/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>13395584
I see lots of threads shilling for the chink and shitting on ethereum today

>>13395606

Biz says sell

>BUY
>BUY
>BUY

>>13395584
Why can't they go to proof of capacity?

>>13395584
Vitalik knows what he's doing. Just trust

>>13395584
It's necessary for security and efficiency. Ethereum will thrive and flourish under PoS, since it will be even harder to attack and tps will go up. However, this will most likely not translate as value to ETH, since it is meant to power the network as gas. We have something else to act as the baseline currency, something which has taken tried and true basics and pushed them one step further...

It will 100% fork, miners won't let their cash cow die so easily. Some fag wil come up with an ethereum PoW forever fork, screenshot this.

>>13396163
Soo....ethereum classic?

ehhhm, staking will consume alot of ETH, keeping the price stable?

>>13395944
This. The only thing you can count on is /biz/ being wrong

>>13396191
No, Ethereum VitalikVision aka ETH2V

>>13395584
What a scam, ETH developers so lazy they are offloading transaction validation to the bag holders.

>>13396267
Which is actually really smart if done correctly

>>13396151
PoS is not more secure. Here's an example compared to bitcoin:

In order to attack bitcoin (51%) attack, you must buy as many active miners as there are now. Current estimate is around 3 million. On top of that, you have to buy electricity for it. You have to do all this and turn all the miners on at the same time.

Now suppose the attack is successful. The bitcoin difficulty algorithm will adjust (in this case less than 2 weeks because you doubled the hashrate). When that difficulty adjustment happens, you'll need to buy 6 million more miners, turn them on and buy electricity for it. To continue this attack, you need to double the number of miners and electricity. By the end of the month, you would've bought 3+6+12 million miners + electrical costs for each miner. This is assuming miners can even be produced that fast (producing 12 million miners in 2 weeks).

This is why PoW and in this case, bitcoin, is not nonliterary or logistically possible.

Let's talk about PoS. In relation to ETH, the ETH team and investors printed 72 million ETH for themselves. The current supply is 106 million ETH (rounded up). This means that ETH team & investors hold more than 50% of the supply. When you move to PoS, they'll maintain their wealth and you'll get scraps. The rich will get richer. The cost of an attack like on bitcoin will be minimal. Considering that the rich people decide to collude is the only barrier. Once they do, they attack the network for free as they control > 50% of the total stake and there's no cost to sustain the attack as they again, control > 50% of the stake.

Furthermore, PoS does not push for efficiency as PoW does. Just try to mine BTC with an old version of ant miner. It does not push for innovation because once it's released, the rich just sit on their ass and get richer by doing nothing, whereas PoW has to constantly innovate to increase hash rate and decrease electrical cost.

TL;DR: OP is right.

>>13395584

Are you retarded???

You can imagine any platform adopted worldwide run on fucking mining?????

>>13396357
By the way, a 51% attack on bitcoin means that you can block certain transactions from going through (aka included on the blockchain)

You can't broadcast whatever transactions you want because all transactions need to have the valid signature.

>>13396357
You only really need a couple of successful attacks that gets you a significant number of bitcoins. Also, you could just turn your 3 million miners off when the difficult gets too high, then turn them back on when it goes back down.

>>13396357

This is most retarded narative in space...

>Now suppose the attack is successful. The bitcoin difficulty algorithm will adjust (in this case less than 2 weeks because you doubled the hashrate).

Like someone wants to keep 51% forever, 1 fucking day is enough for insane amount of double spending...

Acually its not..
"The rich will get richer" argument is like its not same case for mining...

Pos is acually not perfect and there are pros and cons in pow and pos but this shit have to stop lol...

>>13396357
>Furthermore, PoS does not push for efficiency as PoW does (...) PoW has to constantly innovate to increase hash rate and decrease electrical cost

What kind of retarded argument is this? The main point of PoS is to get rid of hash rate / electricity cost as a security mechanism in the first place.

>>13396431

Define "a couple of successful attacks to get bitcoin". Every block you mine you get bitcoin. If the attacker turned on 3 million miners & paid for the electricity, they will get the block rewards.

So of course they'll get bitcoin but it incentives good behavior instead of bad. It's like saying hey you're getting BTC for all these miners and electrical costs, why would you damage the reputation making your BTC worth less?
> Also, you could just turn your 3 million miners off when the difficult gets too high, then turn them back on when it goes back down.

Sure, that has significant costs too and you're assuming BTC hash rate does not increase.

