buttcoin: my kids know me as this ape

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > YOSPOS > buttcoin: my kids know me as this ape

«‹›1469 »

Alan Smithee: Jan 4, 2005; A man becomes preeminent, he's expected to have enthusiasms.

Enthusiasms, enthusiasms...

yo someone explain proof of stake to me vs work in that funny goon way ala sudoku heroin

gently caress if im reading egghead whitepaper poo poo

# ? Mar 12, 2021 02:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 16, 2024 08:44

Shame Boy: Mar 2, 2010

Alan Smithee posted:

yo someone explain proof of stake to me vs work in that funny goon way ala sudoku heroin

gently caress if im reading egghead whitepaper poo poo

with proof of work, whoever lights the most coal on fire via the medium of graphics cards wins

with proof of stake, whoever has the most money wins, as god intended

# ? Mar 12, 2021 02:20

Shame Boy: Mar 2, 2010

some of them try to be cute to get around the problems like weighting the voting value of the coins based how long you have hodled them so the captains of industry who never sell are trusted the most, but fundamentally it is an automated system to ensure the rich get richer. i think the idea is the people with the most coins will be the most committed to making sure the network is trustworthy cuz they have the most skin in the game, and they definitely won't all just smash the betray button as fast as they can because they are perfectly rational supermen

# ? Mar 12, 2021 02:30

Same Great Paste: Jan 14, 2006

i was going to ask what's to stop proof-of-stake-jeff-bezos from just deciding actually he owns your coins too. the real answer can't seriously be "because that would harm the image and value of all his other coins"? right? what have i missed?

# ? Mar 12, 2021 02:35

EorayMel: May 30, 2015; WE GET IT. YOU LOVE GUN JESUS. Toujours des fusils Bullpup Fran�ais.

silverage superman from the 1950's marrying jimmy olsen to a female king kong as he poses as a local witch doctor but for bitcoin

# ? Mar 12, 2021 02:35

Shame Boy: Mar 2, 2010

Same Great Paste posted:

i was going to ask what's to stop proof-of-stake-jeff-bezos from just deciding actually he owns your coins too. the real answer can't seriously be "because that would harm the image and value of all his other coins"? right? what have i missed?

afaik there's various proposed mechanisms to try to make it harder for that to happen but none of them actually, like, work. i'd think if they could solve the "what keeps a rich person from just deciding they own all the coins" problem then every coin would switch over to it because why wouldn't you want to just sit on your coins and have them make money for you instead of having to run a server farm full of graphics cards or whatever. the fact that pretty much nothing but a few piddly small-time coins actually use it despite years and years of working on it is pretty damning evidence

in conclusion, it can't possibly be this stupid, i must be explaining it wrong

# ? Mar 12, 2021 02:43

ymgve: Jan 2, 2004; Offensive Clock

Same Great Paste posted:

i was going to ask what's to stop proof-of-stake-jeff-bezos from just deciding actually he owns your coins too. the real answer can't seriously be "because that would harm the image and value of all his other coins"? right? what have i missed?

technically taking control of the network doesn't allow you to claim any coins as yours, at least not short term

you could create client/miner software with a different protocol/verification code which allows you to say "these coins are mine now" but in practice you just created an altcoin that the other miners/stakers, even if they are a minority, won't cooperate with

for an example, look at what happened when the bitcoin cash developers decided they wanted a share of the mining pie, which split the network into bitcoin cash abc (where a percentage of fees goes to bitcoin cash devs) and bitcoin cash core (where all fees go straight to the miners)

you get no points for guessing which of those splits is worth more at the moment

# ? Mar 12, 2021 02:44

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Shame Boy posted:

with proof of work, whoever lights the most coal on fire via the medium of graphics cards wins

with proof of stake, whoever has the most money wins, as god intended

and coincidentally the person who can burn the most coal/graphics cards is also the person with the most money

# ? Mar 12, 2021 02:50

EorayMel: May 30, 2015; WE GET IT. YOU LOVE GUN JESUS. Toujours des fusils Bullpup Fran�ais.

I'll likely be in a typical blockchain "fight" soon. I found out a bitcoin of mine had been making out with my then-USD, so I texted it (obviously pretty pissed) that the bitcoin should man up and either fight me or just let me have a few punches. I told the bitcoin we'd be square after that and that my intent was not to beat the bitcoin to pulp or anything ridiculous.. the bitcoin said it would try to sue me.

I asked a few mutual friends what they thought I should do and they agreed I should kick the bitcoin's rear end. Given that Ive already said I am, I can't (and don't really want to) avoid it.

