/biz/ - Business & Finance

No

>>16907703
>Am I wrong that Ethereum will win?
> No.


Yeah, I agree

>>16907688
Look at the ETH development history. How anyone can invest in this shitshow is beyond me. It's literally vaporware.

>>16907710
That's what I meant

>>16907688
yes

do not get me wrong. eth is the future. no other smart contract platform will be able to compete and eth will be the standard.

But the value of their token will not go up substantially (barring retard FOMO). Once bitcoin can be used as collateral for defi, eth's primary purpose is as a nonconsumable commodity.

>>16907712
Fucking LAWL.

Imagine never using a single dapp. Let alone understanding how Metamask works.

Vaporware? Your brain is vaporware if you're unable to use a dapp

>>16907732
B itcoin can already be used as collateral. also, ETH is consumed for main-chain transactions, it will always be a consumable.

bump

>>16907688
Most of mine is as well. I think it it's a very safe and reliable crypto to invest in, and it will outperform BTC over the long term. I'll probably be selling it EOY or 2021 according to my plan.

Go 50/50 eth/tezos

>>16907825
same here for the most part, EOY may be too soon, EOY 2021 is golden time if the world economy is still strong. If not, well, God help us all

>>16907732
Cheaper to send ETH for now that any other ERC20
But more importantly, imagine the security risk for a $1 ETH. Someone can buy half the network for $60m under POS and ruin it to their liking.
Imagine we get a lot of money being tied up into the secondhand ETH network. They want this secondhand network to be secure, which necessitates a higher ETH price. The question is how much adoption will crypto get.

>>16907869
>Someone can buy half the network for $60m under POS and ruin it to their liking.
this would be worth no-ones while to "ruin" ETH for 60M..... lol

if the question were simply how much adoption will crypto get then you are in the wrong place.

>>16907688
You're not wrong.

>>16907688
If ETH doesn't make it, no crypto project will make it. And I will kill myself.

>>16907688

>70% premine
>staking just around the corner!

LOL

>>16907978

I have bad news guy, it’s bitcoin and shitcoins

I hope the price plummets I just got a FAT bonus sent directly to my retirement savings and I want to buy eth etfs with it

eth and chainlink are the two best plays for the next two years, but btc is the safest

OP, you are being incredibly greedy and possibly stupid. It could play out really well for you. Or you could lose it all. There are much safer investments that will give you the financial future of your dreams. You don't have to go full apocalypse prepper mode and convert everything to government bonds, but you should at least have some of your money in stocks. pic fucking related - look at how insignificant world wars and giant market crashes are to the overall trend (imagine being born, putting 10% of income into it, and dying, pick any two points on the graph and you still win)

>>16908002
Boomer please leave.

no you are not wrong eth=number 1

>>16907758
Through a custodian you dumb fuck doesn't count

>>16907943
They then are able to compromise a higher worth item secured on the secondhand network. (Think like $500M WBTC, hypothetically)

>>16907688
Does not scale yet. Nothing is guaranteed until scalability is solved

>>16908014
Haven't they claimed to have solved it with their current approach?
Its hilarious they think they've got it

>>16908022
>>16908014
They have the research done. Now it's just coding everything which is the hard part.

>>16907688
>Tell me why Ethereum will fail or will succeed
Perpetual motion machines don't exist, which is why Proof of Stake will not succeed.

>>16908029
"The research"

Who did they ask?
This is cutting edge stuff.
You invent, you don't research

>>16908035
Fucking thank you.

Vitalik knows this. He just got pedo cucked by Putin.

>>16908035
How is PoS perpetual motion?
It literally exists for other coins right now.

>>16908133
You are fucking retarded. It's like you think money is free.

It's not just free points for everyone dipshit

>>16908133
No energy being added to secure the network = perpetual motion. Proof of Work is a constant application of energy.

>>16907758
It's nonconsumable you fucking idiot. It'd be like if the gas in your car went right back to the oil company after you burned it. Eth doesn't disappear, it goes right back to miners.

