No one likes Internet beggars.
WhoAmI
joined 6 days ago
No, you should keep it so other beggars know they won't get even one piconero.
Yep, a quick summary for those who didn't see it firsthand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eafzIW52Rgc&t=1049s
and the current mining model: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw6aMxaNmXA&t=416s
Just mine it on P2Pool using Gupax, it’s the easiest way to obtain it without being a beggar.
Leave it running overnight, and by morning you’ll probably have it.
I agree that the future does not look bright due to the declining rewards in Bitcoin Core, they may struggle much sooner than everyone anticipates. I reckon two more halvings and there will be an economic problem with securing the network.
The only solution I see, which would not trigger another hard fork and further split their community, is that governments who have invested money in it will donate funds to mining companies or start mining themselves.
Not having a tail emission is one of many nails in the coffin they currently have, but their simple proof-of-work system has proven effective in securing the network against 51% attacks, it just needed time to grow. Of course, we can argue about centralization and other issues due to it being ASIC-friendly, but that’s a whole different story.
I’m only saying this: we should not move toward convulsed systems like a finality layer just because of fearmongering, we should give the current system more time, and difficulty charts have been looking promising over the years.
I’ve said it on GitHub, in the next few years, no one will even dream of having 1% of the hashrate on the Monero network.
Maybe they talk so much about the finality layer because their true intent is to move it to Tari (premined crap that currently does nothing) later, to boost it somehow...
All I know is that it stinks.
This "Finality Layer" PoS solution does not replace PoW RandomX, it is an addition that relies on another network and does not even eliminate the problem completely, but only reduces it while adding unnecessary complexity and making Monero a b*tch of other network like Ethereum / etc.
It's a very bad idea, we might as well create a "Monero" token on Ethereum, forget about Monero’s own chain, and call it a day.
In my opinion, the network as it is will be completely immune to such attacks in about a year or two, with the hashrate growing at this pace.
Just look at how simple and elegant Bitcoin PoW is, the more complex we make it, the less secure it becomes, as we add more possible attack vectors and make it harder for some miners to join (some proposals require a full node and other BS).
I can see that developers love the idea of PoS "FL" because it may be technically erotic, but it stinks of multiple STDs.
If Monero starts to rely on another network to function, I'm selling all my coins and forgetting that cryptocurrencies ever existed.
It would really hurt me, as I've been here almost from the very beginning.
...and what does it have to do with the subject of this post?
Also, after each attack on Monero, there's always someone saying that Monero should have some kind of representative who would publicly refute lies, like with the current 51% issue.
I think it's a very bad idea because such a person would surely be attacked on all possible grounds, including politics (left-right nonsense), personal beliefs, etc., and then people would associate that with Monero.
Monero is Money - a medium to exchange our time and effort in this world - and it should remain blind to what is good and what is evil.
No one blames water for the hundreds of thousands of people who drown each year - we still need it, use it and love it.
Never blame the medium.
Never go full retard.
BTW. Anyone who thinks relying on another network is a good idea (Finality Layer) - is a fucking retard.