It looks like a hostile takeover.Yeah .. but I like it ...
Rune, you crazy guy, this looks like a very clever idea, but my gut tells me it would never work. I'll see if I can convince my gut to tell me why it's so pessimistic, but first a question: When a mining pool publishes an ERB, do they collect the normal bitcoin block reward for it as well as the future reward they get at exodus?
I wonder at what lengths Bitcoiners would do to stop pools that are mining ERBs.
This will also inevitably put us at war with Bitcoin, especially if this fails. We may see much more transaction spamming, DDoS, new exploits, etc. from Bitcoin Zealots. The resulting climate of the combined effect of these attacks on BTS with the hostile takeover of BTC will be very hard to predict...
Only flaw I can see, and I may have missed it somewhere in the Wall-O-Text is:
Would the migration from POW to DPOS of the miners need to happen in a shorter time frame than the diff adjustment? Otherwise each major miner that started to mine ERB's instead would be making mining more profitable for whoever is left because the diff would start to nose dive. Then you'd have an uptick in the number of miners and the cycle continues.
I'm now mostly concerned for the safety of the BitShares dev team from irrational, crazy bitcoiners...
Next question: How is this different than the big miners participating in the merged mining of an alt coin?
Next question: How is this different than the big miners participating in the merged mining of an alt coin?
Merged miners are not incentivized to exclude BTC transactions.
also:
- the community has the capailities to setup an own mining pool that might end up in 51% mining power because we can pay WAY more to the miners. This way we can also proof the basic flaws of POW
How would it help Bitshares if we funded such an attack? It wouldn't. We would be labeled by the market as a bad actor and no one would want to join us.
Miners do not have control over what hard for users adopt.
So the solution is really very simple:
Pay miners to produce blocks without transactions in it and eventually to ignore blocks produced that include transactions.
How much do you have to pay them? Probably 3x the times the value of BTC transaction fees.
How will bitcoin respond? Increase transaction fees.
How would it help Bitshares if we funded such an attack? It wouldn't. We would be labeled by the market as a bad actor and no one would want to join us.
Think about it, why would you hold BTC in this situation. If you were interested in getting a stake in BTS you could much more efficiently buy in with BTC right now. Every one else is just going to dump for fiat.
Think about it, why would you hold BTC in this situation. If you were interested in getting a stake in BTS you could much more efficiently buy in with BTC right now. Every one else is just going to dump for fiat.
This is exactly why bitshares stakeholders will support this. Once "this situation" becomes apparent to bitcoiners they will realize that bitshares should be valued at 25% of bitcoins current market cap. Many will dump for fiat, sure (but that's going to happen anyway due to POW mining being a death sentence). With just the first few ERB's mined we will begin to see enormous spikes in the BTS price until it reaches 25% parity with bitcoin. That would put us at 1 billion and give all BTS holders an instant 2000% return. Even if the bitcoin price temporarily halved, we would still see a 1000% return. In the long run the return will obviously be much larger because bitshares with the market cap and infrastructure of bitcoin will be completely unstoppable.
I think that the attempt at this would be the end of bitshares, not of bitcoin.
The PoW algorithm is not so fragile that it can be taken down like that. Yes, PoW is slightly flawed in that it wastes money. But its not flawed in the sense that you cant just easily kill the coin - it does actually work to protect the network.
Any group that tried to do this to bitcoin would be hated by the entire crypto community with a passion you have never seen before. It would be the end of that coin. No one would ever touch it again with a 100 foot pole.
It's brilliant. And a bit reckless. I think we can achieve the same ends by being a little less hostile. Why not let BitShares grow a bit and the market progress naturally, to the point where there are open questions in the crypto community (not just from us) about whether BTS should succeed Bitcoin? And then prepare some sharedrop on-ramps to buy us some more Bitcoin defectors, accelerating the domino effect just when it can have the greatest impact. That way, it wouldn't need to be quite as hostile/radical and we'd be giving people the choice of jumping ship for some incentive. Plus, they might actually WANT to come here rather than being forced.
It's brilliant. And a bit reckless. I think we can achieve the same ends by being a little less hostile. Why not let BitShares grow a bit and the market progress naturally, to the point where there are open questions in the crypto community (not just from us) about whether BTS should succeed Bitcoin? And then prepare some sharedrop on-ramps to buy us some more Bitcoin defectors, accelerating the domino effect just when it can have the greatest impact. That way, it wouldn't need to be quite as hostile/radical and we'd be giving people the choice of jumping ship for some incentive. Plus, they might actually WANT to come here rather than being forced.
If our stakeholders think that our 20% valuation is too high, then maybe we should put it at 10%. It would still be an approximate 1000% increase in value at current market rate and thus would be massively profitable for bitshares holders.
If our stakeholders think that our 20% valuation is too high, then maybe we should put it at 10%. It would still be an approximate 1000% increase in value at current market rate and thus would be massively profitable for bitshares holders.