This is why it will not go up and top buyers are fucking retarded.

>>16907688
Ethereum is the entire market
>most developers by at least 4x
>all of DeFi built on it
>Banks already settle bonds on it
>ZK rollups allow 1400+ tps without losing security
God only knows who's using it right now
The only projects that matter are Ethereum and things built using it.

ETH is unironically the next bitcoin

>>16908183
Zk's are cool, but roll ups are suss af

>>16908230
why? you guarantee security bro

>>16907688
2017 called. They want their ICOs back.

>>16907688
Eth fails because there is no benefit in having thousands of computers solve the exact same problem. It's hugely inneficient.

>>16908255
>>>/r/eddit

>>16908242
It all seems like a stretch. Or even if it does scale a bit it has a hard limit.
But I think i have all the answers. and you know how people like me end up

>>16908260
More magic can be done with what we do with the has function.

I'm just guessing, but, I'm sure. It's a good hunch.

>>16908263
>>>/kys/

>>16908157

Energy being added to secure the network doesn’t magically give Bitcoin value, idiot. People VALUE bitcoin because of its security guarantees provided by PoW (they’re not great guarantees btw. ETC reorg for instance)

“No energy being added” does not make Ethereum a perpetual motion machine or circular reasoning. If people VALUE eth, its security guarantees go up in proportion to how much people VALUE eth

>>16908340
Value based on social vaporconstructs and PoW are two different things


Bitcoin/PoW has value because it is an immutable ledger. That's it

>>16908340
>If people VALUE eth, its security guarantees go up in proportion to how much people VALUE eth
People valuing ETH won't magically secure its network from attacks the way that higher hashrate in PoW secures the network. Bitcoin being more secure and having a higher hashrate means more electricity is going into it, which means that the price must go up since it costs more to produce each coin.

>>16908369
It further has value as the backbone to decentralizing all tech.

But apparently no one but me has figured that out yet

>>16908157
holy fuck, you are actually legitimately retarded. PoS is not zero energy, do you realize what PoS even means? It means your machine is running a staked amount. I repeat, your machine IS RUNNING.

Fucking spooks.

All in ETH, see you in 2022

>>16908369
It's like we're fighting off an army of zombie retards.

>>16908264
It's provable mathematically dude
and you seem self-aware enough

>>16908381
If it isn't secure and cannot scale, it isn't going to decentralize shit. How much does it cost to run an ETH full node, how long does it take to sync?

>>16908384
You are unimaginably retarded.

You have to think about where that money comes from. That's the part that's 0 energy. That cycle. You numb fuck


But this conversation is obviously staged

>>16907688
ETh will switch from PoW to PoS.
Look out the fate of all coins that did that.

>>16908384
Proof of work literally burns energy. Proof of Stake uses energy, yes, but it requires STAKING to secure the network. Staking is NOT the same thing as burning energy to generate hashes.

>>16908384
Based pedantic anon
See you in 2022

>>16908393
Still
Hard limit.

And the configurations in protocol won't stand the test of time.
Maybe it's just a stop gap measure

>>16908384
Hold your ETH, and when it forks, don't sell your PoW eth
There are people coming to fix this shit

>>16908431
It's not a hard limit because you take 1400 and then multiply it by the scaling of the underlying protocol. Unless you don't believe sharding will work.. sharding is a pretty old problem that was solved decades ago so it's very legit
scaling solutions multiply together which most people don't really comprehend

>>16908470
Oh. The BFT sharing. Yeah. The configs in there are the problem

The fact that you have so many of them In The whole tech stack is a red flag.

I wish I understood any of this shit. I'm literally just blindly banking on people like you guys and that you actually know what you're talking about

>>16908525
80% ETH anon or cry later. good luck

>>16908423
The cost of Proof of Work is the electricity used to mine. The cost of Proof of Stake is tying up your capital to validate transactions. Don't act as if PoS has no costs associated with it, because having your capital tied up is absolutely a cost.

