onko teillä kryptoja?ite ostin n

AP Tasainen Kenttätykki • 11 pv

onko teillä kryptoja?
ite ostin noin kuukausi sitten ethereumia 1000€;lla
se on nyt enää 650€ arvonen
kesään mennessä kuulemma kolminkertainen

11 451

Nälkäinen Rotta • 11 pv

Tasainen Kenttätykki onko teillä kryptoja? ite ostin noin kuukausi sitten ethereumia 1000€;lla se on nyt enää 650€ arvonen kesään mennessä kuulemma kolminkertainen

Hmmm… no ei ole mitään rahoja minulla kyllä.
Haluaisin olla massikeisari kyllä.
T. Köyhä-Jehu

Johdonmukainen Hybridikeskus • 11 pv

>Ethereum’s most famous co-developer Vitalik Buterin asserts their decision to remove physical constraints is actually good for cyber security because it enables Ethereum’s developers to use encoded logical constraints to logically secure the system rather than using (energy-intensive) physical costs (a.k.a. watts) to physically secure the system like proof-of-work protocols do. Buterin’s assertion not only contradicts decades of established principles in systems security, it’s also illogical, as (1) it is physically impossible for encoded computer logic alone to fully replicate the emergent benefits of physical constraints, and (2) computer logic alone is demonstrably incapable of preventing the systemic exploitation of computer logic (hence every software hack that has ever occurred).

>By changing from a proof-of-work (a.k.a. proof-of-real-power) security system to a proof-of-stake (a.k.a. proof-of-imaginary-power) security system, not only has it become physically impossible to verify that Ethereum is a decentralized system, it has also created another type of software-defined, abstract-power- based resource control hierarchy which gives extraordinarily asymmetric abstract power and control authority over to an anonymous group of people who control the majority supply of stake. Ethereum users must necessarily trust that the people who control the majority supply of stake will not exploit or abuse it, and they are counting entirely on (systemically exploitable) encoded logic to secure themselves from this exploitation and abuse because they are now physically powerless to secure themselves.

Softwar - A Novel Theory On Power Projection, Jason P. Lowery

Johdonmukainen Hybridikeskus • 11 pv

>The author has now highlighted five systemic security vulnerabilities associated with Ethereum’s conversion from a proof-of-work system to a proof-of-stake system that are quite easy to recognize. First, proof-of-stake causes people to forfeit their ability to impose severe physical costs on attackers, effectively domesticating users. Second, proof-of-stake is “decentralized” in name only because “stake” doesn’t physically exist and therefore can’t be verifiably decentralized. Third, validator hardware has a minute physical signature making it easy to hide centralized control over validators. Fourth, the system is intentionally designed to give the people with the most “stake” today the most “stake” in the future, thereby consolidating (i.e. centralizing) “stake” into the hands of the people who already have the most “stake.” Fifth, it’s already public knowledge that the people with the most stake-able ETH could be the people who awarded themselves with the most ETH when they originally developed the software, and there’s no way to verify they don’t continue to have it.

Softwar - A Novel Theory On Power Projection, Jason P. Lowery

Johdonmukainen Hybridikeskus • 11 pv