[Tommie R]

Title is a bit clickbait, but regardless, the majority does not really seem to realize this.. The first half of this video is insightful.





The main quote of this video IMO is "Bitcoin is the dominant crypto asset. Ethereum is the dominant crypto application."

Here's more on this topic https://hackforums.net/showthread.php?ti...id60773811

The other point is that the crypto applications are much more centralized. Proof of Stake is more centralized, less secure.

[Tommie R]

Saylor has no clue what he's talking about at 1:40-  "They need to run on proof of stake networks because they need to speed"

The consensus mechanism of a network has nothing to do with scaling or throughput.

https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/...nisms/pos/

stronger support for shard chains – a key upgrade in scaling the Ethereum network


I'm sure you know this much better than I do, but on the ethereum.org site it says that it's essential for scaling the ETH network. What's your take on that?

[shreder]

I figured you followed his rhetoric. The fact of the matter is he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

He's the same guy who said Bitcoin's days are numbered...

Again if PoW was so decentralized tell me how 47% of the hash rate disappeared when a singular province in China had a power outage? Are you mining right now? Bitcoin miners forming a council? Oh, this is getting better by the day.

[clean]

I think BTC and ETH are for sure a big play in dominance of the market, overall BTC is the dominant and always will be for our eternity. Been watching it myself for years! Just my opinion though.

[Tommie R]

I figured you followed his rhetoric. The fact of the matter is he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

He's the same guy who said Bitcoin's days are numbered...

That's irrelevant really. What he said is still true, more specifically the things I quoted on this thread.

In regards to China mining, I seriously doubt that they'll have the same impact on the network as they have now. I see this only getting better in the next few years as everyone has a financial incentive to scale their mining operations - also, it incentivizes renewable energy! :) There's currently a China crackdown on miners.

He said Ethereum is less secure, which this in-depth article backs up -> https://etherplan.com/2019/10/07/why-pro...work/9077/

[shreder]

That's irrelevant really. What he said is still true, more specifically the things I quoted on this thread.

In regards to China mining, I seriously doubt that they'll have the same impact on the network as they have now. I see this only getting better in the next few years as everyone has a financial incentive to scale their mining operations - also, it incentivizes renewable energy! :) There's currently a China crackdown on miners.

He said Ethereum is less secure, which this in-depth article backs up -> https://etherplan.com/2019/10/07/why-pro...work/9077/

Ah yes crack down of chinese miners so they can centralize somewhere else, maybe we should ask the mining council that is being formed about their plans on that. Oh wait, the mining council will only consist of a small group of powerful entities. Good luck buying specialized hardware to mine Bitcoin in the future.
You wont need to worry anyways you dont mine or ever will participate in your own coins consensus.

[Marvelous]

Title is a bit clickbait, but regardless, the majority does not really seem to realize this.. The first half of this video is insightful.





The main quote of this video IMO is "Bitcoin is the dominant crypto asset. Ethereum is the dominant crypto application."

Here's more on this topic https://hackforums.net/showthread.php?ti...id60773811

The other point is that the crypto applications are much more centralized. Proof of Stake is more centralized, less secure.

Man you click baited the fook out of Focus broken. Dude lives off these kind of threads.

ETH2 THEMOOONNNN

[Silence]

I use eth as my savings account. Fuck banks.

[fuserleer]

Saylor has no clue what he's talking about at 1:40-  "They need to run on proof of stake networks because they need to speed"

The consensus mechanism of a network has nothing to do with scaling or throughput.

While Saylor is indeed incorrect in his statement, I'm afraid you are too. Consensus mechanisms have everything to do with scaling & throughput.

Of course it depends on the consensus mechanism being employed how that manifests, but ultimately it's always to do with message and/or verification complexity.

POW isn't a consensus mechanism though, neither is POS, they are both Sybil mechanism which are used in such a way to determine the next "leader". If you have lots of POW/POS (identities) you can always be the leader.

A leader when thinking about a block chain is defined as "who is allowed to dictate the next set of actions". In contrast, when operating a multi-decree BFT consensus mechanism, a leader is defined as a party which proposes next actions, then manages the process of collecting and re-distributing the votes (decrees) from n of m other parties which may or may not satisfy 2f+1 in order to commit.

The actual consensus mechanism in most POW block chains is the strongest chain rule (not longest chain as is often touted, that's insecure).

The real issue with scaling block chains is that they are synchronous consensus mechanisms. Go too fast, or too big, and the effort required for all active participants to keep up, or process the volume of information across the network is too great, which ends up creating latency and ultimately a liveness break (nothing happens, or happens very slowly). Or put another way, participants are unable to apply the "strongest chain" consensus effectively.

POW as implemented in Bitcoin is perfectly fine for blocks terabytes in size, with a cumulative throughput of millions per second. The issue is moving that volume of data across the network so that at least a supermajority of miners AND full nodes have it completely within 10 minutes or less. If it takes longer than 10 minutes, bad shit happens such as liveness breaks, miners burning hash power on stale blocks because they don't have the latest yet, etc etc yada yada.

Likewise with multi-decree BFT, if you have too many voting participants, the quantity of messages that need to be delivered and signatures that need to be verified at high throughput becomes quadratic ... again liveness break ensues.

[Orchid]

While Saylor is indeed incorrect in his statement, I'm afraid you are too.  Consensus mechanisms have everything to do with scaling & throughput.

Of course it depends on the consensus mechanism being employed how that manifests, but ultimately it's always to do with message and/or verification complexity.

POW isn't a consensus mechanism though, neither is POS, they are both Sybil mechanism which are used in such a way to determine the next "leader".  If you have lots of POW/POS (identities) you can always be the leader.