>>16908562
But if you look at the larger cycle. The value of that capital will inevitably degrade.

>>16908562
Staking your coins is a teeny-tiny cost compared to the massive amounts of electricity going into Bitcoin mining. This is an apples and oranges comparison, and yet you call me retarded.

>>16908562

Everyone here.

Fucking listen


You don't need to fucking hope that the eth foundation will improve Ethereum.

There's something nobody has yet.
We're rolling it out.

>>16907688
reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/eqhjmz/ethereum_is_happening/

>>16908506
no dude, you are being overly skeptical. the indicator is the developer interest. if what you said is true it would be a problem for those actually building things right now
the ease of development on ETH is at an all-time high, especially with Chainlink oracles
Money legos bro bro

>>16908597

Proof if work is also proof of stake. You are just staking something extrinsic to thr system that has value everywhere on planet earth whether bitcoin survives or not.

Proof of stake is not also proof of work. If you are staking premined shitcoins nobody will trust ur network.

Fucking shitcoiners, when will you guys get it????????

>>16908798
You're not wrong but you're assuming ETH is a shitcoin. Developers and various institutions value ETH's blockchain right now, and there is no reason to assume that this wont continue after PoS. So basically your critique rests on the fact that Ethereum isn't valuable as a system. What about the codebase my dude? I can tell you are pretty good at analyzing systems to think about these things

>>16908011
Through wrapped bitcoin. Non-custodial. Twat.

>>16908875

And people at JPMChase value their shitcoin token chain, so what?

>>16908798
>You are just staking something extrinsic to thr system that has value everywhere on planet earth whether bitcoin survives or not.
Yeah, the thing being staked is Work or Energy. So we call it Proof of Work, which is not Proof of Stake. Proof of Stake makes use of electricity of the computers doing the staking, but it is not at all like Proof of Work.
>Proof of stake is not also proof of work
Exactly my point. Zero external energy is going into securing the network with proof of stake, only existing tokens minted by past energy expenditures is securing the network, thus Proof of Stake is a perpetual motion machine, which violates thermodynamics and is therefore impossible. It also comes at the cost of endless inflation, which Bitcoin was invented to get away from.

>>16908956

Proof of work is also proof of stake retard. You are staking energy. Get a brain.

>>16907688

Ethereum had a type of real adoption and usecase in 2017: to buy into ICOs. Ethereum was required in order to purchase tokens issued on its chain, and during the ICO craze the need for ETH created a huge buy pressure. BTC is at 50% of its ATH and ETH is at 10%. There are two reasons why. One is that we are no longer in an ICO craze and won't be again; no one is scooping up ETH like in 2016/2017 to buy into ICOs. The other is that the tokenized projects that received ETH have long since sold off their ETH to fund themselves, which has cratered the price in a deeper way than even BTC saw. Vitalik imagined ETH would be a cheap way to power the network, not a speculative asset, whereas BTC is intended to be a store of value as its primary purpose.

As fundamentals actually begin to assert themselves in this space, BTC will find its foothold as a massively valuable digital gold and ETH will be more reasonably priced to reflect that it is just meant to provide access to the Ethereum virtual computer. As some anons on here have speculated, ETH will be a modestly priced coin used to power a "clearing area" for the
tokens on the Ethereum chain that find good use cases and themselves become more valuable than ETH. Chainlink could easily become more valuable than ETH because of its use case, and ETH would just be meant to cheaply process Chainlink's network.

>>16908956

I agree with everything else tho. Eth is perpetual energy and a shitcoin

Everybody knows at this point vitalik was shilling stupid ideas like this before eth only nobody paid attention because there wasn’t a token attached to it

>>16908954
yes but there is a wider group of people who are solving real problems who think the ethereum system is valuable as fuck. you can fork the codebase but you can't fork the security guarantees. the carryover from ETH PoW to ETH PoS should be fine

>>16908962
Proof of stake is when you stake tokens, not electricity to generate hashrate, Proof of work is when you use electricity to generate hashes. You may call it "staking" but literally everyone else in the industry including Satoshi calls it "mining".

