PoX Screws Bitcoin, Adulterates Blockchain Software Technology
MIA Coin and NYCCoin use PoX as part of their fraud. Harvard Management Company perhaps has a hand in the scheme? PoX when used for participation rewards, as described, could lead to miner consoli- dation. Because miners that also participate as holders could gain an advantage over miners who do not participate as holders, miners would be strongly incentivized to buy the new cryptocurrency and use it to crowd out other miners. In the extreme case, this consolidation could lead to centralization of mining, which would undermine the decentralization goals of the public blockchain. Bitcoin Bandwidth: Because PoX miners must send Bitcoin transactions to participate in the consensus algorithm and send PoX rewards, PoX mining would occupy some Bitcoin transac- tion bandwidth. Given Bitcoin bandwidth is limited by design, given security require- ments, new PoX blockchains need to reduce their bandwidth use requirements. SIP- 007 does this by limiting the number of participants, using a STX holding threshold. Other ways to address bandwidth limitations are also possible e.g., lighting channels between Bitcoin and the new blockchain. Optimizations at the Bitcoin transactions layer could also be possible, which would reduce the total size needed for PoX trans- actions.
Remind me again, how many mining pools make up the entire bitcoin ecosystem? Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 27, 2021, at 10:01 AM, Gunnar Larson <g@xny.io> wrote:
MIA Coin and NYCCoin use PoX as part of their fraud. Harvard Management Company perhaps has a hand in the scheme?
PoX when used for participation rewards, as described, could lead to miner consoli- dation. Because miners that also participate as holders could gain an advantage over miners who do not participate as holders, miners would be strongly incentivized to buy the new cryptocurrency and use it to crowd out other miners. In the extreme case, this consolidation could lead to centralization of mining, which would undermine the decentralization goals of the public blockchain.
Bitcoin Bandwidth: Because PoX miners must send Bitcoin transactions to participate in the consensus algorithm and send PoX rewards, PoX mining would occupy some Bitcoin transac- tion bandwidth. Given Bitcoin bandwidth is limited by design, given security require- ments, new PoX blockchains need to reduce their bandwidth use requirements. SIP- 007 does this by limiting the number of participants, using a STX holding threshold. Other ways to address bandwidth limitations are also possible e.g., lighting channels between Bitcoin and the new blockchain. Optimizations at the Bitcoin transactions layer could also be possible, which would reduce the total size needed for PoX trans- actions.
I think dark pools are illegal in New York? But you might need to ask Harvard Management Company how deep their STX fraud goes? On Sat, Nov 27, 2021, 2:06 PM Uwe Cerron <uwecerron@gmail.com> wrote:
Remind me again, how many mining pools make up the entire bitcoin ecosystem?
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 27, 2021, at 10:01 AM, Gunnar Larson <g@xny.io> wrote:
MIA Coin and NYCCoin use PoX as part of their fraud. Harvard Management Company perhaps has a hand in the scheme?
PoX when used for participation rewards, as described, could lead to miner consoli- dation. Because miners that also participate as holders could gain an advantage over miners who do not participate as holders, miners would be strongly incentivized to buy the new cryptocurrency and use it to crowd out other miners. In the extreme case, this consolidation could lead to centralization of mining, which would undermine the decentralization goals of the public blockchain.
Bitcoin Bandwidth: Because PoX miners must send Bitcoin transactions to participate in the consensus algorithm and send PoX rewards, PoX mining would occupy some Bitcoin transac- tion bandwidth. Given Bitcoin bandwidth is limited by design, given security require- ments, new PoX blockchains need to reduce their bandwidth use requirements. SIP- 007 does this by limiting the number of participants, using a STX holding threshold. Other ways to address bandwidth limitations are also possible e.g., lighting channels between Bitcoin and the new blockchain. Optimizations at the Bitcoin transactions layer could also be possible, which would reduce the total size needed for PoX trans- actions.
Can you cite where they are illegal? i think mm and hft firms use dark pools in nyc. Not a lawyer here :). Are you? Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 27, 2021, at 1:17 PM, Gunnar Larson <g@xny.io> wrote:
I think dark pools are illegal in New York? But you might need to ask Harvard Management Company how deep their STX fraud goes?
On Sat, Nov 27, 2021, 2:06 PM Uwe Cerron <uwecerron@gmail.com> wrote: Remind me again, how many mining pools make up the entire bitcoin ecosystem?
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 27, 2021, at 10:01 AM, Gunnar Larson <g@xny.io> wrote:
MIA Coin and NYCCoin use PoX as part of their fraud. Harvard Management Company perhaps has a hand in the scheme?
