Bitcoins/Litecoins/Virtual Currencies

James said:

Completely wrong. When the 32 ETH requirement was made, that was a little over a thousand dollars and it is just for this beta chain -- the vision is that anyone can stake from their own home, there will eventually be no requirement or it will be very small. In PoS, you don't get rewarded just for finding blocks, but also for attesting the blocks are valid, thus rewards are distributed as interest on your stake based on total ETH staked. The reason to pool resources currently, and moving forward for that matter, are entirely technical as users may not want to deal with handling their own keys, let alone maintaining uptime on a full Ethereum node.

This is the beta chain and is deliberately engineered for pooling resources, once it hits mainnet staking will massively open up.

Click to expand...

Well 'the vision' seems to not have accounted for ETH appreciation then if they were relying on that amount being obtainable to average folk. 'Eventually' pools won't be necessary? Another 'eventually' to wait for. Casper will have taken 4 years (assuming no further delays) since you told me to 'get in before Casper' years ago.

OK, so ETH gives a small, secondary 'attestation' reward for running nodes. Swell. But if you solo run a node you're going to miss out on the validator block reward because the chance of being selected as the validator scales linearly with amount staked and you'll likely never roll the one in 2 million or whatever if you only have 32 ETH. Hence for non-whales, pooling is necessary because they will get far less from staking otherwise. If this is incorrect, then I'd love to be linked some sort of article explaining why as I'm genuinely interested in the tech.

Google is not returning much in the way of explaining attestation rewards, which is actually kind of concerning in and of itself that ETH staking is so opaque even after going live. And the beacon chain IS mainnet, it's not a 'beta chain'. ETH's PoS beacon chain is not processing ETH's 'real' blocks yet and is running in parallel with the PoW chain but they will merge at some point in the near future when the PoS chain takes over the entire network. The beacon chain has real mainnet ETH in it right now as this ETH will become the real ETH after the merge. When they merge, staking pools won't just disappear.

Torrid said:

When they merge, staking pools won't just disappear.

Click to expand...

No, they won't, just like mining pools won't just disappear. You can't find shit on Google about this because it's so far away from a concern in the crypto space that literally no one is talking about it. You are hung up on a complete misunderstanding of something entirely in your own head, and no one else has a clue as to what it means, but what it doesn't mean is that PoS is therefore more "centralized" than PoW. It's just such a ludicrous accusation of centrality, you're saying that the millions of dollars needed to produce ASICs in the first place is less centralized than temporarily requiring 32 ETH. You're fucking nuts.

Rocket Pool is already live, by the way.

Torrid said:

Casper will have taken 4 years (assuming no further delays) since you told me to 'get in before Casper' years ago.

Click to expand...

Casper was abandoned in 2018, and yes, the Ethereum price will sky rocket after PoS rolls out. You know SegWit still isn't totally adopted on the Bitcoin network, right? You know that Lightning has less BTC on it than a fucking Ethereum side chain, right? OH NO, ETHEREUM DEVS AT THE FOREFRONT OF BLOCKCHAIN RESEARCH ARE SLOW AT DEVELOPING, and then you're all like CHECK OUT THIS DEFI ON BITCOIN like a fucking retard who doesn't realize every single accusation leveled at Ethereum is applied infinitely worse to the Bitcoin network.

There will be no scenario where Proof of Stake fails on the Ethereum network, and Ethereum will continue existing long into the future. If you have concerns that they won't, you need to research more.

Bitcoin requiring ASICs to mine is actually a security benefit. It means that a botnet can't hijack the network by taking over everybody's GPUs and since the ASIC chips are only produceable in a few factories in the world by public companies, it prevents nation states from secretly building the hardware needed to attack BTC. Nation states simply cannot get ahold of the hardware (at least in a short to medium time period) even if they had unlimited money. Furthermore ASIC miners are heavily invested when they buy the hardware because it's only useful to mine Bitcoin; whereas PoS coin holders can sell all their coins overnight and become instantly unreliant on the welfare of the network at any time at no cost.

Ethereum's PoS chain (i.e. the beacon chain which went live late last year) is using 'Casper FFG' which is Vitalik's version of Casper, as opposed to Vamfir's more ambitious version which was apparently postponed or abandoned, as far as I understand. It's amusing that you are now telling me that 'Casper was abandoned' after telling me to buy ETH because of it years ago.

Torrid said:

Bitcoin requiring ASICs to mine is actually a security benefit.

Click to expand...

It's fucking massive centralization, what are you talking about. What happens to the security of the network if an ASIC manufacturer goes out of business? It's mindblowing that you believe a required $20k investment every few years is a fucking security benefit.

Torrid said:

It's amusing that you are now telling me that 'Casper was abandoned' after telling me to buy ETH because of it years ago.

Click to expand...

