/biz/ - Business & Finance

Kadena anon here.

Some problems with ALPH
>Block time of currently 64 seconds, resulting in having to wait over one (1.2 or 1.5) hour to ensure that your tx is secure
>GPU minable and low hash rate, heightening the risk of a 51% attack, but Alephium is designed to be ASIC friendly
>ALPH claims it can increase the shard count via network upgrade, it's not clear what exactly this would entail, now consider that kadena not only has a solution (up to over 1M shards) but even demonstrated it by scaling from 10 to 20 shards.
>Running a full node on Alephium might require handling data from all shards. This is because each node needs to maintain connections with other shards for consistency, as indicated by the need to keep track of 2G - 1 other shards.
>Networking is the main bottleneck for increasing the number of shards. Suggesting that 32 is the partial limit of shards.

Some problems with KAS
>Has an even smaller max limit for transactions per second
>Not sharded, node size bloat issues
>No smart contracts making it more useless than LTC

Suck my dick OP

>>57201674
What happened to Thanos?

>>57201609
>Do you think either of them actually solves the trilemma
lol, lmao even

>>57202087
Kaspa does
Retard

>>57202463
Kaspa is as useless as litecoin.

>>57201609
Was there ever really a blockchain trilemma? Seem suss it was coined by a guy whose chain failed to scale and everyone one just bought it.

>>57203248
lol I swear only here can you find posts like this, how little understanding of how a Blockchain must one have to write something like this.
A blockchain is a sequential structure of say 1MB blocks, how does scaling that work, make it faster, if there is one block every 10 minutes make it 15 seconds, but now you have the problem of many nodes not being able to download 1 MB in 30 seconds. What now, make blocks smaller, great, now we're essentially back at the TPS of what we started at, another idea is to make the blocks bigger, many projects tried this, you can probably tell why this similarly to the other idea comes with many problems.
What else is there to do, use layer twos, that one way to scale, but if you don't change the base layer you still are limited to the 1MB blocks, so if you settle a bunch of L2s in it, the blocks will be full anyway.
What else, don't use a blockchain, this is generally a terrible idea, you can also see this in many projects, you can also try not using a sequential Blockchain and something like a DAG instead, this allows for slightly more throughput but you'll still end up with a huge state (stored transactions)
Now, the final method is shading, it's what normal Databases use to horizontally scale out. So why can't Blockchains also use that method, well because the whole point is to be decentralized and secure and doing that is extremely hard if you want your split your chain into many parallel chains, retaining security across all without needing a main chain is extremely difficult, and now you have thing like cosmos and polkadot which some people claim is sharded but in reality it's just side chains or rather a Hub and spoke setup.

Alph as stated in the first and best post of this thread has a limit of 32 shards which doesn't make very scalable.
Kadena on the other hand managed to scaled the issue of having to keep references of all chains down using graph theory.

It's the only network I know that solved the trilemma.

bump

>>57201609
Why would people buy btc and Eth when solana fixed the blockchain trilemma. Solana is more decentralized, just as secure, and way way way more scalable.

In the real world, you can use stocks, oil, gold, and many other things as a “hedge against inflation”, so I can theoretically use solana as a hedge against inflation just like bitcoin, except solana can be used (unlike Eth) which increases the stability of the price.

So why do people buy these boomer coins? I just don’t get it.

>>57204527
>solana

>>57204527
>proof of stake
fucking clown owning nothing

>>57202471
Litecoin is awesome. Will but KAS now.

>>57203488
Kadena or Kaspa, anon?

>>57206620
What do you think.

>>57201674
>Has an even smaller max limit for transactions per second
Smaller than what? It's currently around max 400 per block, one block per second, and it's about to be 10x that.
>Not sharded, node size bloat issues
Sharding as a solution comes with significant drawbacks. Kaspa doesn't have issues with node size bloat because it uses pruning to keep the node size small. Proof-of-publication enables the ability to prune the node size while always being able to cryptographically verify a transaction was in the blockchain. Any network that wants to "solve" the trilemma needs to employ something like this. Storing every individual transaction for the rest of time is never going to be scalable no matter what.

>>57207832
As soon as you introduce something more important to this chain, say contracts, transactions will be more complex and will reduce scaling.
Regarding bloat, tell me anon, who exactly will run the archival node?

>>57207935
Archival nodes are run by volunteers who care enough to keep a permanent history of the entire Kaspa network going. They're nice to have, but they're not necessary. The network can function without archival nodes.
Kaspa is fast, scalable digital money. 400+ transactions per second and instant confirmation times. No other proof-of-work crypto has that.

