ASICs are inevitable. ASICs are your friend. Embrace them.
1. There is no such thing as an ASIC proof PoW algo. Given enough time and financial incentive someone will figure out a way to make a purpose built rig that outperforms GPUs.
2. The only practical way to keep ASICs off your network is to continuously manually change the algo, which bricks current ASICs, with the hope of discouraging future ASIC development. This comes with centralization & third party risk. Who decides when and how it changes?
3. ASICs enhance the loose game theory that backs bitcoin's security model. Attacks become much more expensive since the ASICs are useless after. GPUs can mine on other chains after an attack, ASICs cannot.
One of the major conflict points in this space is that US based VCs & HFs are investing in quasi-legal(to put it lightly) projects & attempting to extract an ROI. That alone makes the project vulnerable. It means there are known actors which the US gov can go after.
Key characteristics that make a protocol or app more censorship resistant (anonymous/global devs, open source. lack of central control) go directly against the idea of US based VCs & founders being able to extract an ROI. They themselves are one of the main vulnerabilities.
So they really only have one option: (1) Deny that they & their biz model are an attack vector. (2) Move forward without permission & hope US gov doesn't crackdown. (3) Lobby gov for a favorable result. (4) Comply if forced. (5) Hope to compete against distributed alternatives.
20/ "We like to see high availability of hardware. Ideally, the best hardware in the world is available to everyone easily, and any deals that are presented by manufacturers to some group are also made available broadly."
(1)Bitmain will want to make their holdings look as impressive as possible, so they will probably try to pump bch (maybe the other alts too) before the IPO. They have been trying (and failing) to corner the market for the last year.
(2a) The added transparency for the IPO has put them in a vulnerable position. They are overexposed to bitcoin cash and now their competitors know. I have theorized in the past that the main reason bch hasn't been 51% attacked yet is due to fear of retaliation from bitmain.
(2b) So with that said, my thought now is bitmain's competitors have an extra incentive to attack the bitcoin cash chain to disrupt the IPO. On top of that, bitmain is probably less likely to retaliate given the extra attention the IPO brings.
1. Many Binance users were using a 3rd party trading bot w/ API access. 2. Bot was compromised. 3. Malicious actor set high SYS sell orders, then used compromised accounts to pump SYS price into them. 4. Same method used w/ $VIA in March.
So most likely neither binance or $SYS were hacked. It was the 3rd party trading bot, which was either an inside job or was compromised. My guess is inside job.
This is a risk users take when they trust a trading bot & its operator with access to their exchange funds/account.
Looks like binance is going to rollback the trades made with the compromised trading bot. They don't have to do this in my opinion, fault lies on the user. Binance & CZ should be applauded here on their user friendly response.
In every other asset class, a buy and hold long term investment strategy is encouraged and considered conservative, with bitcoin critics frame it as reckless and irresponsible.
In practice, most people will lose a lot more money if they try to trade bitcoin short term.
Would I have preferred to sell the top & rebought at the bottom? Of course. I just know I wouldn't have been able to do that. Bitcoin has a ton of volatility, & if you try to time it you will most likely end up FOMO buying & panic selling. Not good for your wallet or your health.
Long term is a way less risky bet than trying to time these cycles. Bitcoin has a tiny float & a truly fixed supply, as adoption increases price should rise substantially. Furthermore, actively trading on exchanges exposes you to substantial risk, exchange failures & exit scams.
Oh yeah, and while we are at it. The network can confiscate your EOS if you don't make a transaction within 3 years. I'm sure they'll do a conference call before they take your money though, don't worry.
I honestly don't know where he comes up with half this shit.
I already questioned @ArthurB & @breitwoman's security assumptions with Tezos but this move will make their network even less secure. Every tezos holder at launch will have a passport registered with both the foundation & a third party company...
While everyone is on the topic of mining using hydroelectric because of the recent WSJ piece, worth mentioning that's what the majority of China based mining ops have been using for years now. Excess hydro is insanely cheap.
3/ "The global "capital of bitcoin mining" is China's Sichuan province, thanks to its abundance of hydropower plants and some of the world's cheapest electricity. Bitcoin mines there can gross millions per year"
1/ Part of the reason the 'hodl' philosophy came about was because we have learned not to trust exchanges. Trading requires trusting a third party, holding long term doesn't. Decentralized exchanges will help, but connections to fiat will always come with third party risk.
2/ Store your keys yourself. Hardware wallets are best for most, they make it really easy, are very secure, & support all the top chains. I recommend @TREZOR or @LedgerHQ.
Also, tails.boum.org built-in electrum is great tool for storing $btc.
- created to bypass KYC/AML laws & the banking blockade on exchanges that don't comply.
- a centralized stop-gap solution until connections to fiat are unneccesary.
- most likely holding reserves in an offshore bank account.
2/ @Tether_to cannot defend themselves b/c they risk gov't intervention. Making their bank account(s) public puts them at greater risk of being shut down & assets seized. They also can't acknowledge back room deals between the exchanges & them, that puts the exchanges at risk.
3/ The similarity between Tether & the online sportsbooks/casinos that have had to route around banking blockades for years is obvious. Both need to use sketchy banking practices to maintain their businesses or face government intervention.