>>16908562
Electricity is real
Capital is not

>>16909005

Andreas antonopolous agrees with me.. so there’s that.

>>16907688
Ethereum as a network is fatally flawed. There are only a handful of fully validating nodes. It can take months to sync one and verify the chain. Do you even know you actually own the ETH? Have you verified it?

>>16908998

You can say the same thing about ripple and venmo

>>16909006
Send me your fake capital then idiot.

>>16909036
it's not the same though, the actual security guarantees differ widely, and the actual set of people/institutions who are building on these systems differ widely as well

>>16909049
Electricity is natural
It is first layer
Capital is not natural
It is not first layer

>>16908956
>Zero external energy is going into securing the network with proof of stake, only existing tokens minted by past energy expenditures is securing the network, thus Proof of Stake is a perpetual motion machine, which violates thermodynamics and is therefore impossible. It also comes at the cost of endless inflation, which Bitcoin was invented to get away from.
Words cannot express how based this is.

>>16909021
Proof of Work doesn't result in endless token creation and infinite inflation, and it doesn't make use of existing tokens to secure the network. I get what you and Andreas mean about "staking electricity", but PoW is PoW and not at all like PoS. Just because you "stake" electricity doesn't make it PoW become equal to PoS, and so a differentiation in the name is neccisary.
Andreas also said Lightning is like PoS, which is a terrible analogy.

Proof of work uses mechanical work to secure the network.

>>16909085
Thank you, I've been doing this shit for nearly eight years.

Thread full of brainlets trying to sound smart.

>>16909093
>Thread full of brainlets trying to sound smart.

>>16909096
If you agree with the position that POS is a perpetual motion machine defying the laws of thermodynamics then I got bad news for you.

>>16909115
Yes

>>16909096
He's right you stupid fuck. This thread is gay as fuck because brainlets in here think they're smart when they're not. The pic you posted is literally you and only you.

>>16909130
No, he's literally not you fucking tard

>>16909115
What, you got a chess simulator that can store every single possible game of chess on a flash drive to compliment the perpetual motion machine you're trying to sell me?

>perpetual motion machine

>>16909145
So then new ETH fud is that POS is a perpetual motion machine?
lmao

>>16909202
I wouldn't call something factually and physically true FUD.
>Perpetual motion is motion of bodies that continues indefinitely. A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work indefinitely without an energy source.
If there's no electricity being burned to secure the network, then what's securing it? Using the network's existing tokens made past energy expenditures to secure the network and its tokens sounds like perpetual motion to me. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

>>16909239
You are such a fucking brainlet it hurts. And the worst part is you think you're smart.

ETH will win

>>16909272
Sure I'm a brainlet, help poor little me understand this one question: What's securing the network if no electricity is being burned to secure it?

>>16909239
While I find your view interesting and refreshing I have to disagree. It's not a continuation of the electricity itself, it's the continuation of the security derived from the electricity itself. So it's a kind of crystallization of the energy spent in the past. Energy can't ever be destroyed mate. Enough energy has been used to derive a cleaner blockchain.
One other way to think about it is charging a phone using a supernova. Plenty of energy has been generated for the need of charging a phone over it's life time.

>>16909281
First of all there is electricity being used to run the nodes. So you're wrong from the very start.

>>16909285
>Energy can't ever be destroyed mate
I never said anything about destroying energy.

>>16909272
You're the real brainlet. Stop attacking and start generating arguments. You're part of the reason /biz/ has devolved recently. Lazy

>>16909239
Just in case you’re a brainlet, I’ll spoon feed you because your stupidity hurts me physically
PoS doesn’t eliminate energy spenditure for the hashes, it eliminates the competition to be the first one to calculate with an ordering system based on the stake amounts and the last time the person validated the block. The person who gets chosen to validate the block still has to calculate the hash, I.e. solve the problem that the miners are solving. Except they don’t need to worry about other people doing it faster than them and competing for it. Afaik the difficulty is also lower by thousands-fold, so you can solve the problem with a toaster within the expected block time,around 10 sec.
You still provide the energy for the system to validate it. It’s not magic
The main FUD for pos is rich get richer, and thats true

>>16909239
You're operating under this weird premise that energy needs to be expended to secure the network. POW is just a consensus mechanism, and it's definitely the only good way to secure a network in its infancy. But not the only viable consensus mechanism.