>>57208001
Right but I'm asking who is capable enough to run one, no matter, you don't consider it an issue.
Remind me, they are trying to add smart contracts is that not right?
I'm sorry but until then kaspa is a total joke, there is no innovation needed in the payment coin space, any decent L1 can accommodate this already. I'm not going to look up the ranking but last I checked it was above serious projects which means I am right in thinking it's overvalued, you would not be talking about a payment coin if it had a mkt cap of $0

>>57208026
>Right but I'm asking who is capable enough to run one, no matter, you don't consider it an issue.
A full archival node grows by about 0.5 TB a year, so you would need a SSD that's 5-10 TB in size. That costs about $250.
>I'm sorry but until then kaspa is a total joke, there is no innovation needed in the payment coin space
Every other proof-of-work payment coin suffers from relatively high fees and slow confirmation times. The Kaspa network is faster and cheaper than anything else on the market, by far. There's been a need for it since Bitcoin was invented, since Bitcoin isn't actually scalable, and can't be used as a payment coin on the L1. Forks of Bitcoin where a few variables are tweaked around do not solve Bitcoin's scalability issues. It required new technology and some fundamental redesigns

>>57208069
What do you like about Proof of Work?
Also, were you in crypto before 2019, I'm asking the former because I am interested in your reply, the latter because I am sure you are new since I can't imagine anyone who witnessed the payment coin fad to say things like that unironically.

>>57203488
You haven't solved shit until your shitcoin is working at Bitcoin's scale without hacks or fuckups.

>>57208095
I like proof-of-work because it's the most secure and decentralized consensus mechanism. Proof-of-stake has a tendency to become centralized and lead to a large concentration of tokens to large holders. Proof-of-work can't be manipulated since it's constrained by the laws of physics and the only way to attack a proof-of-work network is to use real hardware and energy instead of abstract tokens. Hence any crypto which uses proof-of-stake to achieve instant confirmations doesn't actually solve the trilemma because it comes at the cost of security and decentralization.
In addition, proof-of-work coins can be fair launched in the same way that Bitcoin was. This happens to be the case for Kaspa, which was open to be mined by the public since day one. Most coins nowadays begin with a presale and/or a preallocation for insiders.
I was around in crypto back then, and I know about proof-of-stake garbage like Nano. Kaspa is lightyears ahead of that trash.

>>57208110
One hell of an investor you are. lol

Don't fade alephium, you'll miss out

alephium is bascially free money atm, its not even on a big exchange yet

>>57201609
KAS cant even get on uniswap is this even a serious thread? Holy shit what a retard

>>57201609
>Trilemma
As somebody already has pointed out, it‘s usually scammers who use that term to shill their craptoken. The first time term ‚Trilemma‘ felt into my eye was when a certain user by the name ‚twu‘ posted about the shitcoin ,Snowblossom‘ which is a project by ,Fireduck‘ who allegedly was also responsible for the Satoshi Dice spam back then. Either way, they all should fuck off.

>>57208147
What projects do you invest in? You don't believe in Kaspa for long-term hold? I'm curious about your answers.

>>57203488
Nothing solves the trilemma, anon. Everything that looks like it has, has only solved
>Speed
At the expense of security or decentralisation. Sometimes it looks secure or decentralised, but if it's
>Speed
Then it isn't

>All-in

>all in kaspa

>>57201609
>solves the trilemma
You can't solve a trilemma. That's why you call it a trilemma.

>>57208069
>Every other proof-of-work payment coin suffers from relatively high fees and slow confirmation times
Blockspeed doesn't depend on the consensus mechanism. Are you brown or what?

Kaspie all in!

>>57207935
>arguments btfo
>quickly shift the goalposts
if you wonder why you are poor and your coin gets outperformed, it's because you refuse to understand (likely due some attachments and mental illness)

>>57201609
You cannot "solve" a trilemma. You can only prove or disprove a trilemma.

The trilemma states that you can only have 2 of the following 3:
- High TPS (scalability)
- Every node confirms every transaction (security)
- Low node requirements such that everyone can run a node (decentralization)

You can have scalability+security
Just run a couple of high performance servers with ideal network connection and unlimited storage capacity.
Normal people however will depend on others for their transactions

You can have scalability+low node requirements
That's what sharding does.
However, since ever node cannot confirm every transaction much more trust is required. Large mining pools can game the system by crafting blocks that make it more likely for them to win the next block as well. Which inevitably leads to centralization

You can have security+decentralization
That's basically what bitcoin does except that pools still make the blocks instead of miners. Technically that's possible. Bitcoin development is just slow.
That's what crypto is meant to be. Scalability is only required for low-value transactions and can be achieved through more centralized L2s.

>>57210487
>quickly shift the goalposts
All of my points still stand as they are, he just provided context, 1. no contacts, 2. not sharded, 3. upper limit on scaling - just because it's 10x more with simple transactions doesn't mean it has no limit. Illiterate anon, seek help.
>>57208135
The fact you know about raiblocks yet think kaspa is a good idea is strange. With all due respect you should grow up and out of the idea that the world needs a payment coin that isn't monero. Scalable L1s with contracts will replace the job of a payment coin with a public ledger, perhaps a zk-private L2 on top of whatever base layer of the future will replace xmr, but that's speculation.
The world doesn't even need another smart contract DAG based L1 so even if kasapa was useful, it would still be useless.

