/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>56730853
>What we need is a chain with NO incentive.
Enjoy your sybill attacks.

Do you, OP seem to think we don't know it's all a scam?
That's pretty common information. We are all aware. I'm buying it anyway to scam everyone after I buy.

>>56730853
>The money goes to the nodes/miners.
in Avalanche Proof of Stake the fees are burned.

>>56731055
Sure, if you just remove fees from the current structure. But I'm thinking of changing the underlying consensus mechanism as a whole.
Why can't the incentive to provide good data just be "this doesn't work if we don't"?

>>56731123
Staking still provides a yield (from where?), that encourages centralization all the same.

>>56731133
Sounds like you are describing Avalanche.
>changing the underlying consensus mechanism as a whole
Avalanche has a leaderless consensus protocol where any validator can propose a block at any time.
no leader is elected like in classical or nakamoto consensus. there is also no MEV.
>Why can't the incentive to provide good data just be "this doesn't work if we don't"?
In Avalanche you get paid if you provide good uptime with your Validator. if you dont have the proper uptime you dont get paid.
also AVAX is hardcapped and since fees are burned its basically deflationary.

fees = security

>>56731153
>Staking still provides a yield (from where?)
50% of the total 720 million AVAX are for Validator rewards.
>that encourages centralization all the same.
not really, for Subnets you always need more Validators so it will spread out eventually also Avalanche is the most decentralized blockchain to date and has the highest Nakamoto Coefficient already.

OP should look into XRP or xlm unironically

proof of work is the only pure securing function that scales infinitely.
there is literally nothing that can compete against it without relying directly on humans to step in constantly with tweaks and punishments that can't be delivered in artificial systems.

>>56731163
>since fees are burned its basically deflationary.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220127152152/https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/avalanche
The circulating supply is up 50% since here. Inflation is high even if you don't include boner blocks.

>>56730853
"no incentive" are you retarded?
Something like i2p or ipfs has no incentive and voila, stuff doesnt stay up much.
saito is doing research in better chain pruning and aligning incentives.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhKe4NSURrc
I have a few questions about it; it's intriguing research.

>>56731055
XRP has never even hard forked, cope.

>>56730853
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo8ZScrXFZE

>>56732097
Most AVAX is staked or delegated to Validators and there will never be more than 720 million AVAX and they keep getting burned everytime someone uses it.
so yes its deflationary.

>>56730853
I think Nano tried this approach and failed. Minima is another one with a novel approach, but only time will tell

>AVAX shills ignoring the double spend

>>56732920
The amount of AVAX has increased constantly since it's inception. There is a limit of 720 million assuming no more boner blocks but why would that matter when the supply is increasing over 25% per year? Nobody calls BTC non inflationary because it has a maximum limit of 21 million.

>>56733060
>"but but the double mint bug from 3 years ago!"
nobody cares and it didnt stop JPM or Citi, Fidelity etc. from using Avalanche.

>>56733104
>There is a limit of 720 million
yes its hardcapped and the fees are burned, this makes it deflationary.
>supply is increasing over 25% per year
Most AVAX is staked or delegated to Validators, AVAX is needed and in high demand.
and what happens when Demand is higher than whats available? can you figure it out?

>>56730853
>What we need is a chain with NO incentive. The best incentive is no incentive. Does such a chain exist?

No.

If it can be exploited, there will be some asshole who exploit the system to reap the rewards at the detriment of others. You must have some kind of incentive for people to do the right thing and have guard rails to prevent assholes from doing the wrong thing.

>>56731224
>have ceo
>decentralized
pick one

>>56733174
pic related is about banks having their own blockchains where there are no gas fees. Their incentive? Maintaining their reputations.

This doesn't work in an open and permissionless world where anyone can join anonymously.

>>56733184
Avalanche is permissionless

>>56733203
>is about banks having their own blockchains
Avalanche Subnets actually

>>56730853
are you 14 years old or something?
only cringy teenagers think in these kind of abstract bullshit terms without understanding anything of actual value about what they're talking about

>>56733239
At least he's thinking.

>>56733174
>>56733203
Kek I know you’re a linknigger because you posted some review article that you think has something to do with link while confidently claiming XRP doesn’t exist. BoA is literally connected to the ledger you claim doesn’t exist. They actually have a patent.

>>56731133
>Why can't the incentive to provide good data just be "this doesn't work if we don't"?
So, BitTorrent?

>>56730853
you're an astronomical brainlet
what you're talking about is ripple (xrp), and it sucks, doesn't achieve censorship resistance, either you have centralized entities (xrp) either you don't (bitcoin) in which case you succeed because your money isn't controlled

you need to spend energy as long as there are dishonest entites, because there will be cheating or control or attacks attempts all the time otherwise
we'll be stuck with it for many millenias

>>56734848
Bitfuck censored rock jpgs to unclog its piece of shit network when ordinals launched kek

>>56736114
lost brain cells reading that shit

>>56730853
should i invest into truthsocial?

>>56736391
So you’re in a vegetable state?

>>56734321
Haha never selling

>>56738120
didn’t ask you to sell.
Where’s the LINK patent?

>>56734848
Bitcoin is centralized via mining pools and has several forks. Not ide, also slow and doesn't scale.
XRP isn't centralized, not sure why you're saying it is. Also it's censorship resistant because BZP is superior to POW/POS

>>56738478
bitcoin isn't centralized, collusion is illogical and if it happens it will fork, but it won't because the incentive works. failed forks are irrelevant. it's not slow (other chains need more time to make the settlement final) and scale with layer 2, it works.
xrp relies on centralized chosen validators to maintain the security of the network. it's a joke. might as well create a new network of central banks without a blockchain for efficiency, but it will defeat the purpose.

>>56734506
While the ledger could be shared decentrally like peers and seeds and verified with a hash you're talking about a dynamic state that is always changing I'd transactions and amounts so you probably need a consensus mechanism integrated.