However the bitcoin thinks we're cool and that I've gotten over it. How should I best go about this so that a judge would throw out the case? I don't think the bitcoin still has my "lets fight" texts on the blockchain as it was a few months ago. What evidence is that: the bitcoin's miner read my texts, and a number of people around town know that Ive expressed a desire to beat the bitcoin's rear end. I think it unlikely that the bitcoin could convince anyone to testify, unless the court required it. Except for its miner.

Should there be witnesses present? I'm guessing there will have to be because it'd be creepy as hell to stalk or some poo poo.. most likely the bitcoin be with some of our mutual friends, and then I'll come by and tell the bitcoin to come outside because we're gonna duke it out weather the bitcoin likes it or not. I doubt it will be a very vicious or anything.. like I said just your typical squabble between two skinny libertarians

# ? Mar 12, 2021 02:52

orange juche: Mar 14, 2012

EorayMel posted:

I'll likely be in a typical blockchain "fight" soon. I found out a bitcoin of mine had been making out with my then-USD, so I texted it (obviously pretty pissed) that the bitcoin should man up and either fight me or just let me have a few punches. I told the bitcoin we'd be square after that and that my intent was not to beat the bitcoin to pulp or anything ridiculous.. the bitcoin said it would try to sue me.

I asked a few mutual friends what they thought I should do and they agreed I should kick the bitcoin's rear end. Given that Ive already said I am, I can't (and don't really want to) avoid it.

However the bitcoin thinks we're cool and that I've gotten over it. How should I best go about this so that a judge would throw out the case? I don't think the bitcoin still has my "lets fight" texts on the blockchain as it was a few months ago. What evidence is that: the bitcoin's miner read my texts, and a number of people around town know that Ive expressed a desire to beat the bitcoin's rear end. I think it unlikely that the bitcoin could convince anyone to testify, unless the court required it. Except for its miner.

Should there be witnesses present? I'm guessing there will have to be because it'd be creepy as hell to stalk or some poo poo.. most likely the bitcoin be with some of our mutual friends, and then I'll come by and tell the bitcoin to come outside because we're gonna duke it out weather the bitcoin likes it or not. I doubt it will be a very vicious or anything.. like I said just your typical squabble between two skinny libertarians

# ? Mar 12, 2021 03:13

Nitrousoxide: May 30, 2011; do not buy a oneplus phone

ymgve posted:

technically taking control of the network doesn't allow you to claim any coins as yours, at least not short term

you could create client/miner software with a different protocol/verification code which allows you to say "these coins are mine now" but in practice you just created an altcoin that the other miners/stakers, even if they are a minority, won't cooperate with

for an example, look at what happened when the bitcoin cash developers decided they wanted a share of the mining pie, which split the network into bitcoin cash abc (where a percentage of fees goes to bitcoin cash devs) and bitcoin cash core (where all fees go straight to the miners)

you get no points for guessing which of those splits is worth more at the moment

There's also the issue that if you do a 51% attack on a proof of stake coin than you will obliterate the value the coin has. No one will be willing to trade that coin for real world cash because the attacker could reverse any transaction, double spend coins, and do anything they feel like. It makes the billions of dollars you have to invest in getting that 51% stake vanish in an instant. And unlike a proof-of-work coin, where you could turn those video cards over to mine a different coin, your now worthless coin can't be used for anything.

What would likely happen is someone would fork the chain from right before the attack, with the fork treating all the coins the attacker held as invalid, and move on. The attacker would have accomplished nothing but burning billions of their own money and causing a fork and the loss of a few hundred transactions that were taking place during that fork.

# ? Mar 12, 2021 03:15

Baxate: Feb 1, 2011

Nitrousoxide posted:

There's also the issue that if you do a 51% attack on a proof of stake coin than you will obliterate the value the coin has. No one will be willing to trade that coin for real world cash because the attacker could reverse any transaction, double spend coins, and do anything they feel like. It makes the billions of dollars you have to invest in getting that 51% stake vanish in an instant. And unlike a proof-of-work coin, where you could turn those video cards over to mine a different coin, your now worthless coin can't be used for anything.

What would likely happen is someone would fork the chain from right before the attack, with the fork treating all the coins the attacker held as invalid, and move on. The attacker would have accomplished nothing but burning billions of their own money and causing a fork and the loss of a few hundred transactions that were taking place during that fork.

i thought this was supposed to be completely trustless???? was i wrong?

# ? Mar 12, 2021 03:20

Shame Boy: Mar 2, 2010

Nitrousoxide posted:

No one will be willing to trade that coin for real world cash

i mean you'd think so but...

