Create account

replied 17h
If you think that our banker elite won't do everything they can to destroy independent networks you're deluding yourself. They successfully hijacked and ruined the first mover network.
replied 17h
Any network gaining momentum will be again attacked vehemently, next to growing regulatory capture.
replied 16h
Everything that gets any traction will get attacked directly and new competition, the question is how it will be attacked, will elite bankers buy up majority stake of POS?
replied 16h
Or majority of mining hash in the case of shutting down POW coins, laws, regulations and influencing the key people in the projects appears to be cheaper than brute forcing projects.
replied 16h
Not necessarily buying up. seizing coins (like attacking huge exchanges) or cornering the markets just like they did using the USDT scheme.
replied 16h
I am not making the argument that Crypto coins are not possible to subvert or sabotage, I am asking the question about POS comparatively to POW.
replied 16h
Assuming the majority of coins can be seized by one attacker, does that coin being POW or POS make a practical difference? Both coins will effectively be shut down in both cases.
replied 16h
The only difference is that in case of POW coins, the funds won't give you direct control over the protocol.
replied 16h
Also, funds can be obscured more easily than hashpower.
replied 14h
As I understand POS is that you risk losing your stake if you're dishonest. Which is quite a punishment
replied 14h
Majority holder of POS don't lose their stake if they are dishonest, but losing price or reputation is supposed to safeguard majority sabotage in theory.
replied 12h
owning over 50% of all coins must be really difficult
replied 12h
Not that difficult if you have a printing press :D
replied 10h
haha damn that fucking elite :D
replied 12h
Either way, both has tradeoffs. What I personally prefer is the non-asic pow approach.
replied 11h
It is always possible to rent the majority Hash through renting the hash through paying out over-market-value pool rewards, cost of attack is proportional to mining reward.
replied 11h
Not really with widely available general purpose hw.
replied 10h
If the total mining reward is $100k per day someone with that amount of money can set up a pool and buy it by paying that money in return for the POW in whatever form it is in.
replied 10h
I think this attack would be way too uncertain. This is why banksters choose to subvert Core and the communication channels.
replied 10h
I agree that it is not a good attack, it is expensive and seems criminal from the outside, and does not ultimately give the ability to bend the coin in a desired direction.
replied 10h
Also, using general purpose hw is inherently more decentralized, enabling small scale mining which would make pulling off something like that successfully a lot harder.
replied 10h
General Purpose Hardware is by default more decentralized due to there not being monopolies or barriers to entry. This is a side point, but do you favor BCH changing the mining Algo?
replied 5h
I think the algo should have been changed by now. BCH would be in a lot stronger position.
replied 6h
Do not change the BCH algo.
Start a new coin with a mining algo that Asic technology cannot address.
There exist many ways to achieve that.
replied 5h
The bch community looks at the algo change just like how the useful idiots of Coretards looked at the capacity increase back then. We'll see where this attitude leads...
replied 4h
Changing the algo is not conceivable for BCH.
Getting consensus would be impossible.
(context: Just fixing the DAA reads like a civil war story.)
Build better faster on new turf.
replied 2h
"Changing the algo is not conceivable for BCH."

Well, not with that attitude.
replied 2h
Trying to fix the difficulty algo with such low relative hashrate is just pathetic and blatantly retarded.
replied 11h
Is there a known way to prevent ASICs from being made? I know Monero is trying by frequently changing or randomizing the algorithm itself, but there is still the problem of pools.
replied 11h
Easy. with pow algo updates if needed. Bitmain learned swiftly to not develop asics for monero after their first attempt to fuck up the network.
replied 10h
pools are not much of a problem as they don't control the HW. ASICs inherently bring centralization pressure.
replied 10h
ASIC bring additional centralization pressure without imposing a cost on the maker of the ASIC, it rewards the ASIC maker, it makes centralization even more profitable.
replied 8h
...which is why Monero switched to RandomX, making ASICs virtually impossible
replied 10h
A malicious pool can pay to rent the POW by whoever has the general purpose HW and do what they want with it, there is no need to actually own any hardware, ASIC or otherwise to get-
replied 10h
-Majority POW power, all it takes is paying above market rate to rent the hash in a pool. There is no way around that. However, there are non-51% attack reasons why ASICs are bad.
replied 10h
And ASICs still has the rent problem + additional issues, so it is no better at some things and worse at other things.
replied 14h
Same with POW, other players can invalidate your blocks. The serious problems start when majority of the players are hostile.
replied 12h
true. i wonder on which of them it's the most difficult to gain majority. It looks to me like POS is the most difficult.
replied 12h
Considering how users tend to keep funds at centralized companies (and the big historical heists), and how asic mining centralized I think crypto "security" is highly overrated.
replied 12h
I think the real security comes from the normally OSS nature of these projects (eg, the network can be forked or split if a significant attack happens, like with the BSCore take-over).