makeasnek

This may be true for Cardano, but not for Bitcoin. As more BTC gets mined, your percentage of the total supply goes down

This is so terribly incorrect. Bitcoin has a fixed supply. Those miners are selling those coins on the open market and they are running out as you say. 1 BTC is the same portion of the total final supply it was a year ago or 10 years ago.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t the pools send the block that needs to get mined to it’s participants? If that’s the case, imagine if those 2 top pools decide to do sus stuff or if they get compromized by malware. This could create some trouble until miners migrate. Again, correct me if I’m wrong. Having 2 such large mining pools is not cool and there is no hiding from that fact.

I've love to see more pools, but I just don't think its as big of an issue as it's often made out to be, since they don't actually control the hashpower. The blocks they send to participants are immediately verifiable as real or not, miners don't have to take a pool's word for it and will often have full nodes monitoring the blockchain to make sure any given pool doesn't go over 51% hashpower.

Pools really can't do sus stuff. There are a few things pools could do or try to do:

• Censor transactions by refusing to include them in blocks. They are financially incentivized not to do this, since not including a tx in the block means selecting the next least valuable tx in terms of fees. The immediate damage from this is basically nil, the next block will probably be made by a different pool and the tx will go through. So transactions can't get censored, only delayed. But people will notice, and that pool will lose all its hashpower and its means of making money, which is exactly what happened when this scenario happened before. Bitcoin has faced, and beaten back, this exact attack before.

• Conspire to perform a 51% attack. They don't just need 51% between each other, they need enough hashpower to roll back previous blocks, which means maintaining 51% for several blocks in a row. One of the primary reasons 51% attacks are not viable is that you need to give that Bitcoin to somebody, get something of value in return, and then un-spend it. They need to transfer you that equivalent amount of value before it gets unspent. Nobody transferring hundreds of millions or billions of dollars worth of value is going to be happy with a one block confirmation. Or even a three block confirmation. Even if they were, what items can you actually transfer that quickly? It's just not viable as an attack method, there is no money to be gained. Pool operators are fallible at the rest of us, if there was a viable way to do a 51% attack, somebody would have done it by now. But it's not.

What do you mean, coins in transit can’t stake? I have 10 coins (wallet staked), you have 0 coins (wallet staked), I send you 5 coins (atomic operation)

If a block moves a coin from a to b, that coin can't also the coin that stakes that block. Granted, I am showing some ignorance of Cardano here, but that's how other PoS systems work. And there is usually a "cooldown" of a couple blocks to prevent that coin from staking for a while for security reasons.

I didn't know about cardano's capped supply, you've taught me a few things in this thread. Until the system is actually decentralized and the cardano devs give away the master keys and let the network truly run on its own, I have little interest in it. And based on some cursory reading, centralization of relays and growing chain size are much more of a concern than with Bitcoin. Best of luck to you.

I'm not saying it doesn't impact the price, I'm saying it doesn't matter. Bitcoin's current price looks like a steal to me if it's going to be the underlying currency for the global economy.

All currency is speculated on. The market finds the right price. Then it corrects. The price goes up and down. That's how markets work. The USD is guaranteed to lose value and buying power over time due to an inflationary supply. That's not even throwing in the US's declining role as a global currency hegemon and the reduced demand it causes.

Bitcoin? It could go up or down relative to other currencies or goods, but my portion of the supply relative to the whole will always be the same. That's why I buy bitcoin.

The previous poster is alleging BTC is being "pumped" by tether because tether is collateralizing their coin by buying BTC. I'm pointing out that they also buy USD yet nobody is complaining that USD is being pumped.

If you buy a stablecoin, the hope is that the stablecoin is tied to an actual dollar (or whatever it is supposed to represent). This means if you buy $1 in tether, tether should buy $1 USD on the open market, put it in a vault, and wait until somebody else comes back to sell that dollar back to Tether. But you can buy other stuff too, other assets, which when you start managing large amounts of money is important for risk management. Plus they can make some returns that way. Some stablecoins pass the returns on to people who hold the stablecoin. Generally, these stablecoins are collapses waiting to happen for these and many other reasons.

The whole idea behind IOG is to build the Cardano to the point it can become an independent, self-sustaining and self-developing thing.

So weird how proof-of-work currencies like Bitcoin were able to do that without making a centralized governance structure which promised to hand over the keys later.

yes TWO mining pools control more than half of the Bitcoins block production

Mining pools have been getting more distributed the last few years thanks to some network upgrades. Pools relay the results of mining, they don't do the actual mining, they have no hashpower. In the past, pools have tried to censor transactions, and seen their pool get abandoned by the entire network. They couldn't censor them of course, they could only temporarily delay them. Pools have no power. They can't double-spend or 51% attack because nearly all of the BTC they acquire flows right back to miners. They can't afford the cost of a 51% attack more than any other entity or nation-state. They can't spend money which isn't theirs, even if they could do a 51% attack. If you look at hashpower instead of pools, you will see it's much more decentralized.

