/biz/ - Business & Finance

Might be a good trade all things considered. Etc I don't think has much setting it apart from eth. Provided it sticks with proof of work, you'll have plenty of retards who scoff at proof of stake and pump etc bags.

>>50506988
name a successful proof of stake coin?

>>50507013

>>50507013
Define successful

>>50507013
Polygon (ticker: MATIC)

>>50507013
tezos

nope

>>50506956
what are the possibilities of an 51 % attack. is there still any development on chain? anyone who is in the ETC game can spread some knowledge?

>>50506956
>a lot of people could return to ETC
Why would they go to ETC? There's nothing being built and no DeFi liquidity as far as I know (If DeFi apps even exist there?). Most of Eth community are happy with the switch to PoS and don't see the need to migrate. Some miners might promote ETC to increase their tiny mining revenue by advertising higher security of the chain (it has been 51% attacked multiple times). Long term it's just a doomed chain, but short term could be a trading opportunity if there are enough speculators thinking like you. There's also a massively higher possibility of new attacks because renting hashrate will become cheaper.

all of these will pump when merge:
- ethereum classic
- raven coin
- flux
- firo

mining etc will not be gpu-profitable because all ethash asics will move to etc and will eat the profits of gpus.

>ETC 7d +68.9%
the pump is already priced in, you are too late

>>50506956
>>50507593
i have wondered this often as well. on one hand ETC has always been the unfailing standard-bearer for PoW; on the other hand, almost all high-value TXs are on ETH exclusively since the two diverged. I think it’s fairly likely that someone will fork ETH into “ETC 2.0” that stays on PoW from the Merge onward. How much traction it gets is anyone’s guess.

>>50507766
>I think it’s fairly likely that someone will fork ETH into “ETC 2.0” that stays on PoW from the Merge onward.
Miners would have to disable the difficulty bomb and do some dev work for a client. I haven't heard any talks of miners actually planning this fork and no talks of users wanting to use this chain. This new Eth fork would have no value, no exchanges where you could trade the new token. Imagine all the DeFi pools with forkETH claimable with valueless forked stablecoins. It'd just be a miners' coin and die off like any fork with no huge support.

>>50508166
>>I think it’s fairly likely that someone will fork ETH into “ETC 2.0” that stays on PoW from the Merge onward.
To add: yes, technically there will be forks. There will be many forks because all it takes to create a fork is one miner. But there won't be a fork with massive support like ETC.

>>50507593
>>50508166
>>50508244
cant wait to see your faggot faces when eth doesnt switch, gonna be laughing for a year straight

>>50508289
Why wouldn't it?

will it be possible to do some flash loan fuckery on the pos eth or does it not work like that?

>>50507115
kek

>>50508304
>he doesnt know
haahahaha im already laughing

>>50508311
Depends on what kind of flash loan fuckery you want to do, but yes, flash loans will still exist.
>>50508352
>he doesnt know
Neither do you or you would've told me. How dumb are you. Give me your argument.

>>50508464
all im saying is PoW is eternal and you will cope hard

>>50507013
Avalanche

name a successful proof of stake coin? (2)
yeah i don't know about ETH 2.0 either and have been mostly just staking NFT assets to get royalties from different marketplaces
at least NFT games don't rely entirely on ETH now and have their own ingame tokens like time raiders having $XPND

>>50508489
Yes PoW is eternal and I like PoW, but it won't be on the ETH chain. You never gave your argument why the merge wouldn't happen. All I need to cope with is your room temp IQ.

>>50507115
>>50508506
oof fuck POS bros...

>>50508680
lmao stupid midwit, keep listening to devs just like you listen to politicians

Miners will spread out to Ergo and Flux. Everything else is trash.

>>50507013
PoS is a shit concept but it is going to attract dumb retards anyways.

>>50508858
>PoS is a shit concept
Why?

>>50507115
>tezos
jesus bro

Also why do Eth haters turn all Eth relating threads to PoS hating ones? This is a fucking ETC thread and it still manages to trigger you.

>>50508944
read the op, midwit

>>50506956
>>50506956
>>50506956

The absolute state of /biz/, you're all fucking retards if you don't understand how ETC has 0 (zero) value.

All dApps that run on Ethereum are not magically also on ETC. None of the leading projects will ever move over to ETC. There is no ecosystem present on ETC.

I can't even be bothered explaining this further.

Sure it could pump though, but it will just be a traders doing trader things move. You'll get rekt trying to play that trade as a small shrimp.

>>50508896
It is going to lead to more centralization and that goes against the whole point of defi.

>>50508963
Yes it's about ETC? Only mention of PoS is the timing for a possible trade/increase in usage of ETC. If you think the OP is about PoS and wants to discuss PoS you are actually retarded. If you are purposefully derailing, congrats. No one gives a shit about ETC anyway. picrel: you

>>50509028
I'd argue PoW goes more towards centralization than PoS because of economies of scale in mining. Why does PoS lead to more centralization?

