As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

I'm old, and I don't get Bitcoin [Cryptocurrency and society].

1616263646567»

Posts

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Hevach wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Garthor wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Because you must have coins in the prior ledger in order to have a proof of stake.

    Whose prior ledger? The prior ledger of the node connecting? There is none, they've just connected to the network, and have no knowledge. The ledgers of the nodes offering their (differing) blockchains? They both are saying they have the coins, why wouldn't they? One is lying, but how would you figure out which?

    You can't solve that without some independently verifiable method of correctness (this is what the longest chain serves), or a central authority (this is what Ethereum proposes).

    Well if you make up a new ledger you cannot change the old coins... that would just be the same as making a new coin.

    And what's stopping an attacker from just flat out doing that without some sort of centralized authority? It'd be incredibly obvious that it happened, of course, but how could it be stopped?

    Well... its like... Why would it matter? Its like printing a bunch of monopoly money and saying you're a millionaire. Uhhh sure, but that doesn't mean anyone will accept it. Or that you've suddenly captured everyone elses money.

    I am not saying that proof of stake is good. But its not so easy to fool as to just say you have all the stake.

    There's a problem with the monopoly money metaphor, because you're participating in a system based on monopoly money, where even if nobody accepts your enforced ledger, they have no recourse against it.
    No. The point is that with proof of stake attempting to submit a ledger when you do not have a stake in the prior ledger is akin to producing a new coin. You would have etheribum and not etherium.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Hevach wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Garthor wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Because you must have coins in the prior ledger in order to have a proof of stake.

    Whose prior ledger? The prior ledger of the node connecting? There is none, they've just connected to the network, and have no knowledge. The ledgers of the nodes offering their (differing) blockchains? They both are saying they have the coins, why wouldn't they? One is lying, but how would you figure out which?

    You can't solve that without some independently verifiable method of correctness (this is what the longest chain serves), or a central authority (this is what Ethereum proposes).

    Well if you make up a new ledger you cannot change the old coins... that would just be the same as making a new coin.

    And what's stopping an attacker from just flat out doing that without some sort of centralized authority? It'd be incredibly obvious that it happened, of course, but how could it be stopped?

    Well... its like... Why would it matter? Its like printing a bunch of monopoly money and saying you're a millionaire. Uhhh sure, but that doesn't mean anyone will accept it. Or that you've suddenly captured everyone elses money.

    I am not saying that proof of stake is good. But its not so easy to fool as to just say you have all the stake.

    There's a problem with the monopoly money metaphor, because you're participating in a system based on monopoly money, where even if nobody accepts your enforced ledger, they have no recourse against it.

    The recourse is nobody accepting your ledger though? Fooling a brand new node isn't terribly useful. It accomplishes nothing and it's not like you can prevent them from ever contacting the main chain

    If you simply have more nodes than the main chain then that's just a PoS 51% attack which is very risky but might work, but the key is you needed to have that stake in the main chain before branching, otherwise your history will just be nonsense, and clients usually have some known existing hash in the chain somewhere that they can check for

  • honoverehonovere Registered User regular
    Amazingly now the PA forums is the first site where the ad banner wants to sell me cryptocurrencies.

  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    edited April 8
    honovere wrote: »
    Amazingly now the PA forums is the first site where the ad banner wants to sell me cryptocurrencies.

    That is amazing because clearly PA is it's own ad company now and not just using Google Ads so I can't understand how that came to be.

    HappylilElf on
  • DibbitDibbit Registered User regular
    honovere wrote: »
    Amazingly now the PA forums is the first site where the ad banner wants to sell me cryptocurrencies.

    That is amazing because clearly PA is it's own ad company now and not just using Google Ads so I can't understand how that came to be.

    Are we all genuinely surprised that a popular website that just did a comic about NFT's and crypto has advertisements around that part, or is this some Grade A+ sarcasm that I'm missing?

    Remember, advertisers (and the algorithms) behind it, don't care about your opinion of things, just that you THINK about those things, so the fact that the comic was negative doesn't matter, It mentioned NFT's, this audience has *engagement*

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • honoverehonovere Registered User regular
    the best part about that ad is the lttle disclaimer at the bottom that "75% of retails investors lose money with this provider. Make sure you can take that risk"

    Gnome-Interruptus
Sign In or Register to comment.