PoX when used for participation rewards, as described, could lead to miner consoli- dation. Because miners that also participate as holders could gain an advantage over miners who do not participate as holders, miners would be strongly incentivized to buy the new cryptocurrency and use it to crowd out other miners. In the extreme case, this consolidation could lead to centralization of mining, which would undermine the decentralization goals of the public blockchain.
Bitcoin Bandwidth: Because PoX miners must send Bitcoin transactions to participate in the consensus algorithm and send PoX rewards, PoX mining would occupy some Bitcoin transac- tion bandwidth. Given Bitcoin bandwidth is limited by design, given security require- ments, new PoX blockchains need to reduce their bandwidth use requirements. SIP- 007 does this by limiting the number of participants, using a STX holding threshold. Other ways to address bandwidth limitations are also possible e.g., lighting channels between Bitcoin and the new blockchain. Optimizations at the Bitcoin transactions layer could also be possible, which would reduce the total size needed for PoX trans- actions.
Dark pools are regulated as of today. no? Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 27, 2021, at 1:17 PM, Gunnar Larson <g@xny.io> wrote:
I think dark pools are illegal in New York? But you might need to ask Harvard Management Company how deep their STX fraud goes?
On Sat, Nov 27, 2021, 2:06 PM Uwe Cerron <uwecerron@gmail.com> wrote: Remind me again, how many mining pools make up the entire bitcoin ecosystem?
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 27, 2021, at 10:01 AM, Gunnar Larson <g@xny.io> wrote:
MIA Coin and NYCCoin use PoX as part of their fraud. Harvard Management Company perhaps has a hand in the scheme?
PoX when used for participation rewards, as described, could lead to miner consoli- dation. Because miners that also participate as holders could gain an advantage over miners who do not participate as holders, miners would be strongly incentivized to buy the new cryptocurrency and use it to crowd out other miners. In the extreme case, this consolidation could lead to centralization of mining, which would undermine the decentralization goals of the public blockchain.
Bitcoin Bandwidth: Because PoX miners must send Bitcoin transactions to participate in the consensus algorithm and send PoX rewards, PoX mining would occupy some Bitcoin transac- tion bandwidth. Given Bitcoin bandwidth is limited by design, given security require- ments, new PoX blockchains need to reduce their bandwidth use requirements. SIP- 007 does this by limiting the number of participants, using a STX holding threshold. Other ways to address bandwidth limitations are also possible e.g., lighting channels between Bitcoin and the new blockchain. Optimizations at the Bitcoin transactions layer could also be possible, which would reduce the total size needed for PoX trans- actions.
Also i was referring to the mining pools that operate bitcoin not dark pools. 😅 Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 27, 2021, at 1:17 PM, Gunnar Larson <g@xny.io> wrote:
I think dark pools are illegal in New York? But you might need to ask Harvard Management Company how deep their STX fraud goes?
On Sat, Nov 27, 2021, 2:06 PM Uwe Cerron <uwecerron@gmail.com> wrote: Remind me again, how many mining pools make up the entire bitcoin ecosystem?
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 27, 2021, at 10:01 AM, Gunnar Larson <g@xny.io> wrote:
MIA Coin and NYCCoin use PoX as part of their fraud. Harvard Management Company perhaps has a hand in the scheme?
PoX when used for participation rewards, as described, could lead to miner consoli- dation. Because miners that also participate as holders could gain an advantage over miners who do not participate as holders, miners would be strongly incentivized to buy the new cryptocurrency and use it to crowd out other miners. In the extreme case, this consolidation could lead to centralization of mining, which would undermine the decentralization goals of the public blockchain.
Bitcoin Bandwidth: Because PoX miners must send Bitcoin transactions to participate in the consensus algorithm and send PoX rewards, PoX mining would occupy some Bitcoin transac- tion bandwidth. Given Bitcoin bandwidth is limited by design, given security require- ments, new PoX blockchains need to reduce their bandwidth use requirements. SIP- 007 does this by limiting the number of participants, using a STX holding threshold. Other ways to address bandwidth limitations are also possible e.g., lighting channels between Bitcoin and the new blockchain. Optimizations at the Bitcoin transactions layer could also be possible, which would reduce the total size needed for PoX trans- actions.
On 11/27/21, Uwe Cerron <uwecerron@gmail.com> wrote:
Remind me again, how many mining pools make up the entire bitcoin ecosystem?