>>50507755
>the pump is already priced in, you are too late
maybe, the etc pump is potentially biblical, but its going to be a pump and dump for sure, if in time eth fails and the projects move back to etc...

>>50508304
>Why wouldn't it?
do you know the history?
Its been delayed literally for years.
grant you, this time there is an actual published date that is not less than 2 months away, so its more "real" than ever prior, but the track record has been terrible.

>>50509116
PoW does not lead to centralization. You have to make sure the work is asic resistant.
PoS always leads to centralization by design since the protocol favors people with larger stakes.

>>50509116
>economies of scale in mining
>vs economies of scale in financing
>>50509073
>a thread about ETC turned into a debate on PoS
wow who would've guessed it. Pic related, its you

ETH will stay PoW. ETH will dump. Faggots like this >>50509116 will cope and seethe

>>50509161
I know its history and been "waiting" for it since the FFG vs. CBC days (5 years?). My hopes wouldn't be this up if there weren't actual working code that's been tested on testnets to be ready for a mainnet launch. Past months have been just edge case testing and optimization. It's ready, it just needs testing and there's opinions on how much is enough. IMO it could've launched already. https://github.com/ethereum/pm/blob/master/Merge/mainnet-readiness.md
>actual published date
It's just a proposed roadmap, not a hard date. But yea it's actually around the corner this time.
>>50509277
>asic resistant
Ethash was supposed to be ASIC resistant but there's still ASICs for that. The hobbyist's access to GPUs might be easier, but the running costs of mining like electricity still favor the big miners.
>PoS always leads to centralization by design since the protocol favors people with larger stakes.
But it doesn't. Big stakers get the exact same ROI as small ones. Of course they get more in total, but not in percentages. In mining big miners get more in percentages because they get better deals on bulk orders on miners, get cheaper electricity with industrial contracts and they have the ability to move to anywhere in the world where electricity is cheapest/free. This is the economies of scale that make big miners more profitable than small miners and leads to miner centralization.
>>50509389
>vs economies of scale in financing
We are not comparing PoW to financing, but to PoS. There's no economies of scale in PoS because every validator gets the same ROI.

>>50509429
The ones seething are the Eth haters. I mean just look at yourself or /biz/ in general. The cope will come when the merge happens, just like with EIP-1559.

>>50506956
i almost wanted to buy this about 3 weeks ago. but i couldn't gauge whether or not the miners would go back to this, or do something else? i wasn't sure what to do. So I'm just staying in USD stables.

>>50509715
miners get the same ROI too whether they invest $1k or $10k, its only the mega huge farm that get any sort of deal or discount on power and its mostly ASIC ones (what you're thinking about) not GPU. Gpus dont consume nearly as much as asics and they have higher roi too.
The huge farms require installing, have maintenance and operating costs, depreciating hardware and rising power costs. Overall a greater headache and risk than PoS, meaning even if you were right and switch does happen, the returns will probably be lower than advertised and most likely a loss for everyone as the shitcoin dumps to oblivion due to securities concern (nobody's gonna risk billions on a chain not secured by pow)

>>50509770
>when the merge happens
LMAO, buying more gpus because of this post. Cant wait to taste your tears EOY

>>50509770
>eth haters
im literally helping secure your beloved network from getting rekt before your precious 'merge'. You can either keep hating miners or join us, because you will hate us even more when merge doesnt happen

>>50509867
>miners get the same ROI too whether they invest $1k or $10k
I'm talking about seven and eight figure mining companies, not a difference of a used corolla.
> its only the mega huge farm that get any sort of deal or discount on power
Yes, and the hashrate tends to centralize to these mega huge farms.
>its mostly ASIC ones (what you're thinking about) not GPU.
There's industrial scale GPU mining too. No one really knows how many ethash ASICs exist but a big part of Eth mining is done on GPUs.
>GPUs don't consume nearly as much
But they consume as much per unit for big and small miners.
>The huge farms require installing, have maintenance and operating costs, depreciating hardware and rising power costs.
Hobbyist miners have these costs too. Installing and maintenance are a negligible part of the costs. The absolute biggest costs are hardware and electricity, which are affected by economies of scale.
>the returns will probably be lower than advertised
The returns are already live because the beacon chain is running. People have been validating on ETH PoS since Dec 2020 when it launched. The returns will have a slight bump because the tx fees miners currently get will go to validators.
>>50509891
Go ahead. Their prices already seem to have come down a bit. Wonder what will happen to the prices once most of the world's GPUs hit the market on Sept.
>a loss for everyone as the shitcoin dumps to oblivion due to securities concern (nobody's gonna risk billions on a chain not secured by pow)
This is speculation and cope. You just want to believe ETH dumping because you have a negative bias against it for some reason.

>>50506956
If you don't own 1:1 ETH/ETC you don't actually hold any Ethereum

>>50509957
I don't hate miners, you do valuable work for the network and are fairly compensated for it. It's just obvious that you are against Eth because of your first post >>50508289 I won't start mining now because I don't want to buy the hardware at the worst possible time leaving no time to break even or make profit.

