Bitcoin / Cryptography

you know asic mining is a thing right?
sky is probably the best right now, monero second...

You're a dumb LARPer that ignored the 100s of /b/ threads about Bitcoin when it was GPU minable.

I'm more curious about whether I should invest at all at this point. But since you seem to be knowledgeable, can you suggest a few projects I should take a look at? thanks

cpu minable, even
i mined several fucking bitcoins and litecoins with my low-powered su9400 acer 3810TG

He's asking about crypto tech, not about how to get rich.

cute lil faggot, love you guys

>what if the power can be obtained rather cheaply? And the cost, even if high, can still be acceptable when compared to a fraction of banks operating costs, right?
Miners have already mostly moved their operations to 3rd world nations that have cheap and excessive power output, its simply too much power and its not even being hardly used yet except as storage for long term

>I wonder though if there are other sound applications of cryptography/blockchain among the current projects?
There are many clever ideas and many smart people in crypto, its a real shame that it cant be utilized at scale, look up Factom, as an example of a good application of crypto. Also this is a good story on how crypto has helped develop Africa:
coindesk.com/akon-akoin-crypto-africa-catches-fire/

This, proof of work is fundamentally flawed because it just wastes resources. Also bitcoin was severely wounded by the lightning network which allows for more transactions, before LN panic sales were stopped by the network choking up but no such prevention now

>cpu minable

hardly. cpu mining lasted barely a year.

Literally a ponzi

Quit slacking on the job and flip those burgers.

thanks, just looked them up. Monero seems to have huge potential if they're targeting the dark world.

By sky do you mean skycoin? It doesn't look like a currency does it. And building a new internet? seriously?

Not listening to your shit made me a lot of money.

>Is the technology sound
Sure, it's sound. However, Bitcoin specifically is more like a proof of concept. It's only well known because it was the first of it's kind. A lot of people don't understand what the tech behind bitcoin is so I will give a brief explanation. Bitcoin is essentially just a blockchain + tokens. A blockchain is just a distributed ledger. Everyone who operates a node on the network has a copy of the ledger. The service provided by node operators is simple transaction verification. When someone successfully validates a transaction, they receive payment for the service they provided. The payment is in the form of the same tokens which are needed to use the service (ie. I have to pay transaction fees in BTC). This means that if the service provided has value, then the tokens have value also. Supply and demand.

>If bitcoin works, what the other 1000 coins do
Simple transaction validation is not enough in present year for a cryptocurrency to be truly considered useful. Other cryptocurrencies have found that they can use this approach to incentivize people to offer other services besides transaction verification. These services could include such things as general purpose cloud computing, cloud storage, a decentralized VPN service, etc... Each cryptocurrency which intends to stick around has to provide a useful service.

Bitcoin was a very interesting idea. Don't expect it to still be standing after the dust settles and the corporations all pick/create their favorite cryptocurrencies.

The tech isn't really that sound.

For one thing, mining eats electricity like a motherfucker. I live in WA state where a bunch of Chinks are trying to set up mines in Wenatchee near the big hydroelectric projects on the Columbia River. Hydro power is dirt cheap and super sustainable, but the mines are demanding more power than what has been traditionally been allocated for the Wenatchee area (keep in mind that those dams are supposed to power most of WA state by themselves, not a select few Bitcoin mines). So there is a massive court fight right now to decide who has priority in the power being produced over there.

But the thing that really killed it for me is the idea of a 51% attack. The crypto community at large always likes to present the idea of a 51% attack as being caused by one individual. While that's a valid point, it ignores the possibility of several groups colluding to gain the mining power and manipulate it for their benefit. Right now, China has so much mining power percentage that if the top five mines were to collude, the combined percentage of the Bitcoin network under their control would exceed 51% (aka a 51% attack). Knowing China's history with crypto and collusion to set higher prices, I have to assume collusion here as well as Bitcoin being compromised.

monero is fine, it helped my waifu be okay. i'd suggest looking at other asics tho....

Attached: 1mmmmmwaifu.jpg (1280x720, 90K)

You seem to be under the impression that performing a 51% attack would be worth it for the attacker. A 51% attack would potentially earn them a bunch of BTC. However, it would also be noticed and the value of BTC would drop to $0 until someone makes a hard fork that undoes all the harmful transactions and puts things they way they would be if the attack had not been performed. Anyone in a position to organize such an attack has full awareness of everything I just said.

you didn't lurk hard enough, then
still, litecoin was cpu mineable after that btc cpu mining well enough

eth, zcash, 0x, but do keep ~30% btc
you're welcome

is there a way to gain 51% control without being caught by the public, anons?

>Is the technology sound?
Any blockchain-based technology is incredibly inefficient and a huge waste of ressource. It's only good if you're into speculation and burning money.

Yes the tech is really fucking cool. Especially other coins like ethereum that are designed to run whole decentralized applications rather than just work as a currency.

Tor is a great example of how decentralization fails without proper incentive to host nodes on the network. You could have a blockchain-based service in which people host nodes for a decentralized anonymity layer similar to Tor. You would have to pay to use the service, but that's business. That's how you actually get things done. You pay people, instead of crossing your fingers and hoping the number of altruistic neckbeards running nodes in your anonymity layer is greater than the number of government operated nodes. Oh yeah, and btw this concept is already in development: safenetwork.wiki/en/FAQ#Tor_vs_SAFE

I can't say for sure whether their devs are competent enough to complete the project, but the idea is sound and I believe someone will eventually finish it or create a better version.

