cryptodogemoon's comments

zk proofs supposedly resolve that issue.

monereo, zcash, and eventually ethereum

the concept seems to make sense but I'd be curious how to audit such an obfuscated system

How foreboding!

https://priceonomics.com/when-the-great-alpaca-bubble-burst/

(1) The asset not the product is the thing being marketed (i.e. live alpacas, not fiber)

(2) investors have unrealistic expectations (alpaca fiber would replace wool, despite the lack of infrastructure; and besides the fact that people don’t really wear that much wool)

(3) information is controlled through industry sources (most of the information the researchers were able to dig up was put out by breeding associations)

this assumes trusting a 3rd party wallet to not generate weak keys or backdoors, as has happened many times already

if you're concerned about security just use the official client

Cryptocoin exchange rates are largely defined by pump and dump whale gangs spreading rumors and luring in novice investors.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7126153

It's clearly malicious.

Satoshi could have used a linear growth curve. Instead he used a log curve, giving himself and the smallest user group possible (first users to run the software within the limited timeframe where the hyperinflation took place) control of the majority of the supply for the least amount of work possible.

All users entering the system late beyond users before them are needlessly exploited.

Production costs of 50BTC per every 10 minutes has historically been a fractions of or a few pennies. Only for later users has the cost gradually increased.

The way you and many others approach Bitcoin as a tool to horde and sell to other rubes is indicative of the manipulative design where unsuspecting new users don't understand the history.

Bitcoin is inflationary until the year 2140, and assuming no fork changes that sooner.

If you actually understand Satoshis algorithm and history you'll take notice at how the supply was intended to benefit the first few users to run the software during the brief phase of hyperinflation and production for minimal work, while later users are punished merely for running the same protocol and offering the same computational work equivalent to prior users.

If you consider how easy a linear curve could have been chosen by Satoshi instead of the reverse log curve, you'll understand the manipulative nature of how Bitcoin exploits new users.

The supply inflates every 10 minutes, this by definition is inflation.

It's forever part of Bitcoins orgin story that it begin as hyperinflationary and has since slowed the minting of more BTC.

The irony is the mythos of bitcoin being "deflationary" is not historically accurate and the supply is inflating every 10 minutes.

What Bitcoiners conveniently omit from explanation in Satoshis protocol is the initial "dump" of the supply to the first few users who ran the software. This is a malicious design decision intended to control the supply early.

Any user who joins the network must than attempt to psychologically exploit new users by selling their asset previously generated for less effort/work/watts as the protocol increases in difficulty to any new user.

Fun fact: Bitcoin is designed as a hyperinflationary currency that begins to slow down inflation as more users join and time passes.

Why?

To control the supply early and exploit later speculators.

A linear distribution curve that matches work/watt input. This modestly levels the playing field, although it simply allows existing capital to match the input/output. Satoshi style curves are both capital dependent and skewed disproportionately to the first to arrive within the tiny timeframe.

Anti-sybil attacks would be immensely beneficial. Encouragement of honest economic activity. Scaling of bandwidth and fees.

The ideal solution is a PoW that is computationally useful and desirable, BOINC, folding@home. Ethereum almost does this, but PoW algos as they exist now are anti-scale by design, where increasing computational power does not improve the network at all.

The foreseeable longevity of PoW is ungodly waste, when a world wide distributed computing network has potential far far beyond brute force hash puzzles.

Not with Bitcoin.

Satoshi designed the supply to rapidly mint the majority of coins to the smallest group of users for the least amount of effort/capital/work input.

It's designed to manipulate any user who joins the system after you.

Satoshi could easily have chosen a linear curve to align with time, user growth, and increase in work input yet instead the manipulative log curve was chosen.

Old users are now incentived to attempt to psychologically exploit new people by selling the asset for far more than the cost of production or acquisition.

Banks safeguard your deposit and offer significantly more services than Bitcoin.

A better comparison to energy usage would be other distributed computing systems.

Bitcoin is insanely wasteful by design because it's requiring clients brute force guess the hashes in increasingly rising difficulty.

Computational work in cryptosystems of the future would ideally provide useful work that provides value other than brute force hash resistance.

For such an extensive academic course it's interesting the economic model of Satoshis mining algorithm isn't explained.

Satoshi used a production model that produced the most amount of coins for the lowest amount of work/capital input, to reward the smallest user group.

Satoshi could just as easily have used a linear growth model knowing more users and more hash power should match the production output. Instead, Satoshis algorithm exploits new users.

Old users than have incentive to manipulate new users and psychologically propagate the myth of rarity when in fact the abundance of the supply was taken early easily and users are attempting to sell for more capital than it takes to acquire or produce, often simply by hording these low effort counts coins.

ecash should not exploit new users.

New cryptocash systems can easily be started.

Satoshi's mining/minting algorithm is manipulative by design.

Less computational energy and the least amount if users produced the most coins (for minimal external capital input).

Satoshi could have used a linear curve anticipating network growth matching minting and computational increase, but instead choose to exploit late adopters.

Early adopters will attempt to psychologically exploit new users by selling their asset for more than the cost of production and acquisition.

This has directly created the situation where utility is not in use but in exploitation of passing the hot potato to greater fools.

ecash should not exploit new users.

Why bother attempting to patch on layers on top of BTC when it's already centralized with ASIC farms?

Start fresh.

Early adopters of BTC are trying to con new users into buying coins produced for minimal capital/computational work. The flaw in BTC is inherent to the malicious minting algorithm designed to harm new users.

There's other cryptocurrencies who are far out pacing the BTC core team.

Who controls the production of such a system?

Currently tether is presumed to be manipulated by its maintainers.

https://medium.com/@bitfinexed/latest

The mining algorithms are the source of the supply, the most important element.

There are many other blockchain designs now, so Bitcoin is already obsolete.

What?..

All versions of Bitcoin share the exploitative inverse log curve for distribution and work input.

Bitcoin cash further changed the difficulty algorithm to benefit ASIC miners during a very brief window of time. Fees are reduced, and bandwidth has increased but the same design flaws are shared from Satoshi's algorithm.

So you're completely incorrect.

>People .. ridicule cryptocurrencies, dismissing bitcoin as a scam, a Ponzi scheme or a bubble.

>Wealth disparity is at record levels and the ultrarich have cornered the market on every asset class, but with bitcoin, an entirely new economy has sprung into existence. That's the pitch for decentralized cryptocurrencies: They offer hope that there might be another, fairer way of doing things.

The irony here is Bitcoin, like most other cryptocurrencies are structured similar to a pyramid scheme and highly favor existing capital to control the supply and exploiting users who join the network past a certain date where barrier to entry increases.

They tell the story of acquiring this digital asset for a small capital sum, and simply passing it off to someone else for a greater sum. The intention is not utility but psychological exploitation of greater fools.

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/86/is-it-possible...

http://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-inequality-2014-1

  Best estimates (2014) are that there are 
  about one million holders of 
  Bitcoin; 47 individuals hold about 
  30 percent, another 900 hold a 
  further 20 percent, the next 
  10,000 about 25% and another 
  million about 20%, with 5% being 
  lost. So 1/10th of one percent 
  represent about half the holdings 
  of Bitcoin and 1 percent close to 
  80 percent

Why would anyone buy more new tethers @ $1 when they're selling for less than $1 at Kraken?