modifications to the reward design that a Faster Block time would need to maintain the inflation rate.
Any of the three work.
Increase BlockSize
Faster BlockSpeed
Increased compression of TPS per block
Off-chain scaling is a Temporary Bandaid, that only offloads transactions that could have been onchain,
Once BTC onchain limits is maxed out , the offloading will also fail as new coins can't be offloaded.
Offloading is not scaling.
Are of the mind totally devoid of economic reasoning that expects people to pay insane transaction fees ,
when cheaper network just as secure are available.
when cheaper network just as secure are available.
There is not a single crypto currency which is even close to being as secure as bitcoin.
This statement shows how delusional you are.
But please.. name 1 currency which is close to being as secure as bitcoin.
It is called Litecoin, it also has ~4 mining pools with over 51%.
So Bitcoin or Litecoin , a mere 4 pool operators secure it by not colluding to 51% attack it.
Your mistake is you look at energy waste or Hashrate,
which are totally irrelevant because the Mining Pool operators ability to 51% attack is unaffected in the least by either.
Weakest link in the Bitcoin Chain is the Pooling of Mining resources so that a few control their direction.
If the Pooling issue is ever fixed then you can trout hashrate as making it more secure, but until then it is only 4 guys ,
just like LTC securing the entire network.