>>13396436
If you do a double spend attack, it becomes a race and the attack needs to be sustained. I don't know if you worked out the cost of 3 million miners plus the electrical cost. Once you do, I'm sure you'll realize it costs less than attacking any PoS network.

In order to have a double spending attack, you first must posses that many BTC before the attack. If you want to spend 10k BTC, you need to have it before the attack. So the costs are astronomical. During the attack, you're also mining BTC in the block reward but once you broadcast your malicious chain and you stop your attack, all that is gone. The PoW system incentives good behavior. If you destroy the BTC chain the only profit you'll get is the money you had on that chain before you attacked it, minus the cost of buying all the miners and the electricity and maintaining the attack. If BTC goes to 0 your 3 million+ miners are worth nothing.

>>13396573
Of course everyone wants to get rid of hash rate for security. But no such system exist. You have to tie the cost of security to a cost. In the case of bitcoin, it is tied to electrical cost and the cost of developing and producing miners. If security has no cost, is it secure?

>>13396357
based anon.
still after 2 weeks you wouldnt get a difficulty adjustment since after a 51% btc would go to almost 0$ (and the whole rest of crypto with it), honest miners would just stop mining so you would be able to own the chain forever (idk for what reason since that would be the end of crypto)

>>13396868

If you double the hash rate the blocks come twice as fast. 2 week difficulty adjustment becomes one week and you have to sustain that attack for a week.

Now the 49% are the people that are invested in BTC. They have electrical contracts that are probably months long. I think the 49% are going to significantly add hashing power to BTC and try to defend it.

Plus once the malicious chain gets broadcasted, you can compare the valid chain and the malicious one to see what changed. I'll be obvious who's doing it because

1) You need to have a bunch of coins ready to spend before the attack
2) You need to acquire 3 million+ miners before the attack (and that doesn't go unnoticed)
3) You'll need to acquire the electricity for it (that definitely will not go unnoticed as you might even have to build additional infrastructure for it)

Alternatively,

You can just mine bitcoin and adhere to the rules because you already invested in bitcoin (see (1)) and you can get more bitcoin. This is the incentive system that says it's better to be a good guy instead of the bad guy.

>>13396925
Based saved this thread eth eternally BTFO

I just sold ETH due to the information in this thread, and because of Binance. Hope it was the right choice.

>>13396357
Dumb commie lol. Obviously the investors who had the vision to buy into Ethereum back when every post about it on biz had ten retards saying it's just a Russian scam should be rewarded. The actual team/foundation do not hold significant reserves of ETH and can't control shit. Vitalik sold 25% of his stack at $5

literally pajeet fud ETH will minimum 10x before summer next year. You not see the forbes list of billionair businesses who are mostly adopting ETH?

>>13395584

loser

>>13396357
Low IQ post. Are you telling me its easier to rent a warehouse, get industrial electricity hookups, buy miners, install and configure them than holding 32 ETH in a wallet lol

>>13396925
>If you double the hash rate the blocks come twice as fast

>>13396828
>Of course everyone wants to get rid of hash rate for security. But no such system exist. You have to tie the cost of security to a cost.

Umm do you even understand the idea of PoS? The entire point of it is to tie security to a cost and to do so directly. You put money down and if you double spend or misbehave in other ways, you just lose your money.

>>13396357
>>13396925

Your promise starts out on false grounds, since the team doesn't hold anywhere near 72MM ETH. It's not like they created the platform and then just kept the whole supply to themselves, most of it was sold with the ICO and a lot of the reserves that the team did keep have since been sold as well.

So anyone who would want to attack Ethereum would have to amass a massive amount of ETH, which would cause a lot of slippage and be very obvious across the markets. Since you don't need 51%, but 98% to attack Ethereum after it goes PoS, it will most likely be impossible to gather the necessary amount of Ether, since there are at least a few hardliners who won't sell their ETH in such a scenario no matter what.

And even if we assume that this someone has literally endless pockets and buys up the last scraps of ETH needed for his attack at $50k a piece. Then what? He attacks the network, which causes it to crash and turns his whole investment worthless. An attack on a PoW network would still leave you with the hardware, but you're only devaluing your own assets (of which you have had to hoard a whole bunch of) when attacking a PoS network.

Face it, PoS is vastly more secure than PoW. There's a lot to debate about the honesty of distribution under PoS, yes, but from a security standpoint the winner is obvious.

>>13396357
what is nicehash

>>13395584
hey hey hey
with PoS you have a fork problem too
forks cost nothing to do and stakers are interested in keeping them alive
just FUDing you day