Actually, in Cardano, the rich don’t really get richer because every single holder no matter how small gets rewards proportional to their holdings (if they stake or delegate, which is risk free and no locking unlike Ethereum and Solana garbage PoS).

The rewards proportion isn't why the "rich get richer". The rich get richer because coins in transit can't stake. This means the only coins that can stake are existing coins, sitting in wallets, doing nothing but staking. You are printing an inflationary currency supply, making new coins, and giving those coins to those who are already sitting on the most coins. The more coins you have, the greater portion of your coins will be sitting instead of moving, because why not, it's free money right? For doing nothing. It's why supply inflation/currency devaluation hurts the middle class more than anybody else. They have an emergency fund, they have a savings account, they are saving up for a down payment. They have more cash on hand than rich people or poor people. Rich people have assets. Poor people don't have enough money to be effected. The proportionality doesn't matter here. What matters is the direction of the new coin flow: towards those who are already sitting on coins.

In a fixed supply, your coins may gain value over time due to deflationary pressure. Every coin is effected the same way. In cardano and other inflationary currencies, you've added an additional layer where you are printing coins and handing them to those with the most coins already. Not only does this give them more coins, it reduces the value of the coins held by people whose coins recently transited.

Ethereum does not have an unlimited money printer. It has a specific inflation rate and network protocol controlling it. Its fiscal policy has changed over time, PoW is better, but you don't have to make stuff up to make that point.

How much energy do banks use? Or remittance services like Western Union? Notice how you never see those numbers alongside these headlines. These articles are for clicks and outrage, not for serious discussion and weighing pros vs cons.

Sending transactions from A to B is "useful stuff".

I'm saying that the transition to a Bitcoin-based economy will be a massive shake-up in global wealth distribution. Where each individual person ends up at the end of it is a factor of how soon they stop calling it a ponzi scheme and instead recognize its value as a currency. We have an opportunity to fix global wealth inequality, particularly the wealth inequality enforced through the dollar the the debt-cycle trap so many countries have fallen into. The dollar is a tool of US imperialism, it's traditional colonialism with a few extra steps. We extract trillions of dollars of value from other countries which rely on the dollar because we print currency which is essentially a tax on the entire world.

There is a fantastic overview of how the US uses the dollar to control other countries and extract trillions of dollars from them while keeping them in a cycle of debt. The Human Rights Foundation https://youtu.be/7qRWurFaUD0?list=PLe0djdakvnFb0T-oZAeF49A-EZChise4n&t=14009 and another one on how France abuses its currency influence in Africa to keep the colonial legacy alive https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-u1Pjce4Lg&pp=ygUxaG93IGZyYW5jZSBjb250cm9scyBlbnRpcmUgZWNvbm9taWVzIGZyYW5jb2RvbGxhcg%3D%3D

Bitcoin is still capitalism, it can't fix capitalism's flaws, but it can move us towards a world where the flaws of fiat currency and currency imperialism are fixed. It can move us to a world where the government isn't constantly printing away the value of your hard-earned money, where governments must increase taxes to fund wars. That world looks very different.

The problem with nano is that it makes the assumption you can just give away transaction space for free. You can't. If you do, spammers and other low-value uses take up all the space. The more space gets taken up, the more expensive it is to run a node, and the more centralized your network becomes. So what did they do when they ran into this problem? They added a proof-of-work component. The very thing they created their coin to avoid! If you look at almost all of these non-PoW cryptos, the only reason they can get better transactions per second or low tx fees is because they are very centralized or because nobody is actually competing for that space because nobody uses them.

Bitcoin solves this scaling/fee problem with Bitcoin lightning, which is a layer on top of the main chain. The main chain provides security, while actual transactions live on the second layer. Fees on lightning measure in the pennies and confirm instantly. The scale you can take lightning to is basically infinite. That's actually useful as a currency.

IDGAF about Tether, IMO it will collapse one day, and the world will be better for it. It's a currency whose basis is "trust me bro".

PoS inevitably leads to centralization and requires an inflationary currency supply. That is the problem. Coins in transit can't stake. Which means the only coins that can stake are coins that already exist and are sitting on a staking node. You are paying those stakers with an inflationary supply. Which means you are minting new coins and handing them to users who already have the most coins. This leads to centralization of the supply over time, and therefore, control of network consensus. A few rich, powerful people end up controlling the whole system, just like our existing banking system. No thanks.

Most of those PoS chains also have massive chain sizes/system requirements compared to Bitcoin, which means they can't be or remain nearly as decentralized, neutral, and secure.