/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.51637206]

Anything that isn't PoW is a scam.

[Anonymous No.51637763]

>>51637206
correct

[Anonymous No.51637920]

>>51637206
&Asic and Fpga rezistant

[Anonymous No.51638051]

>anything that isnt wasteful, monopolistic feudalism is a scam

[Anonymous No.51638100]

>>51637920
RandomX is the largest and most secure ASIC, FPGA and GPU resistant PoW algorithm. Nobody mines whatever FiroPoW is.

[Anonymous No.51638131]

>>51638100
>botnet mining
>secure

[Anonymous No.51638182]

>>51638051
anon, that is PoS
>>51638131
>Botnet mining farm leaves network
>hashrate doesn't change
Nice try, but at least the static miners deployed with bat scripts should've dropped out, but no. Also look the price per hashrate, Monero is more secure than any other PoW coin.

[Anonymous No.51638196]

Cope

[Anonymous No.51638348]

>>51638182
in pos, anyone may create a global source of trust where potentials for decentralization and collective intelligence is infinite, depending on game theory structure introduced by it. in pow, truth is conflated with access to physical resources within some uncontrolled monopolistic rat race that's only sustainable until ponzi tokens runs out of NPCs to be dumped on.
>>51638182
n-not sure where you are pulling of those made up numbers but by definition, statistics on botnet mining are unlikely to be accurate. in practice, a significant amount of mining power can be deployed at any time due to the large numbers of CPUs used for other purpose. this means the network is extremely insecure.

[Anonymous No.51639320]

>>51638348
The core reason for the existence of consensus algorithms such as PoW is to create a global consensus, without reliance on 3rd parties. Whilst not allowing any party to skew aforementioned consensus. The way PoW achieves this is by putting in computation in order to achieve consensus. This makes it computationally expensive to attack the network, thus money wise expensive as well. However scaling is a factor that Bitcoin did not account for, as with economies of scale, especially with a simple algorithm the manufacture or buy of hardware capable of preforming the computation securing Bitcoin's PoW consensus becomes cheaper per unit.
This has lead to the deterioration of Bitcoin's security, its geographic centralization, and increasing corporatization. ASIC-resistant algorithms re-lower the barrier of entry ensuring decentralization, as a device capable of making a transaction is capable of securing the network as well. With PoS this does not happen, as participants are required to lock up money (artificially inflation the token's value btw) heightening the barrier of entry. Not to mention the other barrier of entry that is the minimum stake amount.>>51638348

[Anonymous No.51639331]

>>51638348
This low barrier of entry is the exact reason why botnets are able to participate, however overall network security is not affected as the value generated from botnets are not re-invested into hardware, making honest and dedicated miners win out by large. As the utility of the PoW token grows, the demand for it, and this its price will grow, allowing the hashrate to sustainable increase. While the botnet infections may continue, as MineXMR's shutdown has showed us, botnets will be a smaller and smaller part of the total hashrate. In case your brain hasn't put 2 and 2 together. At least a sizable portion of mining malware is deployed with a static configuration, because that is simply just the easiest way to do it. A large portion of those bots would've been directed at the largest pool, that gives the most frequent paychecks to the malware author. However, MineXMR shut off, making those bots useless ping machines. If Monero's hashrate has a noticable chunck of bots, the hashrate would've dropped by at least a few percent. However that, did not occur, meaning that the portion of botnet generated hashing power on Monero is not too big.
Now going back onto scaling, traditional PoW does turn the situation into a "uncontrolled monopolistic rat race" as the more you get, the cheaper it will get per-unit, dollar to hashing power is sub-linear. However linear growing costs, like electricity or staff drag that down. It's PoS that eliminated those costs and makes the consensus a perfect "uncontrolled monopolistic rat race" as there is no cost to scaling, it's literally legacy banking compounded interest, the more you stake the more you get back, that part is linear, but that reward can be put back to use, increasing the staked capital ever more with no cost. ie feudalism
Also notice how your argumentation is incoherent between the first and second reply.
>PoS is good because anyone can participate
>Monero is weak because everyone can participate, including botnets

[Anonymous No.51639860]