Do you also believe that each Bitcoin has an "energy" value?
You must because you believe that POS violates the laws of thermodynamics.

Tell me what happens is everyone stops mining bitcoin?
Does the energy contained in the coins disappear?

>>16907978
>>16907988
IOTA

>>16909293
>First of all there is electricity being used to run the nodes.
But that electricity isn't being used to generate hashrate or secure the network. The nodes need electric, yes, but it is staking which allegedly secures the network of proof of stake.
What's being staked? Existing tokens. How were they made? Past energy expenditures.

.... so somehow past energy expenditures of turning electricity into hashrate resulted in tokens, and those tokens are going to secure the network forever while inflating endlessly, and somehow this isn't going to end up more centralized than Bitcoin?

>>16909066
jesus fuck PoS is just a way to delegate who the fuck will be validating that specific block. The actual validation will still require the magical electricity you seem so attached to

>>16909294
Okay so that's what I'm saying no? If there's enough energy already put into a blockchain, then using PoS to charge the new system would work, theoretically speaking. Maybe in 20000 years we would need a new PoS system to generate security again, but that's the point. Enough energy has been generated for our purposes. The whole idea of perpetual energy is the wrong way to think about it, it's more about "enough is there to last us a long while"
if someone foresees a security issue then we can always switch to PoW for a while to generate more security

>>16909354
>Maybe in 20000 years we would need a new PoS system to generate security again, but that's the point
I mean PoW system

>>16907688
not diversity your investments is a single point of failure.

>>16907688
CRYPTO is trash and will remain a niche nerd thing. If it becomes too popular governments will outlaw it. That's not to say they can actually prevent people from accessing crypto but the vast majority of plebs won't bother. No demand so byebye crypto

>>16909330
>>.... so somehow past energy expenditures of turning electricity into hashrate resulted in tokens.
Christ man the coins/tokens don't actually contain energy. Past energy that went into securing the network at that time does not live on the blockchain. What is this argument?

>>16909326
>Tell me what happens is everyone stops mining bitcoin?
Blocks stop getting found, everything halts on chain, the mempool grows forever. Game theory suggests that eventually there would be enough fees that someone would mine, that is if Bitcoin has any value.

>>16909323
>The person who gets chosen to validate the block still has to calculate the hash, I.e. solve the problem that the miners are solving. Except they don’t need to worry about other people doing it faster than them and competing for it.
Sounds incredibly centralized and vulnerable. This comes with tradeoffs of infinite inflation, which I've already established Bitcoin was invented to get away from.

>>16909388
>Christ man the coins/tokens don't actually contain energy.
I never said they contain energy. They are however made of information, which is created by electricity and time (entropy)

>>16909399
>I never said they contain energy. They are however made of information, which is created by electricity and time (entropy)
So then what's the issue with PoS? Based on what you said here, electricity over time happened. Are you saying not enough electricity has been spent yet? To prove this you would need to prove it mathematically.

>>16909425
>So then what's the issue with PoS?
Existing tokens are staked to secure the network. To keep people honest they need an incentive, and so new tokens are awarded to stakeholders, forever. It leads to even worse centralization than Bitcoin, and it may have security threats that PoW doesn't have, such as colluding stakeholders attempting to create their own fork.

Originally the tokens were minted from electricity, PoS suggests that the original electricity can be harnessed and reused endlessly -- perpetual motion -- which current understanding thermodynamics says is impossible.

>>16909399
>This comes with tradeoffs of infinite inflation
POS can actually operate under a fees and no issuance model better than POW can.