A leader when thinking about a block chain is defined as "who is allowed to dictate the next set of actions".  In contrast, when operating a multi-decree BFT consensus mechanism, a leader is defined as a party which proposes next actions, then manages the process of collecting and re-distributing the votes (decrees) from n of m other parties which may or may not satisfy 2f+1 in order to commit.

The actual consensus mechanism in most POW block chains is the strongest chain rule (not longest chain as is often touted, that's insecure).

The real issue with scaling block chains is that they are synchronous consensus mechanisms.  Go too fast, or too big, and the effort required for all active participants to keep up, or process the volume of information across the network is too great, which ends up creating latency and ultimately a liveness break (nothing happens, or happens very slowly).  Or put another way, participants are unable to apply the "strongest chain" consensus effectively.

POW as implemented in Bitcoin is perfectly fine for blocks terabytes in size, with a cumulative throughput of millions per second.  The issue is moving that volume of data across the network so that at least a supermajority of miners AND full nodes have it completely within 10 minutes or less.  If it takes longer than 10 minutes, bad shit happens such as liveness breaks, miners burning hash power on stale blocks because they don't have the latest yet, etc etc yada yada.

Likewise with multi-decree BFT, if you have too many voting participants, the quantity of messages that need to be delivered and signatures that need to be verified at high throughput becomes quadratic ... again liveness break ensues.

Boom headshot, BOOM headshot, BOOM HEADSHOT.

[Swip3r]

While Saylor is indeed incorrect in his statement, I'm afraid you are too.  Consensus mechanisms have everything to do with scaling & throughput.

Of course it depends on the consensus mechanism being employed how that manifests, but ultimately it's always to do with message and/or verification complexity.

POW isn't a consensus mechanism though, neither is POS, they are both Sybil mechanism which are used in such a way to determine the next "leader".  If you have lots of POW/POS (identities) you can always be the leader.

A leader when thinking about a block chain is defined as "who is allowed to dictate the next set of actions".  In contrast, when operating a multi-decree BFT consensus mechanism, a leader is defined as a party which proposes next actions, then manages the process of collecting and re-distributing the votes (decrees) from n of m other parties which may or may not satisfy 2f+1 in order to commit.

The actual consensus mechanism in most POW block chains is the strongest chain rule (not longest chain as is often touted, that's insecure).

The real issue with scaling block chains is that they are synchronous consensus mechanisms.  Go too fast, or too big, and the effort required for all active participants to keep up, or process the volume of information across the network is too great, which ends up creating latency and ultimately a liveness break (nothing happens, or happens very slowly).  Or put another way, participants are unable to apply the "strongest chain" consensus effectively.

POW as implemented in Bitcoin is perfectly fine for blocks terabytes in size, with a cumulative throughput of millions per second.  The issue is moving that volume of data across the network so that at least a supermajority of miners AND full nodes have it completely within 10 minutes or less.  If it takes longer than 10 minutes, bad shit happens such as liveness breaks, miners burning hash power on stale blocks because they don't have the latest yet, etc etc yada yada.

Likewise with multi-decree BFT, if you have too many voting participants, the quantity of messages that need to be delivered and signatures that need to be verified at high throughput becomes quadratic ... again liveness break ensues.

Now to dissect this word by word to try and understand :)
Thanks for the informational post.

[atlantic]

reading from professionals and learning new things

[Forensic]

Very interesting video. Thanks for the share. It seems BTC is the only truly reliable crypto. I had thought eth could rival btc one day but perhaps not.

[Tommie R]

Very interesting video. Thanks for the share. It seems BTC is the only truly reliable crypto. I had thought eth could rival btc one day but perhaps not.

Yes. The fact is that Ethereum is many times more risky of an investment than Bitcoin, and the potential reward isn't even as high as Bitcoin! It won't beat Bitcoin for being a superior store of value -> which is where serious numbers come into play such as $20 trillion or $100 trillion market caps in 5-10 years from now.

I like the input from members on PoS and PoW. We should keep it going. The main thing I was trying to point is that Bitcoin is competing for being the global store of value, while Ethereum is trying to be an ecosystem for dApps PLUS a store of value.. Even though the market cap of ETH is almost half of Bitcoin's, Bitcoin has a far bigger market share in the context of investors seeking to store the value of their money. Plus, given that there's no market cap right now on ETH - it's being inflated.. It wouldn't make sense to invest in it since there's no hard cap just like with BTC.

A very small amount of investors are going to ETH because the FED is printing money.. It doesn't make sense to store your money with ETH when there's Bitcoin which is fully completed TODAY and it has proven itself. ETH2 isn't even fully integrated so I don't get why people would rather pick ETH over Bitcoin if all they're seeking is a store of value, which again, is where the biggest money lays.

Besides, why pick ETH? Cardano seems promising as well.. It's competing against ETH. There's practically no competition for BTC though.. in its division. There's a lot of competition for ETH in its division. This makes ETH more risky.

This is the mistake that many are making, they see the whole cryptocurrency market as ONE division. The fact is that they are multiple division, and each has different levels of competition and potential growth. Bitcoin has much much lower competition and the potential growth is in the tens of trillions as it evolves to be the digital version of Gold, 100x better than real Gold. It will grow beyond Gold's market cap because of we can integrate Bitcoin into the digital financial world and build on it, which we can't do effectively with gold.

[Goku]

Wow, sorry. That guy might be smart in stocks and shit, but he has zero clue on what is talking about lmao.

People really should stop listening to these guys. Not because this would hurt crypto blah blah, but these guys do hurt people life's because they try to come over as trustworthy as possible so that they can sell you an idea.