>>57208758
Snowblossom doesn't scale, It's a naive implementation of sharding, hence why it was so difficult to implement for every project that doesn't solve how to scale up referencing the headers of each block on each shard.
>>57209312
Speed is not part of the trilemma.
>>57210618
>Large mining pools can game the system by crafting blocks that make it more likely for them to win the next block as well
A selfish mining attack?
Here is a paper on how it's not a real issue on the only truly sharded PoW chain currently in operation https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362952389_An_Analytical_Study_of_Selfish_Mining_Attacks_on_Chainweb_Blockchain

>>57209160
I don't, obviously. Other L1s I hold are TIA and MINA

>>57208404
this. i was shilling it over a month ago

Radiant solves the trilema

>>57211313
>The fact you know about raiblocks yet think kaspa is a good idea is strange
There's nothing strange about it; they're not the same and I already explained why. There is huge value in the technology that kaspa has brought to the table and you're just salty because you missed out and cannot accept that blockDAG is a more significant development in the crypto space than Kadena, it solves all of Bitcoin's scalability issues without sacrificing decentralization or security. Something which Nano did not accomplish.

>>57210391
fantom has solved this though

>>57211355
Scaling in traditional databases is about being able to throw resources at a problem, if you ever had to scale out any service you'd know. You can't say solana solved scaling because it can do 20x the tps that ethereum can, because at some point you will run into the hard limit.
The only networks that solve scaling are ones where you can scale out, sharded networks.
How can I be salty if I know that I don't care about investing into a payment coin, a point I made very clear, I'm not salty about missing out of memecoins for the same reason.

>>57211388
Isn't fantom dead by now? Last I checked they had 40 nodes and a shitty dag network.
>>57211338
Isn't this a fork off bitcoin?

Snowblossom, DYOR

>>57211411
Not scalable, you need to keep the header references on each shard iirc, or at least enough for it to be useless if you ever try to scale it out, I'm sure whatever shitty docs they have mentions it.

>>57211402
>Isn't fantom dead by now?
you might think so after the whole multichain fiasco but apparently they're replacing the EVM with a new one that's considerably fater and, if the rumors are to be believed, getting a banking license

>>57211436
zzzzzzzzz

>>57211424
The Snowblossom client can still track multiple shards at once if that's what you're saying. But it's the deadest fucking ghostchain in all of crypto so it'll never get beyond shard 0. I love fireduck but he's a redditor with no concept of marketability.

>>57211402
You can argue it is forked from BCH, but it's not really. Different hash algorithm, 21 billion supply, 2-year halvening cycle.

>>57211402
>The only networks that solve scaling are ones where you can scale out, sharded networks.
DAGKNIGHT will allow Kaspa to scale with network latency times. Sharding has been known as a potential solution since day one, but splitting the network into shards comes with disadvantages. Kaspa's developers explicitly rejected sharding in favor of a monolithic network. Thanks to its pruning mechanism, this can work without leading to bloated nodes.
Once DAGKNIGHT is implemented, the hard-coded block times will be eliminated and their creation will only be limited by available bandwidth on the Kaspa network.
Regardless, it doesn't need infinitely high TPS. The TPS is already on par with that of Visa and it's getting better. Transactions are confirmed and finalized instantly. People didn't even think that was possible on proof-of-work.
Kaspa eventually plans on implementing smart contracts, using rollups to preserve scalability. They're not working on it yet and it's unlikely to be released this year. BlockDAG by itself is still a major leap forward technologically

>>57211313
>Here is a paper on how it's not a real issue on the only truly sharded PoW chain currently in operation
Ok let me cite your paper:
"The result reflects that the attack is effective."

>>57211521
>>57211484
zzzzzzzzzzz
>>57211526
>scale with network latency times
Because speed of light is no a thing, right. Please read >>57203488
Sharding will never happen by the way, it's too hard for most devs to do, which is why ethereum literally gave up on the idea. Obviously they will need to scale via L2 with SC capabilities I assume.
Your whole mkt cap is based on nothing but pie in the sky goals, while other projects like alph and kda already have working technology that is able to scale using methods that are impossible for kas. Seems very straightforward to me.
>>57211545
So, due to the probabilistic nature of Nakamoto consensus, 51% attacks usually can be done with less hash power than 51% by exploiting the inherent variance in the mining process (muh selfish mining), by trading waiting time for hash power. Essentially, one just does many attempts until one is lucky. This strategy becomes more difficult as more blocks are involved in the attack. For single chains, there's one block per additional confirmation depth count. In chainweb there are 20 per confirmation depth count. Thus, this strategy doesn't work as well on chainweb and 51% attacks (beyond a depth of 3) are much harder on chainweb than on single chains.
So, on chainweb, even for moderate depths, the actual hash power that is required for 51% attacks is very close to 51%, even when having the malicious hash power available for a long time and doing many attempts.

>>57211444
I mean they've been working on the project for 5 years now, what else can you hope for in a project? Their marketing is abysmal though, i'll admit, but that's another positive in my book

>>57211596
If the speed of light is your bottleneck, then I would say you've done a pretty damn good job of solving the speed issue.
>Sharding will never happen by the way
Good. KAS benefits from not being sharded. As for whether the team is capable of doing it or not - they've been around since the beginning days of Crypto, have worked on other smart contract projects, and its founder was cited in the Ethereum whitepaper. The devs know what they're doing, and they already have the requisite knowledge to build/implement smart contracts when they get around to it. Perfecting the world's first functional BlockDAG is just more important than rushing smart contracts right now.
What you said about Chainweb also applies to Kaspa's BlockDAG, which is why transactions only take ~10 seconds to be finalized. Fast confirmation is important to the usability of any network.