>I never said they contain energy. They are however made of information, which is created by electricity and time (entropy)
Yeah, energy was expended at the time to secure the network at that time. Right now more energy needs to be expended to secure the network because its perceived as more valuable than it was 5 years ago, for example.The energy used to secure the network follows the value of the network, not the other way around.
A more energy efficient consensus mechanism doesn't kill the value of the network. POS relies on securing the network with the value of the network itself.

>>16909458
>A more energy efficient consensus mechanism doesn't kill the value of the network. POS relies on securing the network with the value of the network itself.
If you are fine with those tradeoffs, that's fine. But I will not store my savings in something that inflates endlessly with new units being awarded to people who simply stake their tokens. At least the miners of Bitcoin need to buy mining hardware AND spend electricity to earn new coin and collect fees.

>>16909452
Holy shit please go to a crypto conference and tell them about your perpetual motion point of view and thoughts on electricity. They’ll laugh at you.

>>16909475
The problem with this is when issuance gets too low and miners are relying almost solely on fees. What happens if issuance halves, and fees aren't able to replace the lost revenue?
Either the hash power drops, and thus security is threatened, or the price of the coin has to go up to compensate. But you cant just rely on the price to keep going up to secure the network.

>>16909492
The only people laughing at anon ITT are brainlets.

>>16907712
Why will fags shit talk Eth then shill ERC 20 tokens on the Eth blockchain?

>>16909496
>What happens if issuance halves, and fees aren't able to replace the lost revenue?
Fees need to go up, or hashrate will go down and the difficulty will readjust. If adoption continues to rise, fees *will* go up to match the electrical costs of mining.

>>16909492
>crypto conference
No thanks. I am used to being laughed at, however. Many people laughed at me for mining and buying Bitcoin in 2012. Do you think that they'd laugh at the CTO of Blockstream if he said the same things I said here about PoS being like a perpetual motion machine?

>>16909497
Thank you.

>>16907688
Premined shitcoin enjoy poverty

>>16909496
>But you cant just rely on the price to keep going up to secure the network.
Stock to flow suggests we can, actually.

>>16909510
If hashrate falls too far security is compromised.
Bitcoin has a big problem in that it needs fees to become the driving force for securing the network, but nobody wants to pay large fees, and nobody wants a congested network. So they need to have high transaction volume, but the network is already running at capacity. Fees paid to miners on the bitcoin network accounted for < 1% of miner revenue in 2019. Fees paid to miners on Ethereum accounted for 4% of miner revenue. So at the moment it looks like ETH has a better chance of surviving on just fees.

>>16909387

How many times will you retards say this while bitcoin keeps mooning ?

Give me a price point where you admit you’re wrong please, and if you can’t do that KYS

>>16909547

Typical shitcoiner, you have to fud bitcoin in order to shill your inflationary scam token. KYS

>>16909520
If you're going to lean on stock to flow as a reason for the price to go up, do you also believe that Litecoin should hit 10k per coin?

>>16909563
Refute what i said, retard.

>>16909547
>If hashrate falls too far security is compromised.
It absolutely would be compromised if that happened.
The only way Bitcoin can survive is to keep growing in adoption and value, it would have to surpass gold's market cap within the next twenty years, and tons of new mining hardware and energy being harnessed to keep the hashrate growing, otherwise yeah it is in trouble.

>>16909566
10k per coin.... when? In 30 years from now? Maybe, I guess it depends on if Litecoin has any value whatsoever and what the dollar does. Litecoin lacks many of the important features that Bitcoin has and is far less scarce.