...I personally think BitShares is worth a lot more than a measly 10% of Bitcoin's cap. I'd much rather just see BitShares destroy the competition and suck up all of Bitcoin's value the old-fashioned way -- by being the best, and completely unstoppable.
Wouldn't participation in this kill the price of BTC and thus the mining rewards themselves ?
Same core argument as to why a large stake holder won't attack POS.
Am I missing something?
/r/bitcoin reply
/r/Bitcoin/comments/2m3toy/bitcoin_attack_in_the_making/
/r/bitcoin reply
/r/Bitcoin/comments/2m3toy/bitcoin_attack_in_the_making/
I'd say: no one over at reddit read the whole post .. not to mention the whole discussion afterwards ../r/bitcoin reply
/r/Bitcoin/comments/2m3toy/bitcoin_attack_in_the_making/
Indeed.
And, literally the only result that can come out of this thread is that more bitcoin people hate us and will never buy bitshares.
/r/bitcoin reply
/r/Bitcoin/comments/2m3toy/bitcoin_attack_in_the_making/
Indeed.
And, literally the only result that can come out of this thread is that more bitcoin people hate us and will never buy bitshares.
Bitcoiners need to know this attack vector exists. If we don't perform this attack someone else will and the bitcoin market cap will be gobbled up by another coin that will then outcompetes us and destroy us. If it's possible for the bitcoin system to actually prevent it from succeeding with high probability, then great. But if not then it is not a good idea to ignore such an obvious vulnerability. Simply hoping that no one will learn of an attack like this is a terrible security strategy.
If someone tried this attack it would almost certainly fail.
I think bitcoiners would just rebel, fork back to the old chain, and continue on from there.
Brilliant concept, but
We get essentially the same effect by simply positioning BitShares
as a nice, friendly crypto-savings account that pays interest.
A complement to Bitcoin's crypto-checking account.
Bring in more new users than Bitcoin has through our funnels.
Educate them with this checking vs savings metaphor.
Then let the ordinary consumer decide how much to keep in savings vs. checking.
(I seldom keep more than 1% of my cash in checking.)
I expect 99% of Bitcoin's market cap to move to BitShares voluntarily.
;)
Brilliant concept, but
We get essentially the same effect by simply positioning BitShares
as a nice, friendly crypto-savings account that pays interest.
A complement to Bitcoin's crypto-checking account.
Bring in more new users than Bitcoin has through our funnels.
Educate them with this checking vs savings metaphor.
Then let the ordinary consumer decide how much to keep in savings vs. checking.
(I seldom keep more than 1% of my cash in checking.)
I expect 99% of Bitcoin's market cap to move to BitShares voluntarily.
;)
This is the public, diplomatic answer, Stan. In reality, the "checking" feature here is far better than at that other bank. It takes 10 seconds to 'write a check' with BTS or BitUSD, while BTC can take 40 minutes to clear. By 99%, don't you really mean 100%, to a person? Why exactly would customers need a second bank when BitShares gives them a one-stop-shop? Why would anyone choose to pay exchange fees to move their 1% back to BTC for a feature which BTS does better anyway?
By 99%, don't you really mean 100%, to a person? Why exactly would customers need a second bank when BitShares gives them a one-stop-shop?
By 99%, don't you really mean 100%, to a person? Why exactly would customers need a second bank when BitShares gives them a one-stop-shop?
The myth of satoshi will never die, the cult of satoshi will never die.
We might beat bitcoin and take most of the market cap, but there will ALWAYS be someone trying to keep bitcoin alive, no matter what. It will never die, imo. It might fall down the charts and get passed by 2.0 coins eventually, but it will never completely die. Not completely.
Is it possible to be the friendly messenger rather than the hostile messenger?
I'm not sure. One just needs to be up-front that it was raised in free discussion and rejected by the community. Could add to the marketing.Is it possible to be the friendly messenger rather than the hostile messenger?
It probably was, but Bitshares already looks like the hostile messenger now.
Brilliant concept, but
We get essentially the same effect by simply positioning BitShares
as a nice, friendly crypto-savings account that pays interest.
A complement to Bitcoin's crypto-checking account.
Bring in more new users than Bitcoin has through our funnels.
Educate them with this checking vs savings metaphor.
Then let the ordinary consumer decide how much to keep in savings vs. checking.
(I seldom keep more than 1% of my cash in checking.)
I expect 99% of Bitcoin's market cap to move to BitShares voluntarily.
;)
By 99%, don't you really mean 100%, to a person? Why exactly would customers need a second bank when BitShares gives them a one-stop-shop?
The myth of satoshi will never die, the cult of satoshi will never die.
We might beat bitcoin and take most of the market cap, but there will ALWAYS be someone trying to keep bitcoin alive, no matter what. It will never die, imo. It might fall down the charts and get passed by 2.0 coins eventually, but it will never completely die. Not completely.
I think bitcoiners would just rebel, fork back to the old chain, and continue on from there.