>>57211765
I see there is nothing I can say to break through to you. You're ignoring all my points.
>The devs know what they're doing
Which is why all they managed to do is a single chain payment coin while paying market makers to pumpa the coin. Great project, really the future of finance.

>>57211795
All you've done is claim that it's impossible for KAS to implement smart contracts, while providing no proof of this. People thought that what KAS already does was impossible, and you were wrong about that, too.

>>57211814
>All you've done is claim that
Quote "Your whole mkt cap is based on nothing but pie in the sky goals, while other projects like alph and kda already have working technology."
If you had told me that in 2024 I'd be debating the merits of a fucking payment coin I'd tell you've lost your mind.

>>57211830
If you do not understand the breakthrough that is achieving instant transaction confirmation times on a proof-of-work network, then that's your problem. People with more of a computer science background will get it.

>>57211860
I fundamentally see zero value in instant settlement. The stockmarket settles in T+2 days. Bitcoin in 10 minutes, compared to traditional finance this is lighting.
Fast tx are not a problem that needs solving for what is supposed to be the base layer of finance. You're following?

>>57211880
>I fundamentally see zero value in instant settlement.
It makes a huge difference in actual usability. People don't like waiting for their transactions to be confirmed, especially for smaller payments and micro-transactions.
>Fast tx are not a problem that needs solving for what is supposed to be the base layer of finance.
According to whom? The original goal of Bitcoin was to be a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. It failed in that goal because it's slow and it can't scale. In fact, it was thought for a long time - and some still believe today - that it was IMPOSSIBLE to scale Bitcoin and make it faster without sacrificing security or decentralization. Then Kaspa comes along and solves Bitcoin's scalability issues without sacrificing any of its properties of security, trustlessness, or decentralization. It's a holy grail in terms of crypto tech and we're already seeing dipshits trying to fork Kaspa and ride off its coattails

>>57211936
>It makes a huge difference in actual usability.
Right, because I have to wait days to buy a stock. You are probably trolling at this point.

>>57211313
>revert back to initial stance like nothing happened
>slowly, I began to hate them

>>57211952
>Right, because I have to wait days to buy a stock.
We're not talking about stocks. We're talking about something that could actually be used to buy a cup of coffee.
On the L1.
With proof-of-work.
Just the fact that something like KAS even makes that possible is insane.

>>57211975
I like proof of work, don't get me wrong. It would be a disaster for le future of finance to be on proof of stake. But fast tx can happen on L2, we just need a robust L1 and I don't see kaspa as being that.
You thinking a base layer needs to be used as instant settlement is nothing more than bag holder fueled delusions. You can't disagree with that.
Imagine 100 Million people try to buy coffee using kaspa. Ridiculous, it's like you're purposefully not thinking your own posts to their conclusions, but as suggested by another post of yours all you would say to that is
>with 100M users the coin will probably already be top 1 and will be rich

This all is a debate on fundamentals, but you keep ignoring the actual merits of the chain compared to where we are currently with L1 tech+usability and kaspa's marketcap.

>>57211966
Meds

>>57212026
>You thinking a base layer needs to be used as instant settlement is nothing more than bag holder fueled delusions. You can't disagree with that.
Nah, not really. It's not that it NEEDS to be used as instant settlement. It's the fact that they've invented a new technology that is capable of doing so. It literally solves what was thought to be an impossible problem in crypto, and your response is that it isn't important?
I'm sorry but BlockDAG is a much more significant development than your sharded blockchain, with or without smart contracts

>>57212073
Right, let me get this straight, the biggest problem with crypto L1s are high fees, so scaling, also integral is decentralization, so allowing people to run nodes easily (sharding), then having the network be secure which goes without saying.
>Tough times create crypto
>Crypto creates easy times
>Easy times create fast transactions
We can agree on BlockDag being a fun experiment, I'm all for that. But I'll also tell you if I think it's overvalued and why. It's also not relevant in a discussion of L1s.

>>57212111
>so allowing people to run nodes easily (sharding)
It's already been explained multiple times that sharding is not necessary for this, since we have pruning. The current size of a Kaspa node is about 18.5 GB.
Also that's okay, you're a Kadena tranny so it's already established that you have poor judgment

>>57212139
Right, just delete the history, sure I forgot about that one simple trick to decentralization.
>you have poor judgment
Correct, as you can tell from my writing.

>>57212154
You're talking about using L2s and you've spoken positively of Monero, so don't suddenly act like being able to go back and see the details of past transactions was important to you. As long as Proof-of-Publication is provably secure, pruning ought to be employed to make running nodes more efficient.
Splitting your network into sharts doesn't fix this btw. It's still difficult for ordinary users to store the transaction history for all shards. There's no way to store an infinitely-growing ledger of transactions in a scalable manner. Pruning simply has to happen at some point if you want something that's future-proof.

>>57212193
I know my post was meant to be sarcastic, but I did forget about deleting history, I won't call it pruning by the way because I think this sounds funnier.
>It's still difficult for ordinary users
Of course, in my opinion, the real innovation of sharding is being able to split your one node into multiple physical datacenters and have it still act as one node. It's how amazon and google are able to "store an infinitely-growing ledger in a scalable manner", the industry standard for scaling a database, if you will.

