This is actually ridiculous.
Basically taking away all the things about Bitcoin that make Bitcoin, Bitcoin and try and capitalize off the name.
Nonsense...
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
This is actually ridiculous.
Basically taking away all the things about Bitcoin that make Bitcoin, Bitcoin and try and capitalize off the name.
Nonsense...
@kyle.anderson Don't you mean taking away all the bad things about Bitcoin?
What 'bad things' about Bitcoin?
Because DPoS is pretty bad as it is.
Very low transactions per second, energy inefficient, mining companies having way too much influence? what's so bad about DPoS?
Well the Tx/s needs to improve.
Energy inneficent - I would argue entropicly secure.
Mining companies have exactly as much power as they should.
DPoS is a tradeoff. Period.
It might not be a bad tradeoff in all cases, see steem. But for sound money, Bitcoin got it right with PoW.
That said, the world really only has a place for 1 maybe 2 PoW 'things'. PoW has very well studied concepts of finality.
Finality in DPoS is ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Kyle, can you elaborate or point me to something I can read about why DPoS is bad?
Well bad is clearly not the right word.
There are tradeoffs when talking about DPoS, Naïve PoS, Slasher PoS, PoW. Sure you get some speed and consistency features with DPoS with the tradeoff of less security. It is much more nuanced than this and there are many unknown unknowns.
Stay tuned for a more in-depth post about DPoS. I'll probably get lots of flak so it is taking me a while to make sure I keep my opinions separate from reality.
Sure, I would totally appreciate hearing your thoughts on this. It obviously seems like a different 'flavor' of decentralization.
I like different flavor. As long as you are aware of the tradeoffs, it is fine. Steem is doing just fine with DPoS.
Security of DPOS is stronger in practice. You only need to coerce a few mining company CEOs to change the course of Bitcoin.
Disagree.
If you think you can change Bitcoin with just a few big miners you are wrong.
Yup, pretty much.
Cant believe the amount of sheep commenting... bah bah.
We tried knock off bitcoins, nobody want them...
Ugh the BTS shills on this site really get to me sometimes.
There is a freaking reason that bitcoin uses proof of work not DPoS crap.
The problem is not 10 min confirmations - that was solved with ip-ip transactions years ago.
This is an obvious attempt to profit off the Bitcoin name and situation.
Knocking of clones that use the same technology and giving them to different owners - of course that didn't work.
This is a huge technical leap given only to current bitcoin owners. That's two big differences.
Yeah, honestly, these "current owner" airdrops are rediculous...
Most users (and owners) of bitcoin dont actually own there private keys.
So what this airdrop is doing is giving the vast majority of coins to the exchange owners, completly destroying the "fair" distribution model.
So then basically, bitcoin users would then have to buy this token with bitcoins from those who recieved them for free...
I dont see your vision... sorry
It is sad that most people don't own their private keys but that is the future we are going to live in. What do you think banks will be when everything is digital assets.
The airdrop is terrible IMO. Byteball and whatever others have done it is just a mess. What are exchanges going to do?
Vision, you give too much credit.
Bitcoin United is an oxymoron since it is a secession from existing Bitcoin. It precipitates the very split it says it is trying to prevent... With the adoption of BIP91 and soon SegWit BIP141, the Bitcoin network has shown a reasonable ability to evolve and self-amend in a good manner. Some of the ideas presented here are solved in Lightning network and SegWit in the other cryptos such as Litecoin. These can be integrated into Bitcoin as is starting with BIP 91 & 141. This effort adds more FUD than assistance unfortunately...
Exactly.
its good to see a familiar face from youtube, thank you for being skeptical i was almost sucked in by this article. it does sound almost too good to be true with the 3 second transaction times, but one question does this have anything to do with bitcoin or are they just branding it the same just to lead people astray? ie unlimited oooo bitcoin has re-branded after the fork they must have made updates?
The transaction times have been well established for two years. Now that there are multiple development teams, what's wrong with offering a quantum leap to bitcoin instead. Do you still think it will be using the same algorithms 100 years from now? Bitcoin is premium asset. It should be hosted on the best ledger available.
Why hamper the security of the most valued digital asset?
Finality is well understood in PoW.
Wait where did you see me on YouTube :-/
DPoS is a tradeoff. Period.
The going with Bitcoin branding is what gets me here.
sorry i must of got you mixed up with BTCkyle
Haha