>>50510357
>mining companies that spent millions of dollars and are raking in sweet profit are the ones in capacity of attacking the PoW network
>they will attack the network because ???

>banks that print infinite money are in capacity of attacking the PoS chain
>they will attack the network because ???

who do you really think is more able to centralize the network, banks or miners? your brain. use it

>>50510452
>against eth
what is this some disney/marvel movie to you? people arent for or against anything in crypto, they will do whatever gives them more money welcome to markets. I would say miners are more believers of the project than pos faggots just looking to 'stake' their capital without willing to get their hands dirty (mining) for those sweet returns

>>50510647
Can't find the word that filters don't like

>>50508896
Because without intervention from the state there's nothing stopping someone with a large percentage of the stake (like an exchange) from taking out a massive short and using 'their' coins to disrupt the network to tank the price

>>50511421
They will just get slashed if they try to attack, losing their stake. If they manage to get to the critical point of 51% of stake (nearly impossible), there is an option to UASF their stake away. The incentives are very much against the attacker and the network will survive even the worst scenarios.

>>50507013
>of the top 20 coins, only 3 are PoW
lmao

>>50511421
>to do said attack, they have to buy up 51% of the coins
>massive massive cost for this
>they buy up 51%, and pump the price 20x doing so
>they attempt an attack
>get soft fork out
>lose 100% of their stake
>somehow expected to make more shorting a multi trillion dollar asset to make up for their trillion dollar stake going to literal zero
assuming the "infinite money" approach, with PoS an infinite money attack would pump the price massively, then be killed by a soft fork. Then a second attack, pumping the price 10x again, and then getting soft fork out and losing 100% another time. and repeat
compare that with an infinite money PoW attack, where the mining equipment gets bought at the same steady price wherever, and makes zero change to the price. Then they do their 51% attack, DDOSing the network with empty blocks for weeks. This attack can't be stopped without changing the algo, to hard fork out the attackers, but given GPU mining that's unlikely to have happen

>>50511869
>muh badly thought out hypothetical totally proves pow can't work guys better switch to the rich decide and get richer PoS model
As a wise man once said. If you don't believe it or don't get it, I don't have the time to explain it to you. Sorry.

>>50512025
>entire argument against is "muh banks attacking"
>prove how it fails
>somehow it goes over your head
can't dumb it down any farther, and not my problem the lowest low is still over your head

>>50512025
Try to argue a point from picrel (https://vitalik.ca/general/2020/11/06/pos2020.html))
I bet you can't.

>>50511599
Checked but
>>50511869
They don't have to buy up all of it. They just need a good reason to have a bunch of retards send them coins until they have a substantial amount. Promising a ridiculous apy would do the trick.
See: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=897488.msg10182752#msg10182752

>>50512220
>>50512317
>>50512220
>proof
That is what you call it? Anyway, your point about slashing is good. I am not so sure PoS is as safe as Vitalik and you insist it is. To insist it is more secure than PoW is pure hubris in the face of bitcoin's continued existence.

>>50512317
>a persistent attack may quite easily render a chain permanently useless
Sure, quite easy. Amazing how it has not been done, amirite? Aside from this it is hard to argue this, since in this text at least Vitalik provides no proof or arguments beyond stating it is easy and costs 'may' become low. I assume there is more to his point somewhere.

>minority user-activated soft fork
Reads like Vitalik found a new method for more of his dao 'we did it for the good of everyone' shenanigans. Meh, I simply don't trust the foundation, the devs, or Vitalik to act in good faith, so it is a case of qui custodiet.

Aside from the trust angle. I am going with his hypothetical and suppose someone through aggregation of staking pools or something gets 51% or more. Now after the attack all these funds are destroyed using uasf. Are we supposed to rejoice? Are the majority of all eth stakers whose funds get raped supposed to be happy with this outcome?


I simply don't believe all possible vulnerabilities for PoS have been found. I strongly believe no-one knows if they have all been found.

>>50512755
>To insist it is more secure than PoW is pure hubris in the face of bitcoin's continued existence.
possibly. both 51% attacks of large large PoW and PoS chains exist as large hypotheticals at present
I think PoW and PoS both serve their own valuable use cases, with PoW working well in store-of-value coins, such as bitcoin, while majority of smart contract chains have already decided to go with PoS, likely for advantages of such things as sharding (since splitting up PoW across 64 different sub-chains at once might not work as easily), or things like avax's subnets needing fewer numbers of staking nodes to be secured by

>>50506956
Do you know about the new 'dragon crypro gameing' in the avax ecosystem? ido registration opened today

>>50513144
>both 51% attacks of large large PoW and PoS chains exist as large hypotheticals at present
Fair enough, but at least PoW has been battle-tested for more than a decade.

>majority of smart contract chains have already decided to go with PoS
Yes, I'd argue it mainly is for guaranteed centralization. Security through centralization if you will, at the small price of trusting the controlling party.