This isn't really something I am interested in though, what's more important is the one point about speed not being needed, the post you ignored to fixate on storage, explain how blockDag is significant if it can't be applied to contract chains or if it doesn't solve something that is actively preventing crypto from being adopted. It's strange that you would think something like that is a "significant development"

At 8PM UTC today (Jan 7, 2024) - Kaspa 10 blocks per second PUBLIC testnet goes live.
-
This will be a world's first.
Record breaking.
And not by a little, but by a LOT.
-
This is the result of FIFTEEN years of research and refinement.
-
For perspective - Kaspa is already 600x faster than bitcoin.
This upgrade will make it 6,000x faster than bitcoin, or 10x faster than it's own previous version.
-
But not only that - It will be the first time PROOF OF WORK exceeds PROOF OF STAKE's speeds.
Insanely undervalued and the market will catch up to this insane achievement with a lagging delay, as usual.

>>57212294
Fun
Experiment

>>57212256
>It's how amazon and google are able to "store an infinitely-growing ledger in a scalable manner"
Imagine being so clueless as to write something like this. Sure, storing an infinite amount of data is totally scalable, as long you have an infinite amount of resources to throw at expanding your data storage capacity. It's simply not possible for ordinary users - who, as a reminder, are not Amazon or Google - to accomplish the same thing. Pruning is a good thing which allows the network to remain decentralized and lightweight.
>This isn't really something I am interested in though, what's more important is the one point about speed not being needed
Speed is needed. Speed is a core component of scalability.
>explain how blockDag is significant if it can't be applied to contract chains
It can and will have smart contracts, eventually.

>>57213099
>Speed is a core component of scalability.

>>57213110
If it's not fast, it isn't scalable enough for real-world use. You are just coping because your coin does not solve this, or any useful problems for that matter.
Kaspa is actually a fair launched coin unlike KDA and ALPH, both of which had preallocations and continue to have a tax which pays out to developers.
Another thing that's important to keep in mind is that KAS was launched the same way Bitcoin was: with no premine, no preallocation, and no dev tax. Since day one, the only way for anyone to obtain Kaspa has been to trade value for value in the form of hashpower. These other crap coins are securities masquerading as cryptocurrencies. They're schemes for insiders to dump on retail investors. People can't even believe that KAS was launched fairly, so they make up some bullshit about how the founders simply must have used pruning to steal coins.
Any "cryptocurrency" network where the developers hardcode themselves a special reward is trash.

>>57213129
>KDA and ALPH, both of which had preallocations and continue to have a tax which pays out to developers.
Thanks I didn't know kda and alph have a dev tax.

>>57213146
The amount that's yet to be paid out to Alephium's development team is literally 2x as large as its current circulating supply. The distribution will be heavily stacked in favor of insiders for the rest of time. Kadena has a 30% allocation for developers iirc

>>57213129
You're very narrow minded, you can only think about one single aspect of your chain and think that's why it's the best. Okay, it's fast, that's great, now what? You cannot use it for payments because the value fluctuates with the market, just like BTC has not worked as means of payment, KAS will neither.

>>57213168
Wtf so there is no dev tax? I just sold 100k because of you.

>>57213280
It solves a technological challenge which was previously thought to be unsolvable.
Yes, it is great and you'd be foolish to not recognize the breakthrough that's happened here
>>57213424
>insiders hardcoded themselves a special reward that is paid out to them, automatically
>30% of the entire supply
Like I said, garbage

>>57213545
>previously thought to be unsolvable
Yeah I bet a lot of people were like "man I wish we had a PoW chain that made blocks quickly"
Literally no one was asking for this, I get this sounds unreliable from a bag holder PoV, but that's simply the case, otherwise people would have tried to lobby for BTC to reduce block times, you know what they asked for instead? Bigger blocks, it was a huge debate.
>Like I said, garbage
wtf I made a whole image just for you and you won't even kiss me on the lips?

>>57213619
>Yeah I bet a lot of people were like "man I wish we had a PoW chain that made blocks quickly"
Yes unironically, this was something people wished for since the creation of bitcoin itself.
>Literally no one was asking for this
Incorrect midwit cope.
I don't hate you trannies. I just feel bad for you. Gender dysmorphia is a mental illness and mental illness is tough to deal with.

>>57214391
In relation to increasing throughput, since 5 min blocktimes instead of 10 would just double the blocksizes. No one is asking for it in the context of buying a coffee on L1 faster than using a payment L2.

>>57213619
>otherwise people would have tried to lobby for BTC to reduce block times, you know what they asked for instead? Bigger blocks, it was a huge debate.
Wow. Now you know why Kaspa was needed: because simply making bigger blocks doesn't solve the trilemma. It comes with tradeoffs that make implementing bigger blocks an imperfect solution. For instance, having bigger blocks is harmful for decentralization. Bigger blocks are harder for small miners to process. Bigger blocks favor large miners.
BlockDAG favors small miners. Its fast block creation times means that it's actually feasible for small miners to do solo mining instead of joining a pool. Kaspa's mining protocol is actually superior and more decentralized than Bitcoin's. That's an incredible accomplishment in and of itself.