>>16909475
That sounds incredibly centralized

>>16909584

What is there to refute? You don’t understand bitcoin and therefore you shill a shitcoin scam token because you’re a bagholder. KYS

>>16909608

>>16909603
>That sounds incredibly centralized
It's the best thing we've got at the moment, and so far it appears to be working, but I agree mining needs to be better decentralized.
Mining hardware is should undergo commoditization in the coming years -- just look at Intel's patent from 2018, and there are new mining operations deploying in many different countries this year. The oil rig mining setups Layer1 has proposed should help, and energy producers deciding to mine or sell electricity in bulk to mining operations in various countries should help decentralize this aspect of Bitcoin as well. As Bitcoin becomes more adopted and valuable, mining should become more competitive and decentralized.

>>16908002
If your planning extremely long term investment you cant lose on trackers. I just want enough to be able to live off tracker profits.

>>16909285
just want to say you fought the good fight and i respect all your responses. you are a good communicator

>>16909594
Litecoin is a shitcoin, and Bitcoin is in a position where it needs to continue to increase exponentially in value. It needs fees to get much higher without putting much more strain on the network.
The only way I can see it working is if 99% of transactions are made offchain, and only large (>10k) transactions made on chain with huge $100+ fees.
This means that 99% of people using bitcoin on a daily basis are going to be relying on a permissioned second layer that has implicit trust assumptions with 3rd parties that effectively control their money. No better than banks.

>>16907688
no. im all in link tho cuz i think ill get more money in the end, also staking is a thing that is cool

>>16909626

Typical mETH head

>>16909679
>Litecoin is a shitcoin
It definitely is. It has no reason to exist: when it first came out it was supposed to be asic resistant, yet we see that value prop no longer exists.
>This means that 99% of people using bitcoin on a daily basis are going to be relying on a permissioned second layer that has implicit trust assumptions with 3rd parties
If they cared about not trusting third parties, they'd have Bitcoin before it gets that expensive.

Do you consider Lightning to be a permissioned second layer? It still has a ways to go but is fine for small amounts of money in my experience these past two years. Substantial and long term holdings need to be held on chain though.

So what's the conclusion boys? Am I safe to dump everything I own into 50%eth 50%link?

>>16909753

Just burn it all in the campfire

>>16909725
>If they cared about not trusting third parties, they'd have Bitcoin before it gets that expensive.
True, but high fees pushes everybody to use second layers like lightning network. Most people using the lightning network will be transacting through one of the few large routing nodes. Which could in theory, block my transactions if they wish, an extra layer of trust i dont want to deal with.

>>16908525
This. Except I’m all in LINK. Still cheering for ETH for obvious reasons. Might pick up a suicide stack of 100 ETH in the near future

>>16909452
>PoS suggests that the original electricity can be harnessed and reused endlessly -- perpetual motion -- which current understanding thermodynamics says is impossible.
No, dude, I'm saying enough has been generated and preserved so that the transition to PoS from PoW is possible. You can chip into the security derived from the energy without putting much of a dent in the overall supply of it

>>16909475
>I will not store my savings in something that inflates endlessly with new units being awarded to people who simply stake their tokens
Why is this a bad thing? Name an economic system in which people willingly put up a significant sum of capital in order to uphold the integrity of the system. Right now we have fractional reserve banking which is a meme, Bitcoin which requires investment in hardware that overall requires as much energy as a small country, and something like Ethereum which solves both issues of energy and lack of adequate collateral to ensure integrity.

>>16909496
This. This is exactly Bitcoin's flaw. The solution to Bitcoin's security budget is the price increasing continually over time. It's just not a good economic guarantee. I would say that because of this, miners will pull out. The fixed supply implies a limited amount of return for miners.

>>16909662
Thank you mate, i really appreciate you saying this since I've been trying to get better at specifically this

>>16907739
Name some dapps

I'm 100% in ETH too but you need to realize that this whole market driven by hype. Ethereum will probably win, but you need to get in and get out before the next parabolic cycle pops.

>>16909923
Oasis, Compound, Uniswap, PoolTogether, Fulcrum, Synthetix.

>>16909916
>Bitcoin which requires investment in hardware that overall requires as much energy as a small country
And that's bad because.... ?

>>16909966
I have no idea what those are or what they do.

>>16910003
DYOR
>>16909968
Unsustainable
>>16909953
Based

>>16910003
Well that's your problem.

