maybe a new thing?
- Thread starter mattseh
- Start date
They don't even know what the hell they're talking about.
They're calling Bitcoin a distributed system, and theirs a decentralized system, when it's actually the other way around. Theirs is the distributed system.
They're calling Bitcoin a distributed system, and theirs a decentralized system, when it's actually the other way around. Theirs is the distributed system.
What type of insight would you like? I'm sorry, but nobody is going to go for a centralized / distributed system such as this, nor are they going to go for something that is straight-out pushing a commercial product like their "premiumpool". Assuming it's top-notch software, they might be able to push it for company loyalty / rewards programs, but it's not going to work as a virtual currency.
Not to mention, if they got basic concepts like distributed vs. decentralized wrong, even if it does gain any popularity, hackers will more than likely tear the thing to shreds and have it shut down within a week.
I think people completely underestimate the amount of time, skill, energy, testing, thought, and scrutiny that has went into the bitcoin core.
I haven't heard of it before, but that's not surprising given how many github projects there are around bitcoin.
First glance: Making new ledgers on the fly is creative, but it sounds about as safe as a damn school locker.
Proof of work boys, accept no substitutes.
First glance: Making new ledgers on the fly is creative, but it sounds about as safe as a damn school locker.
Proof of work boys, accept no substitutes.
That's not a useful hack at all though.
A pool like Ghash.io gaining 51% is something that governments & other gangsters cannot own. (For long, at least)
Since the people running ghash.io have more to lose than gain by abusing their power, and any attack is sure to be noticed and shunned by miners within minutes, I just feel that all we ever hear from this avenue is unfounded, irrational fears.
Satoshi knew if he put the right incentives in place, miners would always make more money helping the system than hurting it. He was right.
What's the alternative then? A distributed system, which will inevitably be managed by a board, which then inevitably is influenced by the govt with laws, regulations, etc.? That's not going to work. Talk about taking the long way just to end up using another version of fiat money.
I think the current hope is that bitcoin is so large now, it simply takes too many resources to make 51% worthwhile. Take Ghash -- as a pool they probably pull in around $750k - $1mm in new coins every day. Why would they do a 51% attack, effectively destroying bitcoin, and dropping the price to like $10 overnight? Not only is the revenue gone, but then they're stuck with mountains of computing power and nothing to do with it. Majority of that hardware isn't good for anything except mining.
Distributed = DNS, for example. There's parent / child nodes, or trusted / untrusted nodes, or whatever you want to call them. There's some type of hierarchy within the node structure, and different nodes are treated differently depending on some status they're assigned.
Decentralized = All nodes are treated exactly the same, and there's absolutely no differentiation between them.
Virtual currency has to stay decentralized, because the minute it goes distributed and gain any popularity, the government will be on it faster than flies on shit, piling on regulations, taxes, sending limitations, etc. All they have to do is gain influence over the parent / trusted nodes.