>>57214467
Correct, I've already told you that I think it's a fun experiment. Not sure what you're trying to convince me off. Still not needed, what do you expect, this to take over btc?

>>57214514
None of your bullshit is needed.
>No, you don't get it. My sharded Ethereum clone is sooo innovative and important. The literal future of finance is going to happen on my chain because we implemented sharding before Ethereum did
Yeah, right. What BlockDAG does is a bigger innovation than sharding. And its use case is simpler, too: it's simply Bitcoin but more scalable. That is nowhere near as "pie in the sky" as some of the absolute BULLSHIT that these other chains have claimed to have "solved" with sharding, a "solution" that, along with its problems, has been known about since the early days of crypto.

>>57214576
Your points in this post
1. A scalable smart contract chain is bullshit and also not needed
2. A fast and decentralized bitcoin is needed
3. Sharding has been known about

Yet I am still not sure what you're trying to say, implying that a scalable ETH is not more useful than btc is absurd. Saying we need simply bitcoin but fast is similarly absurd, payment coins are not an issue that need solving, the other anon brought up one of many issues with them, price fluctuations, you'd need contracts and stablecoins, another is privacy but no matter, I'm sure you'll ignore this post If I keep writing. And finally the fact sharding has been known about is something I've explored ITT, it used to be massively difficult, keeping security across a network of unlimited chains used to be impossible, but chainweb's solution of utilizing graph theory to weave together a bunch of shards, to me, seems rather elegant.

In closing, take your meds.

>>57214642
>1. A scalable smart contract chain is bullshit and also not needed
Sure it is, but your chain isn't scalable - it's too slow and sharding doesn't actually solve the problems with scalability, hence why it's not regarded as an actual solution to the trilemma
>2. A fast and decentralized bitcoin is needed
Yes, absolutely
>3. Sharding has been known about
Yes, it has been touted as a way to increase the scalability of blockchains since the time of Ethereum's creation, but it doesn't actually work and it comes with significant drawbacks in the form of network fragmentation, increased complexity and and issues arising with cross-chain communication. Kaspa has NONE of these problems. It benefits by not resorting to sharding to solve its scalability issues.

>>57214642
You're also so clueless that you don't get "the price of the coin fluctuates" is a point against literally any utility-based crypto. Why would anyone pay to use your coin if the value could fluctuate tomorrow? We've seen time and time again that this isn't actually a valid point against any cryptocurrency, it's just a cope on your part

>>57214694
Stop bringing up kaspa in parts of this discussion that are related to smart contract chains, apples and oranges. Kaspa works because it doesn't have contracts.
>sharding doesn't actually solve the problems with scalability
>it's not regarded as an actual solution
>drawbacks in the form of network fragmentation, increased complexity and and issues arising with cross-chain communication.
This will be good, go on anon, explain to the class how all that you have said applies to chainweb's implementation of sharding. go into as much detail as you can.
I'll make it easy by agreeing with you on the point that it's not instant finality. (technically there is nothing stopping kadena from making their shards be BlockDag but that's besides the point)
>is a point against literally any utility-based crypto
No it's a point against payment coins, what is the use of KAS? be money? be used in dapps and .. oh right. Stupid.

>>57214752
>Stop bringing up kaspa in a discussion about Kaspa
tranny COPE
Nobody cares that you are the 10 millionth smart contract coin. Alephium is literally better than Kadena. Kaspa innovates and solves problems in a brand new way that Kadena doesn't. By all means, though, keep bagholding your midwit tranny cope coin. It doesn't bother me.

>>57214782
I'll take this as you conceding to my point about chainweb's sharding.
>COPE
What do you mean, you can't say kas better than kda without me pointing how literally having less computation in each block allows for the network to function the way you like it in the first place.
>Alephium is literally better than Kadena.
See first (and best) post >>57201674
It's straight up not true, I hold ALPH btw not sure if that matters.
>Kaspa innovates and solves problems in a brand new way that Kadena doesn't
Kadena has contracts.
> your midwit tranny cope coin
You're getting emotional.

>>57212026
>It would be a disaster for the future of finance to continue operating as it has since 1913
You lost.

>>57201609
The trilemma is a meme already solved by btc by default, it has always been about hardware limitations and they will keep improving. Kaspa is wasteful, more complex, and can't store files or proof of existence on its database.

>>57203488
>It's the only network I know that solved the trilemma
Qubic would like to have a word with you

>>57215884
From the guy who brought you the IOTA scam, the NXT and JINN.
Introducing QUBIC!
>Max cap of 676 Nodes
>New unproven consensus to train AI
>And limited smart contract capabilities

Anon, in all seriousness, do you really think I would not look into every single L1 on the market if I really cared? I have, and I am aware of all the chains which are interesting or not.

>>57215981
>From the guy who brought you the IOTA scam, the NXT and JINN.
As if creating the two highest ROI cryptocurrencies was bearish. LMAO!

