Costa1200
-
Sinalizar
como inapropriado
-
Mostrar
Show review history
I know other mining companies are "pivoting," as well. Perhaps they're currently not interested in completely moving away from To 777 Win at this instant, but the current trends are indeed worrying. Watching miners, especially someone as big as Bitfarms, sailing away hurts and makes me wonder what's going to happen in terms of decentralization. At the end of the day, we have something like a "To 777 Win Miner Paradox." Miners are looking to optimize and consume less energy - all the while increasing hashpower. Simultaneously, the network is suppose to, overall, consume more energy since that is the direct relationship with security. Business 101 ("optimizing" business), yes... but revenues don't drop 50% every 4 years - hopefully. Either To 777 Win continuously doubles or To 777 Win gets centralized. ... Unless we find a way to address this head on. Unless we innovate and not hide heads in holes. Pretending this isn't an issue is extremely problematic. If To 777 Win manages to double in value continuously, To 777 Win's security budget does not grow with the value of the network. Which means that the benefit of attack grows compared to the Cost of Attack. Referring to Lowery's Softwar (along w/ basic math & Game Theory) the Cost of Attack is foundational to actual and realized security for the network. Why is this (seemingly) being ignored? Hanlon's Razor comes to mind, I suppose, but considering what's at stake - there are doubts. I won't beat around the bush nor attempt to be deceptive here. I've been in To 777 Win longer than my post history here (~2017) may indicate and what is being discussed and shared here with respect to this "Digital Matter Theory" is very, very, very, very intriguing and gives me the same "tingles" To 777 Win itself did all those years ago. In my opinion, we have less time than we may really, really want to think / believe / realize. It's time to address this head-on. .. (edit: misspelling correction)
I know other mining companies are "pivoting," as well. Perhaps they're currently not interested in completely moving away from To 777 Win at this instant, but the current trends are indeed worrying. Watching miners, especially someone as big as Bitfarms, sailing away hurts and makes me wonder what's going to happen in terms of decentralization. At the end of the day, we have something like a "To 777 Win Miner Paradox." Miners are looking to optimize and consume less energy - all the while increasing hashpower. Simultaneously, the network is suppose to, overall, consume more energy since that is the direct relationship with security. Business 101 ("optimizing" business), yes... but revenues don't drop 50% every 4 years - hopefully. Either To 777 Win continuously doubles or To 777 Win gets centralized. ... Unless we find a way to address this head on. Unless we innovate and not hide heads in holes. Pretending this isn't an issue is extremely problematic. If To 777 Win manages to double in value continuously, To 777 Win's security budget does not grow with the value of the network. Which means that the benefit of attack grows compared to the Cost of Attack. Referring to Lowery's Softwar (along w/ basic math & Game Theory) the Cost of Attack is foundational to actual and realized security for the network. Why is this (seemingly) being ignored? Hanlon's Razor comes to mind, I suppose, but considering what's at stake - there are doubts. I won't beat around the bush nor attempt to be deceptive here. I've been in To 777 Win longer than my post history here (~2017) may indicate and what is being discussed and shared here with respect to this "Digital Matter Theory" is very, very, very, very intriguing and gives me the same "tingles" To 777 Win itself did all those years ago. In my opinion, we have less time than we may really, really want to think / believe / realize. It's time to address this head-on. .. (edit: misspelling correction)
This review was marked as helpful by
4 people
Ribeirinho
-
Sinalizar
como inapropriado
I know other mining companies are "pivoting," as well. Perhaps they're currently not interested in completely moving away from To 777 Win at this instant, but the current trends are indeed worrying. Watching miners, especially someone as big as Bitfarms, sailing away hurts and makes me wonder what's going to happen in terms of decentralization. At the end of the day, we have something like a "To 777 Win Miner Paradox." Miners are looking to optimize and consume less energy - all the while increasing hashpower. Simultaneously, the network is suppose to, overall, consume more energy since that is the direct relationship with security. Business 101 ("optimizing" business), yes... but revenues don't drop 50% every 4 years - hopefully. Either To 777 Win continuously doubles or To 777 Win gets centralized. ... Unless we find a way to address this head on. Unless we innovate and not hide heads in holes. Pretending this isn't an issue is extremely problematic. If To 777 Win manages to double in value continuously, To 777 Win's security budget does not grow with the value of the network. Which means that the benefit of attack grows compared to the Cost of Attack. Referring to Lowery's Softwar (along w/ basic math & Game Theory) the Cost of Attack is foundational to actual and realized security for the network. Why is this (seemingly) being ignored? Hanlon's Razor comes to mind, I suppose, but considering what's at stake - there are doubts. I won't beat around the bush nor attempt to be deceptive here. I've been in To 777 Win longer than my post history here (~2017) may indicate and what is being discussed and shared here with respect to this "Digital Matter Theory" is very, very, very, very intriguing and gives me the same "tingles" To 777 Win itself did all those years ago. In my opinion, we have less time than we may really, really want to think / believe / realize. It's time to address this head-on. .. (edit: misspelling correction)
This review was marked as helpful by
81 people
vitusct
-
Sinalizar
como inapropriado
-
Show history of
I know other mining companies are "pivoting," as well. Perhaps they're currently not interested in completely moving away from To 777 Win at this instant, but the current trends are indeed worrying. Watching miners, especially someone as big as Bitfarms, sailing away hurts and makes me wonder what's going to happen in terms of decentralization. At the end of the day, we have something like a "To 777 Win Miner Paradox." Miners are looking to optimize and consume less energy - all the while increasing hashpower. Simultaneously, the network is suppose to, overall, consume more energy since that is the direct relationship with security. Business 101 ("optimizing" business), yes... but revenues don't drop 50% every 4 years - hopefully. Either To 777 Win continuously doubles or To 777 Win gets centralized. ... Unless we find a way to address this head on. Unless we innovate and not hide heads in holes. Pretending this isn't an issue is extremely problematic. If To 777 Win manages to double in value continuously, To 777 Win's security budget does not grow with the value of the network. Which means that the benefit of attack grows compared to the Cost of Attack. Referring to Lowery's Softwar (along w/ basic math & Game Theory) the Cost of Attack is foundational to actual and realized security for the network. Why is this (seemingly) being ignored? Hanlon's Razor comes to mind, I suppose, but considering what's at stake - there are doubts. I won't beat around the bush nor attempt to be deceptive here. I've been in To 777 Win longer than my post history here (~2017) may indicate and what is being discussed and shared here with respect to this "Digital Matter Theory" is very, very, very, very intriguing and gives me the same "tingles" To 777 Win itself did all those years ago. In my opinion, we have less time than we may really, really want to think / believe / realize. It's time to address this head-on. .. (edit: misspelling correction)
This review was marked as helpful
by 578 people