# ? Mar 12, 2021 03:22

Shame Boy: Mar 2, 2010

like aren't there still people using a version of etherium that maintains the dao hack, because of the principle of the thing or whatever

# ? Mar 12, 2021 03:23

xtal: Jan 9, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Baxate posted:

i thought this was supposed to be completely trustless???? was i wrong?

Where is the trust coming in there?

# ? Mar 12, 2021 03:31

Fame Douglas: Nov 20, 2013; by Fluffdaddy

ymgve posted:

technically taking control of the network doesn't allow you to claim any coins as yours, at least not short term

you could create client/miner software with a different protocol/verification code which allows you to say "these coins are mine now" but in practice you just created an altcoin that the other miners/stakers, even if they are a minority, won't cooperate with

for an example, look at what happened when the bitcoin cash developers decided they wanted a share of the mining pie, which split the network into bitcoin cash abc (where a percentage of fees goes to bitcoin cash devs) and bitcoin cash core (where all fees go straight to the miners)

you get no points for guessing which of those splits is worth more at the moment

Every update to the protocol is technically an "altcoin", and tons of those have happened without issue.

# ? Mar 12, 2021 04:15

Fame Douglas: Nov 20, 2013; by Fluffdaddy

Nitrousoxide posted:

There's also the issue that if you do a 51% attack on a proof of stake coin than you will obliterate the value the coin has. No one will be willing to trade that coin for real world cash because the attacker could reverse any transaction, double spend coins, and do anything they feel like. It makes the billions of dollars you have to invest in getting that 51% stake vanish in an instant. And unlike a proof-of-work coin, where you could turn those video cards over to mine a different coin, your now worthless coin can't be used for anything.

What would likely happen is someone would fork the chain from right before the attack, with the fork treating all the coins the attacker held as invalid, and move on. The attacker would have accomplished nothing but burning billions of their own money and causing a fork and the loss of a few hundred transactions that were taking place during that fork.

Bitcoin Gold was successfully double-spend attacked, exchanges lost money. There's nothing to invalidate in these types of situations, the damage was already done.

# ? Mar 12, 2021 04:17

ymgve: Jan 2, 2004; Offensive Clock

Fame Douglas posted:

Every update to the protocol is technically an "altcoin", and tons of those have happened without issue.

most of those updates are backwards compatible, and the hardfork ones are signalled well ahead of activation. most of the hardfork ones have happened without issue because no one is really gonna contest stuff like "from block 99999 onwards we now disallow miners to create mining transactions with the exact same transaction ID as a previous mining transaction" or "from block 123456 onwards we enforce that signatures must be formatted in a specific way to avoid double spend issues"

hell, if you want to go down the rabbit hole, take a look at all the batshit code and cruft they have implemented to make segregated witness invisible if you somehow still use pre-segwit software

and THAT was one of the contested forks, that gave us bitcoin cash

# ? Mar 12, 2021 04:29

Midjack: Dec 24, 2007

also the ridiculous "UASF" hats and t-shirts.

# ? Mar 12, 2021 05:30

Boxturret: Oct 3, 2013; Don't ask me about Sonic the Hedgehog diaper fetish

people are always talking about bitcoin but no one spares a thought for bitcorn

# ? Mar 12, 2021 06:41

NoneMoreNegative: Jul 20, 2000; GOTH FASCISTIC
PAIN MASTER

shit wizard dad

Boxturret posted:

people are always talking about bitcoin but no one spares a thought for bitcorn

# ? Mar 12, 2021 06:44

orange juche: Mar 14, 2012

Boxturret posted:

people are always talking about bitcoin but no one spares a thought for bitcorn

# ? Mar 12, 2021 06:53

Boxturret: Oct 3, 2013; Don't ask me about Sonic the Hedgehog diaper fetish

NoneMoreNegative posted:

the secret posts

# ? Mar 12, 2021 06:54

Hammerite: Mar 9, 2007; And you don't remember what I said here, either, but it was pompous and stupid.; Jade Ear Joe

Fame Douglas posted:

Every update to the protocol is technically an "altcoin", and tons of those have happened without issue.

yes because they're uncontroversial, boring poo poo. bitcoin jeff bezos saying "all the coins are mine now" wouldn't be that.

# ? Mar 12, 2021 11:24

Qwertycoatl: Dec 31, 2008

the main purpose of proof of stake is so that if someone says "this nft thing is burning the planet" you can say "well only right now but it's going to start using proof of stake any time now so your argument is invalid you fiatailure"

same as lightning network if anyone complains about bitcoin transaction fees

# ? Mar 12, 2021 11:31