>Max cap of 676 Nodes
>New unproven consensus to train AI
>And limited smart contract capabilities

Oh? How come a quorum based protocol based on Nick Szabo’s ideas doesn’t work? Fuck your blocks, ticks are the future nigger.
https://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/rob/Courses/InformationInSpeech/CDROM/Literature/LOTwinterschool2006/szabo.best.vwh.net/quorum.html

And yes, this shit has been almost 10 years in development. This is CFB’s magnum opus. This is THE reason why he gave the middle finger to IOTA foundation and David Sonstebo.

Right now I am euphoric, because Qubic is the fucking future.

>>57216066

>>57215981
Among everything you analyzed, why were you interested in Mina and Tia? Mina, is suplly infinite?

>>57216072
+ deflationary tokenomics. Every single smart contract burns qubics. The first smart contract burned 10% of the supply.

And no transaction fees. As well as runs ONLY using ram.

Do you even know what this means? This means the MARKET CAP can go FUCKING DOWN while the price GOES UP.

This nigger geek CFB co-wrote a paper with satoshi, has thousands of bitcoins, won a lawsuit against the iota foundation for hundreds of millions of dollars of iota and you’re doubting he has contacts with market makers after working on cryptocurrencies for over 20 years and literally creating the most profitable cryptos on existence?

This motherfucker even hired Sergey Nazarov to work on NXT in its early days.

https://i.warosu.org/data/biz/img/0571/11/1703761504950494.png

And you’re fucking doubting it’ll be successful?

MOTHERFUCKER THIS IS GOING TO 100X BY END OF YEAR

FUCK YOUR BLOCKS, FUCK BITCOIN AND FUCK QUBIC’S TECH TOO

QUBIC WILL MAKE US RICH ON PURE TOKENOMICS NIGGER

>>57216101
I liked their logos.

>>57216144
On the link to the pic you posted it shows that the paper was co written by 3 authors
>Satoshi
>CFB
>BCnext

But CFB admitted he was BCnext by signing bcnext’s bitcoin wallet. That and he created qubic using Nick Szabo’s paper.

Doesn’t that mean… what the fuck. Looking into qubic right now. This might be the last of the moonshots.

>>57216147
You speak well. By the way, you should be in Kaspa. But don't talk, why did you choose Tia and Mina?

>>57216210
>>57216144
Cringe bot.

Here it is, my entire KAS image folder.
This kills the KAShole

>>57216550
Nice image, meanwhile I'm here using words like a caveman.

>>57216550
what’s wrong with it

>>57214642
You keep making a big deal about scalable smart contracts. KAS is literally getting smart contracts. So what’s your issue then

>>57201674
Based kadena tranny.

>>57215857
>it has always been about hardware limitations and they will keep improving.
this

>>57216963
You're not serious, right? For a proof of work chain you'd usually go for long term economic planning, hence why kda, alph and went with 80-120 year emissions and why eth's supply is infinite.
>>57217090
Moore's Law is literally dead, are you guys living under a rock? Hardware is not a way to scale.
>>57216977
>So what’s your issue then
I explained multiple times why KAS allowing for contracts would render all of it's benefits useless but I'll humor you, what if they implement it and somehow manage to keep the benefits of multi block production and instant confirmations. They'd probably go with EVM or some rust like syntax which is worse than what kadena and tezos have, that being a language build for dapps in mind (non turning completeness) in order to reduce hacks. But they'd likely have somewhat of an ecosystem going which would bloat up the single chain network, my first points remain the same, more tx means more fees since there is no way to keep scaling the KAS network. Not really a fan of that, but hey, at least I won't call it overvalued. I like PoW, but I don't like shady devs with a weird supply curve that have enough funds to give to MMs to pump the coin.
By the way, there are working L1s operational right now, asking me what issue I will have if one scam network gets a VM one day is dumb.

>>57217166
Yes, the fees would go up. But the benefits are still really good and it’s an improvement over BTC while having the capability of ETH. Perhaps you are right that we can use some other chain or L2s for heavy/robust smart contract stuff, but if KAS can pull off simple smart contracts (enough to allow for some basic defi), then it fulfilled its purpose of being smart internet money that is fast and secure. At this point we are beating a dead horse, but, you really underestimate the gap that KAS fills. There is a real need for a decentralized, accessible L1. BTC can still survive as a store of value, but i could see real world transactions like e-commerce being done on KAS using whatever smart contracts they come up with.

>>57217233
>if
I'm sorry anon but you are drowning in liquid copium.
You also somehow acknowledged and ignored my point of kas not being able to scale. A slight improvement over eth is not what we should be looking for, otherwise we'd just buy solana. We need a network that can scale on demand - and I've posted about the only one to do so already.
The strangest part about your post is how much value you'd think such a fantasy version of kas would have, but are ignoring that we already have operational PoW chains that have working smart contracts today.
Take a step back, take your meds and try not be a bag holder.

>>57217377
i sold le bags but will buy back after etf is confirmed/denied.

>>57216963
If this isn't bait you should kill yourself. I have a feeling this is about the average intelligence of a KAShole

>>57217166
Shady devs.. lol. Do you have any idea who Sompolinsky is? Or his contributions?