>>51639320
u-uuh.. you do not understand race dynamics. pow is based on the false belief a global consensus won't have to constantly evolve and adapt in and of itself, and that somehow unregulated competition over physical resources wont devolve into feudalism. the first act of blockchain censorship ironically happened in pow, before pos, https://twitter.com/takenstheorem/status/1560690035955011585 and such structures will only go downhill from there considering economy of scale implied by them.
>artificially inflation the token's value
nonsense. there are infinite numbers of ways game theory structures can be designed around pos, non-dilutive inflation is just one of them.
>This makes it computationally expensive to attack the network
in pow, attackers only have to spent a small fraction of network value in order to annihilate it. (ie 330750btc were minted between 2021-2022, which is around 6B at current market value). asic-resistant is even worse in this regard, since asic manufacturers are at least limited in their production abilities.
>Not to mention the other barrier of entry that is the minimum stake amount.
cardano/atom/tezos/etc does not have minimum stake amount.
>This low barrier of entry is the exact reason why botnets are able to participate
if you have to be the master of a "botnet" to participate, then it becomes are barrier of entry in itself.
>the value generated from botnets are not re-invested into hardware, making honest and dedicated miners win out by large
value given to botnet is taken away from honest miners, and we dont know what botnet value is being spent on
>As the utility of the PoW token grows
pow tokens are not needed. L1 will evolve into simple infrastructure like internet providers or hosting. nobody will buy your bags because nobody will be advantaged to do so.
>allowing the hashrate to sustainable increase
maybe. some ponzi can go up, until it doesnt anymore.

[Anonymous No.51639961]

>>51639331
>It's PoS that eliminated those costs and makes the consensus a perfect "uncontrolled monopolistic rat race"
there is no such thing as "what pos does", we can design around that.
>the more you stake the more you get back
you only get a proportional share of rewards, unlike traditional banking, where inflation is dilutive. but in practice, we want dilutive inflation for supply decentralization and fairness.
>notice how your argumentation is incoherent between the first and second reply.
notice that you have no idea what my reply was about and your response is based on false assumptions benefiting your bagholdings. never said monero is weak because "anyone can participate". theoretically anyone can participate in anything, and such matter is extremely nuanced.

[Anonymous No.51641186]

>>51639860
>such structures will only go downhill from there considering economy of scale implied by them.
1. a good cryptocurrency should be private by default, but sadly most aren't. Censorship on the consensus layer is only possible if the miners would know know more about the transaction then is needed for its verification.
2. Another requirement for base level censorship is the miners being public entities, that is the case with ASIC-enabling PoW, but not with ASIC-resitant algorithms, as they do not have economies of scale. Instead they seem to demonstrate an increase of per unit cost with more investment after a certain point. Case and point, there are no large scale Monero operations.
PoS neither PoW can fulfill the first requirement, so ultimately it's layer 1 privacy that is crucial to censorship-resistance.
>in pow, attackers only have to spent a small fraction of network value in order to annihilate it
Yes the amount actively being spent on the consensus is smaller than the total marketcap that applies to all existing cryptocurrencies afaik. Also I'm assuming you are trying to refer to the cost of 51%, because in PoW the actively used amount of money or approx. the miner's reward, and the cost to initiate a 51% attack is different, as an attacker would need to buy(/rent/incur losses from not using them for something else) said hardware, where economies of scale make it easier for ASIC-enabling PoW. Also looking at napkin math, Monero has the largest marketcap/cost-to-51%. But there is quite some room for error, especially with ASIC-resitant PoW.

[Anonymous No.51641205]

>>51641186
>if you have to be the master of a "botnet" to participate, then it becomes are barrier of entry in itself.
I think you misunderstood what I said. With a low barrier of entry, consumer level hardware can participate in the consensus, thus botnets made up of consumer level hardware can do that as well. That does not mean that the barrier of entry is at the botnet owner level.
>value given to botnet is taken away from honest miners, and we don't know what botnet value is being spent on
Botnet owners own virtual bots, thus upgrading hardware is not really an option. They could use the generated money to buy mining hardware, but then they are subject to scaling issues if we are talking about an ASIC-resistant PoW. They are essentially a wealth person that wants to participate in the consensus, with PoS he could just start staking.
>pow tokens are not needed
The security they provide is needed for people that value it.
>maybe. some ponzi can go up, until it doesn't anymore.
Hashrate is an equilibrium that increases with the value of the miner reward increasing. If it doesn't, it's free money, so it does. It's an economic axiom. Also mind you explain how this even remotely comparable to a ponzi?
>there is no such thing as "what pos does", we can design around that.
I drew conclusions from the base promise of stakers receiving rewards proportional to their staked amounts. But if we can just design fundamental problems away, PoW can do that too.
>false assumptions benefiting your bagholdings
The price of cryptocurrencies I hold are not affected by what I think or what posts get made on a 4chan thread.