There are many block producers that are not part of any mining pool. Given high fab cost of entry and preferential downstream channels, ASIC hard would be better. But you can still coordinate to buy a priority fab slot using a crowdfund non-profit doing #OpenHW spec and sales model to randomly distribute the output under #OpenAudit. Crypto users are their own fools and fault for not doing that, for relying on effectively one premining company to supply them with hardware. PoS models are much worse than even that foolish mistake, not least because they require much less discoverable physical hardware capital assets on ground, O&M, space, power, etc... ripe for attack by monied interests and those who can print fiat into stake, among other problems.
What flaws do you think the beacon chain possesses Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 27, 2021, at 1:40 PM, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/27/21, Uwe Cerron <uwecerron@gmail.com> wrote:
Remind me again, how many mining pools make up the entire bitcoin ecosystem?
There are many block producers that are not part of any mining pool.
Given high fab cost of entry and preferential downstream channels, ASIC hard would be better. But you can still coordinate to buy a priority fab slot using a crowdfund non-profit doing #OpenHW spec and sales model to randomly distribute the output under #OpenAudit. Crypto users are their own fools and fault for not doing that, for relying on effectively one premining company to supply them with hardware. PoS models are much worse than even that foolish mistake, not least because they require much less discoverable physical hardware capital assets on ground, O&M, space, power, etc... ripe for attack by monied interests and those who can print fiat into stake, among other problems.
On 11/27/21, Uwe Cerron <uwecerron@gmail.com> wrote:
What flaws do you think the beacon chain possesses
What "beacon chain", there are over 5k cryptos all using mashup terms among them, with no link to a specific one, no one on list could consider your question. But if people want to know about problems with PoS, or anything else, they should first do some self searches... https://qwant.com/?q=proof+of+stake+pos+<negative_term> negative = flaws, holes, exploits, bad, fails, weakness, economic attacks, disincentives, sellout, aggregation risks, sybil attacks, 51%, bribery, censorship, corruptive governance, maligned interests, etc Please stop top-posting and block-quoting, it makes for hard to read bloat.
Beacon Chain - Ethereum 2.0 pos. Again most of these pos problems have been answered to a considerable extent. To claim Bitcoin is not centralized it's just untrue. I can think of implementing colored coins at the miner/operator level to implement kyc and white label coins. On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 5:02 PM grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/27/21, Uwe Cerron <uwecerron@gmail.com> wrote:
What flaws do you think the beacon chain possesses
What "beacon chain", there are over 5k cryptos all using mashup terms among them, with no link to a specific one, no one on list could consider your question.
But if people want to know about problems with PoS, or anything else, they should first do some self searches...
https://qwant.com/?q=proof+of+stake+pos+<negative_term> negative = flaws, holes, exploits, bad, fails, weakness, economic attacks, disincentives, sellout, aggregation risks, sybil attacks, 51%, bribery, censorship, corruptive governance, maligned interests, etc
Please stop top-posting and block-quoting, it makes for hard to read bloat.
On Sat, Nov 27, 2021, 10:55 PM Uwe Cerron <uwecerron@gmail.com> wrote:
Beacon Chain - Ethereum 2.0 pos. Again most of these pos problems have been answered to a considerable extent. To claim Bitcoin is not centralized it's just untrue. I can think of implementing colored coins at the miner/operator level to implement kyc and white label coins.
Uwe, thanks for your clearheaded posts. Keep yourself safe and private, don't let us mess with you too much. My opinion is that cryptocurrency's problems are political rather than cryptographic at this point. Once cryptocurrency ecosystems are accepted due to their ability to outcompete others, the technical issues will be much easier to resolve. It's exciting that Eth2 is happening, which may solve a lot of things if ethereum gas fees reduce significantly, for example. Do you know whether there is technical documentation on Eth2's new security protocols anywhere, or are technical details basically spread among blog posts, source code, and meeting notes?
On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 5:02 PM grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/27/21, Uwe Cerron <uwecerron@gmail.com> wrote:
What flaws do you think the beacon chain possesses
What "beacon chain", there are over 5k cryptos all using mashup terms among them, with no link to a specific one, no one on list could consider your question.
But if people want to know about problems with PoS, or anything else, they should first do some self searches...
https://qwant.com/?q=proof+of+stake+pos+<negative_term> negative = flaws, holes, exploits, bad, fails, weakness, economic attacks, disincentives, sellout, aggregation risks, sybil attacks, 51%, bribery, censorship, corruptive governance, maligned interests, etc
Please stop top-posting and block-quoting, it makes for hard to read bloat.
participants (4)
-
grarpamp -
Gunnar Larson -
Karl Semich -
Uwe Cerron