>>57218139
>INT
Stat bloat.
Szabo is my daddy and Bitcoin whales call the shots

The fact that Kaspa was fair launched is important and matters.
Never mind the fact that it doesn't ever risk being classified as a security. There's something even more important than that.
Some of you might have noticed that every time Kaspa pumps, it does pull back and consolidate for a while, but it always consolidates at a level above its previous ATH. Kaspa's all-time chart is unironically one of the most bullish in all of crypto, because it follows this pattern consistently. The chart reflects the fact that it was fair launched and there aren't any VCs dumping their bags to create sell pressure. That's why it "dumps" to a level above its old ATH, every time. It happened after the pump from $0.007 to $0.013, and then again after the pump from $0.01 to $0.03, then again after the pump to $0.05. Then it pumped to $0.15 and "dumped" back to $0.10. After Kaspa pumps to a new ATH again (and it will), it will temporarily pull back and consolidate again at a level above $0.15.
There's another project in crypto that does the same thing. You might have heard about it. It's called Bitcoin. Bitcoin is one of the few other cryptos that also follows this pattern consistently.
People don't know how to interpret this, because 99% of projects in crypto are unabashed ponzis where VCs preallocated themselves a huge portion of the supply, which leads to manipulation and giant red candles when insiders decide to dump the tokens they got for free. The problem is so bad that people don't even recognize an organic growth chart when they see one. People see a big pump, and they intuitively expect it to dump back down to zero like their VC insider ponzi coins. Fair launched coins like KAS and BTC don't do that, though.
I'm so glad I was smart enough to recognize Kaspa's fundamentals and bought it for under a penny. I legitimately believe that it's the best opportunity to come out of the crypto space since Bitcoin. Be sure to live stream your suicide after it hits $1.

>>57201674
>>No smart contracts making it more useless than LTC
i kinda enjoy the fact that kaspa is just simple and has no web4 dapps bullshit

>>57218432
Interestingly, Yonatan's dad is a famous neuroscientist who has his own wikipedia article. Yonatan himself did postdoc research on blockchains at Harvard. He's been obsessed with scaling Bitcoin since the early days of crypto. Imagine anyone going through that kind of effort for a scam.

>>57218281
Interestingly, Yonatan's dad is a famous neuroscientist who has his own wikipedia article. Yonatan himself did postdoc research on blockchains at Harvard. He's been obsessed with scaling Bitcoin since the early days of crypto. Imagine anyone going through that kind of effort for a scam.

>>57218320
What does this have to do with the GPU miner pump and dump scam emissions schedule revealing that KAS is an absolute scam not designed to survive more than a few years?

>>57218327
1 dollar is totally possible. Did I kill myself for missing SHIB, or either of the b0nks? No because I don't play with memecoins. I am happy your KAS memecoin is making you lots of money, but saying it will have a place in the crypto world in 3 years is extremely dubious.

None of you faggots can even engage with the emissions chart because it shows without a doubt KAS is a GPU miner pump and dump scam. The smartest thing KAS did was launch after ETH went PoS to absorb all those refugee miners.

>>57218676
The aggressive halving schedule is a good thing, it means that people jumping into KAS now with their huge asic farms can't build huge bags and dump the price. It started off as a CPU mined coin and there were actually a lot of people, not just insiders, who anticipated the release of KAS for months before it launched. It's launch was actually more fair than Bitcoin's in that regard. More people were able to participate this time around.

>>57218699
Dude you're thinking about this completely opposite to the real situation. Most of the supply was mined by early insiders. Sure, it was open from day one, but early miners, mostly insiders have captured a frankly obscene portion of the tokens. The fact that PoW rewards essentially stop after 3 years is incredibly shitty for decentralization. Basically, the early miners are all whales and there literally isn't enough of the supply left for other entities to get a large position through mining. Kaspa is already a centralized shitcoin with not enough emissions to be decentralized, even just a few years from now. I can't believe you believe Shai's bullshit reason around ASICs for that emission schedule. It is extremely clearly obviously a GPU miner pump and dump scam, with no intention of existing in 5 years.
Verification not required

The key reason why PoW is superior to PoS when it comes to decentralization is because miners are forces to sell tokens to pay for electricity. This disperses tokens to many different holders over time. PoS on the other hand has terrible incentives. Due to the nature of PoS and compounding interest, stakers are incentivized to hoard tokens to get an ever-increasing share of the supply. Any validator costs are insignificant, centralizing ownership of the protocol by definition.

>>57218877
Also, this is why KAS emissions schedule is fucked up and centralized, as I was saying above. It's not as bad as PoS, but the fact that most the supply is mined by early miners means that there will be less dispersal of token supply to the general market, as the percentage of the supply earned per electrical unit is RIDICUOUSLY HIGH.
Sorry for so many posts, I'm crippled in the head.

Imagine thinking a chud shitchain like KAS can fit Smartcontract on their 2 inch blocks. The only orgasm that will be had here is Shai and Yonatan cumming on the faces of any new buyers.

I'm not reading all that shit. Is ALPH a good buy or not?

>>57218853
Holy cope, lmao. You're literally shilling a coin where the developers hard coded themselves 30% of the supply, in exchange for NO hash power! Kaspa was launched the same way bitcoin was, with a faster rate of halving (once every year instead of once every 4 years). It is literally just bitcoin's launch all over again, which is as fair as it gets in crypto. Your shitcoin literally has a special cheat code JUST for developers and nobody else