>>16909968
true enough, if you don't care about the environment, but that isn't Bitcoin's only flaw. public blockchains can be done better while also being more of sure thing in terms of making safe return on capital. Ethereum PoS > Bitcoin PoW simply because you have provable guarantees in one system and not the other. If you're running a mining company, at one point it'll be more profitable to liquidate your equipment, buy ETH, and start validating the ethereum blockchain. It's just a matter of time. Why? Well in 50 years you know that you don't only have to rely on transaction fees for profits. With bitcoin, after issuance is complete, you only can rely on transaction fees. Meaning at one point, you either have a spike in the amount of fees you need to spend as a user, incentivizing you to use something cheaper (Ethereum + Dai), or you as a miner rely on the price of Bitcoin to be insanely high. It's just not a usable system long term man and we've seen many bright minds model it with mathematic and economic principles.

>>16910024
>Unsustainable
How this is that unsustainable?

>>16910033
>true enough, if you don't care about the environment, but that isn't Bitcoin's only flaw.
Like anon said: "Bitcoin is perhaps the greatest force to provide economic incentive to produce green energy production technology. The miners are in a race to obtain the cheapest possible electricity. There is no electricity cheaper than that supplied through renewable technology. They just don't get it."

>Well in 50 years you know that you don't only have to rely on transaction fees for profits.
Try 120 years time.

>Ethereum PoS > Bitcoin PoW simply because you have provable guarantees in one system and not the other.
Honestly, how is it more "provable" than PoW? It isn't, just like the other anon ITT said it is like a perpetual motion machine.

>you either have a spike in the amount of fees you need to spend as a user
Fees are voluntary. People are competing with each other with their fees to get into the next block. When bitcoin fees are high, people WANT to pay $100 worth of bitcoin in fees.

>we've seen many bright minds model it with mathematic and economic principles.
I would like to see who you are talking about.

>>16910172
https://hackernoon.com/how-much-should-bitcoin-miners-earn-in-the-future-undy3vih

https://twitter.com/jordanmmck/status/1042074859977592833?s=21

>>16910343
Thank you I'll take a look.

I'm currently reading https://www.bis.org/publ/work765.pdf which I found someone talking about in the /biz/ archives.

>>16910172
Proof of work won’t scale for several reasons but most importantly inflation secures the networks eventually goes to zero. Lots of talks about this on record

If we ignore this super retarded "thermodynamics and electricity arguments" ONLY real advantage pow>pos long term is fair distribution.

ETH is literally only project out there that had pow distribution while always having pos as end goal

FOR FUCKS SAKE it took me forever to able to post this but I started reading through "Beyond the doomsday economics of “proof-of-work” in cryptocurrencies" which was published by the FUCKING BANK FOR INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENTS https://www.bis.org/publ/work765.pdf

And I find it immensely intriguing that BIS comes to the conclusion that...
>good money is likely to remain a social rather than a purely technological construct
They expand on that by saying:
>The point is that their payment efficiency could be greatly improved by introducing an institutional underpinning to undo double-spending attacks should they occur. In this light, one key question for future research is whether and how technology-supported distributed exchange could complement the existing monetary and financial infrastructure.

Seriously, fuck banks. And fuck PoS. I will continue to invest in Bitcoin and my stance on PoW has not changed.

>>16910913
actually,, most ETH was handed out by vitalik to frens. I thought about 70 million ETH was premined.

Imagine not knowing the actual history of ETH.

Ethereum can win but not alone. It needs to be an ecosystem rather than just a blockchain. One such example is the Wanchain ecosystem. They are coming up with innovative projects like FinNexus and RiveX.

>>16907688
https://cryptopotato.com/vitalik-buterin-the-ethereum-foundation-sold-70000-eth-at-the-all-time-high/

>>16911221

Im here since dao fork fag.

Imagine being math illiterate and unable to calcualte % of mining rewards since ico and "premine" LMFAO