Other Coins - Price & Trading topic

And what input do you have in this system? Are you not at the mercy of these select few operators in every regard?
Are you also a fan of Libra and EOS?

1 Like

You are just proving you don’t really understand how POW works. Since there is an economic incentive inherent in this model and the parties COMPETE against each other, then you are not at the “mercy” of any operator, the operators have tremendous incentive to serve their users. In EOS the validators are not “competing” against each other, therefore have no incentive to reinvest in the network and you are dependent on their “good will” to keep the network working. “They are just resting on their laurels”. POW is a “brutal competing environment” that benefits everyone, its true capitalism.

It’s not just about mining and PoW. You need to run a node!

Again, why you should run a node as a user? A node must mine blocks otherwise it doesn’t help to secure the network. If you are not a miner who creates blocks, then running a node as a home user is useless because you are not validating anything, you just follows what the miners say.

Guess you missed uasf

I’m referring only to Bitcoin SV which stays honest to the original white paper of bitcoin. BTC means nothing to me.

Friend with 50% off the network you can rewrite any transaction. With 30% off the network you can rewrite some transactions some off the time… So if you have 30% of the network you can f*ck it hard…


https://learnmeabitcoin.com/guide/51-attack

4 Likes

Anything limited to 5 is pretty pathetic. Imo your argument begins to be valid at 16 to 32 data centers with an even geographic distribution. It becomes more valid at 64 to 128 data centers.

I suspect SAFE will have 64000000 or more “data centers”.

4 Likes

I think the SAFE network is immune up to 33% attack unlike blockchain technology. Because if you control, for example, 10% of the Elders you cannot replace up to 5.1% of the network events as in the blockchain in the table above…

Can anyone confirm if my reasoning is correct?

Assuming that it’s not possible to target a single section, then in theory you would need to take control of more than 33% of the entire network to disrupt parsec. Iirc @mav did some simulations that showed how many sections could be taken over with less then 33% control of the entire network presuming a nonuniform distribution or other probabilistic mechanisms.

3 Likes

50% attack is a myth. Its an hypothetic situation that would never happen once you understand that bitcoin is economically secured.

1 Like

Of course it’s a myth at the moment. The only ones who can attack the network are the ones you pay to protect it. Pure racketeering… Bitcoin is pretty f*cked up

I get an impression you don’t really understand that Bitcoin’s security is not cryptographic, it is Economic.
I would recommend reading this article
(https://medium.com/@sumanthneppalli/bitcoins-security-is-not-cryptographic-it-is-economic-7a8042be6b07)

1 Like

This is exactly what I say, my friend. The only people who can attack Bitcoin are the miners. And they have no economic advantage to attack it. So you don’t pay for protection. You pay a racket…

For that, I want a real network that will have real protection, not racket - SAFE

1 Like

"The total investment going into the network secures the network and creates a stable system of money that is expensive to rewrite. " You are not dependent on the "good will " of the miners neither you need to trust them. Its just too expensive to cheat, and you can cheat only once. What you’re saying is like I go and buy an apartment building and own 51% with 49% fellow investors, and then run through the property stealing windows and doors from myself. Idiotic. makes no sense

1 Like

You understand that miners are selling the bitcoin they are mining, right? Ie you pay them for false security, you pay them for rackets to sell and push the price down…

This is not a stable system. Bitcoin was a p2p network, now is miner to person network…

A very, very bad design that benefits only the rich. F*ck it, I am for a fair and just network - SAFE…

1 Like

Its almost (about 4 hours away) the 2nd of January where Craig made his so called contract to get “his” coins back on the 1st.

So has anyone heard of him announcing to the world that he is Satoshi and he proved it because he got the keys and moved some BTC.

Crickets you say, well thats all the courts heard when Craig said heres my evidence.

1 Like

I don’t think you are fair to him Rob!

Apparently the dwarves are guilty of not putting his gift in Santa’s bag + even if they were, he’s so thick he wouldn’t be able to get through the chimney …

Deliveries are not what they were. One can no longer count on them bringing him his bitcoin after 10 years :crazy_face:

1 Like

I think you should read about “Red Queen Economics” to start understanding the power behind the bitcoin protocol.

1 Like

I’m familiar with the Red Queen paradox… For me, the SAFE network is the cheetah, and Bitcoin is the gazelle :wink:

SAFE is so beautiful!

2 Likes