It's nice to see the crypto market maturing and ignoring these people so segregated from every other financial market because they never traded anything else. Low float, "pre-mined" assets are in vogue and represent a more compatible funding model for continued development and personal riches than whatever was happening just a few years ago, let alone through the last decade in crypto.
You should ignore the "egalitarian ideology", or completely take advantage of it by launching a Chia-clone without a premine while you simply provide all the storage space first and get the exact same "insta-mine" result while advertising it to people like you that actually care about no premines. A dozen ways to get the same result, its all marketing.
You only get the same result if you completely monopolize mining for the first twenty-one years. If you control 50% of mining, it would take 119 years to achieve the equivalent. My issue is not that there is a premine. It's the scale of it.
Square Inc creates new shares for Jack Dorsey to sell like every week or so. Continual dilution that the market tolerated. Although fairly unique for the equities space, these are the case studies we are growing up with now.
Definition sometimes are lagging behind ever changing reality, same with "premine".
https://www.chia.net/2021/02/10/chia-businesss-whitepaper.ht...
You are free to agree or disagree with the plan, but need to read it before coming to any conclusions.
Satoshi had the decency to mine his coins alongside everyone else.
The code is licensed under a FOSS license, I believe.
Other than that - absolutely nothing
Users have prevailed in Bitcoin forkwars over miners and many large exchanges and businesses.
Miners are really more similar to employees of the network, that order transaction in exchange for fees. They are not masters of the protocol, and cannot dictate its rules.
Proof of Work has a nuclear option (change of hashing algo) that would bankrupt the miners and render their farms useless. No such option exists in PoS, just political battles, as we've seen in practice.
In PoS users lost in political battles of EOS (collapsed and rewrote the network rules) and Steem (taken over by bad faith staker). Literally all PoS projects failed in some way until today, due to some centralization pressures it produces.
Some Orwellian newspeak right there. "Reduced to zero". Just call it what it is: blacklists.
Blacklists = permissioned access.
Behave or we blacklist your coins. Welcome to Fiat 2.0
It'll be just wildly more political than PoW chains where you can verify the heaviest chain objectively.
Users have prevailed agaist miners and large business in Bitcon forkwors, which failed to force their agenda on the users. This is at least some empirical proof in support that Bitcoin is not a plutocracy.
Miners have large farms that can be bankrupted by users simply deciding to change the hashing algo. No such option in PoS.
In PoS, largest wallets dictate changes. Liquidity begets more liquidity, aka the rich get richer, and such effect has a centralizing effect on PoS. All PoS project to date have failed.
But if I ever grok the building blocks fully enough, I'd like to see if I can devise a system based on "proof of receipt" in which the act of receiving X coins grants you the ability to "settle" a set of blocks totaling a*X worth of transactions (for some constant a).
Like in other blockchains, the node selected to settle a block of transactions gets to keep some or all of the transaction fees for that block. But instead of continually getting selected by virtue of continuing to hold a large amount of coin, you could only continue to be selected by continuing to receive coin (presumably in return for goods and services).
The transaction fees and the constant $a$ would have to bee chosen such that you couldn't turn a profit by sending lots of money to yourself. But I think that would allow for a fair system with a good incentive structure.
What if the goal isn't to profit from block rewards but to attack the network, though? What if you pass stuff around over and over between tons of addresses you own? (Any person can create an unlimited number of addresses, pretty much instantly.)
Even if by the end the total transaction fees result in a heavy loss being incurred, the attacker would only do it if they think they can gain more from the network attack than they'd lose in fees.
I think a secure blockchain system can never make any kind of assumption that 1 address = 1 person/entity or 1 transaction >= 2 people/entities. I think depending on addresses or transactions in any way is probably a non-starter.
One of the key anti-Sybil features of Proof of Work, Proof of Space, and Proof of Stake is that it solely relies on a single scarce, unfakeable, totally fungible resource. The network cares about only one fungible variable: the total amount of computational power, or hard drive space, or funds in the network. That way, it makes no difference if the attacker has 1 address or 1 million addresses.
I agree that any blockchain has to be resistant to Sybil attacks. And that may be an insurmountable obstacle for my idea but, so far, I haven't let that stop me from thinking about it.
There do seem to be some properties of PoW/PoS related to the level of iniquity in control of the blockchain and to their incentive structures, and I think it is worth casting a wide net in search of something better (even if it may not exist).
It seems like everything might be a variation of one of two possible categories: economic game theory (Proof of Stake), or proof of committal of scarce, fungible physical resources. Everything else I can think of just seems like it'd be some form of centralization/oligarchy. But who knows?
(Proof of Stake is sometimes accused of being oligarchical, too, but I think it's still kind of the lesser of all evils, probably.)
The downside is that "functional" isn't exactly a high bar. For example reducing block rewards to encourage deflation would disproportionately help the wealthy so they may push it even if it isn't ideal for the average person.
Turns out humans aren’t perfectly rational, and handing a huge amount of control to a tiny number of rich people is a fantastic way to discover that while any given rich person might be smart and what not, there’s a non trivial chance that their heir is an idiot and will ruin whatever they’re given. This is entertaining for personal fortunes, but not so funny when they control a currency.
We've seen this throughout history.
That's what PoS will do to small holders. They will be nothing but tiny shareholders with no anti-dilutive protections and zero legal recourse.
I'd much rather deal with a centralized entity where at least I have a some body of law I can rely on.
A system like that is definitely not decentralized.
Well, Bitcoin itself is a get rich quick scheme for its founders. So are most of its spinoffs.
Regardless of what you think about Bitcoin, this claim is completely ahistorical.
I wouldn't call it a get rich quick scheme for its founder(s) because I doubt they could have known it would take off the way it did.
But, at this point, I don't know that intent matters. Imagine if Bitcoin really did become a dominant currency... one guy would own 5% of it, a deflationary currency! The "fiat billionaires" don't come anywhere close to that kind of concentration of wealth.
Edit: My calculation was based on the initial reward schedule of 64 units per block, but when you take into account the fact that it ramps down to 4 units per block shortly thereafter, it's actually a premine of 21 years: https://www.coindesk.com/5-takeaways-from-chia-networks-new-...