At the time, blockchain researchers had decided that a hybrid PoW/PoS model was needed prior to full on PoS. Do you not understand that PoS is the superior consensus model for scaling? This shit has been talked about for 10 years now, and the biggest PoW network switching over to be PoS is going to be massive. Get in before it happens, you will eventually be using it regardless.

What happens to the security? Nothing happens. Miners still mine; their hardware doesn't poof or stop working. New miners buy ASICs from a different manufacturer. It's not like Bitmain is the only one. The chips are fabricated at TSMC or Samsung, but designed and assembled by other companies, so it's not just a single entity involved.

Scaling has little to do with the consensus mechanism. Bitcoin refused to increase the block size because of node hardware and bandwidth requirements, not because of PoW. The vast majority of node operators are not miners. The Rootstock sidechain uses Bitcoin's PoW and has ambitious scaling plans like Ethereum.

Torrid said:

t's not like Bitmain is the only one. The chips are fabricated at TSMC or Samsung, but designed and assembled by other companies, so it's not just a single entity involved.

Click to expand...

Well it's not like staking pools are one giant entity, there's many involved?!?!?!?

Torrid said:

Scaling has little to do with the consensus mechanism.

Click to expand...

Literally it has everything to do with the consensus mechanism, the entire barrier to blockchain scaling is the fact that everyone has to agree on each transaction. A consensus mechanism which achieves this cheaper and faster than another can therefore scale much better.

James said:

Literally it has everything to do with the consensus mechanism, the entire barrier to blockchain scaling is the fact that everyone has to agree on each transaction. A consensus mechanism which achieves this cheaper and faster than another can therefore scale much better.

Click to expand...

No, what limits scaling is that decentralized ledgers grow massively since every transaction is recorded forever and would quickly grow to a point at which running a node would no longer be possible by most people, (or potentially anybody) thereby threatening the security of the network. Lots of shitcoins that cloned Bitcoin increased their block sizes and/or reduced block times while still using proof of work. Proof of stake changes nothing in regards to how fast the ledger grows. All it changes is who gets selected to validate a block: instead of winning the right via guessing the secret number, you win the right via the network randomly selecting your staked ETH node.

Torrid said:

No, what limits scaling is that decentralized ledgers grow massively since every transaction is recorded forever

Click to expand...

I don't know how you can write that out and not understand that grow massively = more transactions to validate.

Torrid said:

Proof of stake changes nothing in regards to how fast the ledger grows.

Click to expand...

Completely incorrect, finality is nearly instant under PoS consensus, therefore the ledger grows quicker, which means (and I can't stress this enough) more transactions can be processed by the network per second.

James said:

Completely incorrect, finality is nearly instant under PoS consensus, therefore the ledger grows quicker, which means (and I can't stress this enough) more transactions can be processed by the network per second.

Click to expand...

Well somebody is completely incorrect, but I don't think it's me.

'Finality' just means that the transaction can be safely assumed to not be reverseable. For most transactions, 1 or 2 confirms is enough on Bitcoin. Generally speaking most people say to wait for 6 confirms for large payments, but the more confirms you have, the more 'final' it is. In PoW chains, very rarely (more common with fast block chains like ETH1) blocks end up mined at the same time, so this results in a chain split. In that eventuality, the chain that wins is the chain that mines the next block first. So multiple confirms are needed for finality.

For Etherum's PoS chain, 'finality' has a more technical meaning. There it means after two epoch checkpoints, the blocks are considered 'final'. An epoch is 32 blocks. Blocks are 12 seconds. So finality there takes somewhere around 14 minutes. And this still has nothing to do with TPS.

Air dropping Bitcoin to the people. Around 3000 BTC in total as I understand it. Its like a non-inflationary UBI.. sending actual hard money to the people. Its not like they could print the money to buy this Bitcoin

Torrid said:

Well somebody is completely incorrect, but I don't think it's me.

Click to expand...

No, it's still you -- understanding how finality increases economic incentive to use the chain while making the chain itself immediately heavy is extremely esoteric and not likely to be understood by someone that thinks small blocks means the network scales transactions.

Blockchain related, sorta. Looks like John McAfee set up a deadman switch to send transactions with a message on blockchain. Message will be immutable and impossible to delete. Related to Epstein apparently. The chans are tracking it. Coin $WHACKD. Probably more appropriate for the Q thread tbh as this is related. His instagram posted an encoded message after death with a pic of Q. 31TB file out there allegedly.

Etherscan: Ethereum Transactions Information | Etherscan

Flobee said:

Blockchain related, sorta. Looks like John McAfee set up a deadman switch to send transactions with a message on blockchain. Message will be immutable and impossible to delete. Related to Epstein apparently. The chans are tracking it. Coin $WHACKD. Probably more appropriate for the Q thread tbh as this is related. His instagram posted an encoded message after death with a pic of Q.

Etherscan: Ethereum Transactions Information | Etherscan

Click to expand...

In before it turns out to be a bunch of Pokémon fanfic since, you know, the dude was crazy