[Anonymous No.51641340]

>>51641205
>never said monero is weak because "anyone can participate". theoretically anyone can participate in anything
Your starting statement was
>>botnet mining
>>secure
Botnet mining by definition means anyone can participate, so you effectively said "monero is weak because anyone can participate". But correct me in that statement if I'm wrong about what you might be thinking.
>and such matter is extremely nuanced
Closing off a thought with "this is extremely nuanced" with no signs as to why that might be case is the pinnacle of pseudo-intellectualism
>those retards can never under this topic with such nuance that I do!

[Anonymous No.51641436]

>>51641340
you are retarded though
>pow is valuable because it just is
lol

[Anonymous No.51641720]

>>51641186
>a good cryptocurrency should be private by default
i mean, i share the opinion that censorship resistance will never be solved unless all transactions are private, but thats the point. pow does not have any advantage over pos in this regard.
>as they do not have economies of scale
economy of scale is not something that will ever be not present in any context. monero works on a small scale as some irrelevant project, but if it were to be adopted globally, both tokenomics and consensus would fall apart.
>PoS neither PoW can fulfill the first requirement
both pos and pow can benefit from zk
>cost of 51%
i just mentioned the cost of sustaining hashrate for 1y. not sure how it translates in practice, but it would probably be much lower since most miners would stop their operation if rewards inflow stopped.
>consumer level hardware can participate in the consensus
consumer will never be a significant part of the hashrate. they are too busy trying to survive at their own levels to benefit from any mining efficiencies. you are attached to ideals which are impossible to reach.
>The security they provide is needed for people that value it.
platforms provide security for other projects, but it doesnt mean anyone is incentivized to buy the related tokens. especially poorly distributed ones like monyaro https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/tapxkz/concerns_about_the_supply_curve/
>Hashrate is an equilibrium that increases with the value of the miner reward increasing.
the spiral argument also works backward. pow incentive structures can very readily melt down.
>It's an economic axiom.
dont want to nitpick but you probably meant tautological rather than axiomatic
>Botnet mining by definition means anyone can participate
mining participants are not necessarily non-adversarial
>pinnacle of pseudo-intellectualism
thanx i did my best to fit in

[Anonymous No.51642479]

>>51641720
>i mean, i share the opinion that censorship resistance will never be solved unless all transactions are private, but thats the point. pow does not have any advantage over pos in this regard.
I agree PoW does not solve base layer censorship. The inherent flaw comes from the nature of pseudonymous transactions. Plus on-chain privacy and anonymity has other cool perks, like not getting brought into the police for accidentally associating with a dirty UTXO.
>economy of scale is not something that will ever be not present in any context. monero works on a small scale as some irrelevant project, but if it were to be adopted globally, both tokenomics and consensus would fall apart.
Possibly, but again total 100% world adoption is a dream, and after a few years it would be surprising to see a token with 10% market cap dominance. And about economies of scale, they will of course present themselves, so the best we can do is making that scaling the most difficult posible. And Monero so far has kept that, as I for once don't have knowledge of large scale Monero mining ventures, unlike the similar sized PoW networks.
>cost of sustaining hashrate for 1y
The emission curve is pre-set, the hashrate isn't. So it's more of the hashrate resulting from that date and price as well, because the reward is usually sold to cover costs. But the tokens are usually held, so combine that with miner expectations as well.
>consumer will never be a significant part of the hashrate
Just take a look at r/MoneroMining
>FAQs for noobs. Read this before posting.
>having a bear of a time setting up xmrig on Ubuntu desktop
>Why is nothing going into my wallet?
>Wtf is StratumServer
So maybe. At least the option is given to the consumer. It's in the wallet software even.

[Anonymous No.51642494]

>>51642479
>poorly distributed ones like monyaro
If we could roll back the chain, we would. It's just TFT was so incompetent, no wonder he got booted.
>the spiral argument also works backward. pow incentive structures can very readily melt down.
Maybe not rapidly, but it is true that a bad coin can lead to a downwards spiral, but a slow one at that. Take a look at Litecoin for example. But a rugpull is quicker at collapsing a currency desu.
>mining participants are not necessarily non-adversarial
By definition no, but if you contol some mining capable hardware, it is logical to want to continue to use it in the forseeable future, and attacks against the chain go against that.
>thanx i did my best to fit in
Good job.