>safenetwork.wiki/en/FAQ#Tor_vs_SAFE

this one seems to have similar idea to skycoin which was mentioned above. A decentralized internet is a great idea, yes. I hope they're building something technically better than the current internet? Because sure the current one is pretty old already. Also how do they get around across oceans without help from ISPs.

>this one seems to have similar idea to skycoin which was mentioned above. A decentralized internet is a great idea, yes. I hope they're building something technically better than the current internet? Because sure the current one is pretty old already. Also how do they get around across oceans without help from ISPs.
They aren't actually replacing the internet. That's just bad marketing. They are building a secure anonymized layer on top of the internet. There is no feasible way to truly have a decentralized internet. Mesh networks are the closest thing, but they are too slow to be practical and they suffer from the same problems of not being able to cross oceans unless we find an affordable way for anyone to launch their own satellites into space.

Simply put its an elaborate get rich quick maymay scam.

>hearing about a 'must invest' tech on fucking CNN
>still wants in at this point

crypto is dead my friend, once you hear about an investment on CNN it's over, face it.

This is you

Attached: 1514982765175.png (613x481, 43K)

No.
A 51% attack on bitcoin is not a good idea.
A 51% attack on smaller coins is.
First of all, it's cheap as fuck to do it. And you only need to maintain it a few hours.
Send a bunch of coins to exchange, trade for bitcoin, send bitcoin to your wallet, then recover your coins that you sent at the start because you own the blockchain with a 51% attack.
This happened to lesser coins like Mona recently.

Also op, if you/re really interested, go check out Andreas Antonopoulos videos.
Most people here have no idea, they've heard something and they think they know everything, but they know shit.
Listen to Antonopoulos and you will learn everything.

Kinda.
It depends what you are trying to do. What happens right now is that because a new block comes out about every 10 minutes, all transactions waiting to be processed are sitting in queues on clients waiting for a block to be stuffed into. If the big Chinese farms got together they could decide which transactions go into the blocks. Now, they couldn't absolutely deny certain transactions indefinitely without being noticed, but it can be very advantageous to get preferential treatment for your transactions.

> Blockchain evolve to BlockDAG.
> CryptoNote + Bulletproofs
> Immune to 51% Attack
> PoW
> Private Smart Contract ( soon )
> Better Scalability than Sharding or Lightning Network.
> Block Time 10 sec. (avg, min : 3 sec)

It's time to forget Bitcoin / Ethereum and Monero, they are all outdated,

Attached: 1911.png (3000x2961, 923K)

>inb4 no one cares

So, why not just meter tor use and pay node operators? That would boost incentive pretty quick.

You guys know underwater fiber cables are operated by private businesses, right?

There's a shitload is issues with that. Mainly:

1. Who would do that? The code maintainers? Then it would stop being a decentralized system and because a commercial, centralized system and thus lose most of its appeal.

2. How would you prevent people from cheating the system e.g setting up a node but only accepting their own spam traffic that they generate and then claiming their node processed that much data? And how would you know how much each node really processed and calculate pay accordingly? You'd need some some of centralized tracking system, but again that would defeat the whole purpose of Tor.

3. How would the node owners be paid and the user pay without compromising their anonymity?

4. Bringing money into the equation opens up a huge minefield of legal issues.

Basically, what these blockchain projects aiming to replace Tor does, is exactly what you say: Take the concept of Tor but add a payment feature to incentivize nodes. It's just that to do so you really need the blockchain and thus have to redesign the whole project. You can't just take Tor as it is and slap on a payment feature for the reasons listed above.

>who would do that
The people that want to use the network would pay.

>cheating the system
The people paying for bandwidth would be the same people receiving payment in your scenario, making it not profitable to cycle junk traffic.

>anonymity
Not sure, I imagine if they're getting paid in Monero they're about as anonymous as anyone else doing something similar. Unless you're talking about being able to figure out a node's physical location.

>adding money
I don't see why that's an issue. It varies by country and the US is ruling on general crypto stuff supposedly.

>The people that want to use the network would pay.
>The people paying for bandwidth would be the same people receiving payment in your scenario, making it not profitable to cycle junk traffic.

How do you envision this taking place exactly? I mean who will be in charge of making sure the user pays and the nodes get paid? If you mean that the user will pay directly to the nodes with no management middle man, this would be a huge pain in the ass considering that each user uses many different nodes at once, and even possibly several exit nodes over the course of a session. And all this needs to happen without the user knowing who he is paying to.

You'd probably have to have a dedicated currency for the project. It shouldn't be hard to figure out for a system which private key is pulling traffic through which nodes.

>I sent 10 Monero to buy 200 Internet Tokens.
>Use a private key to sign in to Tor and enter my permissioned wallet address.
>Spend 1 Internet Token to stream the movie Back to the Future.
>The five metered nodes between myself and the video service server split that token five ways.
>Automatically sent to each node's address.

But then at that point it requires so large changes to Tor that the effect is the same as creating an entirely new system like they are doing, so what is the point?

Bitcoin(and by being their testing bitch, litecoin), Ethereum, Monero are the big three.

Any other coin is garbage until they prove themselves in real world usage.

btc m8 always

You guys are pretty much working out the idea behind Skycoin/Skywire. Decentralized metered internet.

you have to remember bitcoins have no real world use and it is all a scam

I have to pay 6% to wire money to my family in Europe. BTC brings that down to 2%...