Nostr Web Client

The problem with successful deterrents is that there is no clear connection between it and the outcome. It must be inferred from deductive reasoning.

This makes it incredibly easy for people to convince themselves of its irrelevance, or to claim “it’s just different now,” or to ascribe the success to something at the surface/social layer that is completely ineffective on its own.

In essence, the success of a deterrent sews the seeds of its ultimate removal through ignorance and simply forgetting the real nature of the world.

A good example that I think hasn’t succumbed to this yet is #Bitcoin mining - People in the future might start to say that the state was never really a threat, or that nobody cares and we all just want to work together, because it simply hasn’t been successfully attacked. When really the fact that attacking it is such a huge cost while even the degree of success is so severely limited, that it’s simply smarter to place their resources on the other parts of the battlefield (own more of it, regulate it, control the exchanges, attack developers, etc)

Just a weekend musing. Seemed interesting since we seem to have been brushing the edge of this problem with the individual right to bear arms for a while now. The people have become incredibly naive and complacent. The lack of a mass killing of the population over the past 100 years (which is actually *extremely* unique) is just kinda hand waved away like “that’s just how it is now.”

I feel that 2020 woke up a ton of people with a small preview into the horrible nature of most people and how quickly they can turn on common sense and human decency. But it’s just crazy to think that often times the *most* successful methods/technologies may very well be the *hardest* to see as successful. I wonder if the same will happen again with sound money in 100 years? 🤔

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

woolcycle 1y ago

Nimiq is currently undergoing a switch from PoW to PoS. It could be interesting for those who have a good grasp of the role of #Bitcoin mining in securing the network to compare and contrast with Nimiq's forthcoming implementation of PoS.

Jay-BTC 1y ago

shitcoin

Guy Swann 1y ago

PoS is not a decentralized consensus model. The problem of PoS is circular. The stake must be external to the consensus output itself to be meaningful. If any PoS network pauses or anyone becomes hugely out of sync pr disconnected from the rest of the network, trustless verification of the real state is not possible. They only survive on the thin consensus derived from the network being live and everyone staying on the most recent block and having general social agreement. It is not robust, nor secure against network failure or outage. Trust is inevitably necessary.

A perfect example of this is that every PoS network has centralized, signed checkpoints. Only the shallowest of consensus is trust minimized, after even a little depth it’s completely centralized.

woolcycle 1y ago

Thanks for this interesting response, which I will admit is somewhat over my head. With regard to #Bitcoin, I frequently hear concerns expressed regarding mining centralisation and my understanding is that the pressure towards centralisation only increases with each successive halving. I think we can agree we have come a long way since Hal Finney & co. were apparently mining #Bitcoin using a CPU - not a GPU, a CPU.

By contrast, the hardware and energy requirement for running a Nimiq PoS validator is much, much lower. So I am interested in whether this might lead to greater decentralisation that centralised PoW mining.

Guy Swann 1y ago

Mining has not centralized, it has decentralized over time. Mining *pools* have centralized (though on the surface it appears more distributed, but it isn’t unfortunately) but this is a networking problem, not a PoW problem.

Again, the problem is fundamental, not surface layer. PoS consensus cannot come with a “stake” that is determined by the outcome of that very same consensus. And PoS also has a fundamental centralizing force because there is no competition against stakers. You cannot remove or compete against their staking share unless *they* sell their coins. So the wealthiest stakers will always grow their portion faster than everyone else in the network. It centralizes far, far worse and more systemically. PoW does still just have the natural, physical economies of scale that make decentralization an uphill battle, but that’s not something inherent to PoW operation specifically.

I don’t know anything about that random token, but I’d bet very confidently that they have centralized checkpoints as part of consensus. Every other PoS model has it for obvious reasons.

Simply put, there’s no comparison here. PoW isn’t perfect or without challenges, but PoS isn’t even in the running. It’s centralized by default and can’t reach consensus in a decentralized fashion in the case of a network failure, communication lapse, or split in the network of any serious depth. Like I said, it’s the facade of decentralization that exists only at the very tip of the chain.

#Bitcoin can reach independent, untrusted consensus from block 100 (or block 1 even) if necessary without ANY coordination simply by verifying the PoW. No PoS can expect to even go 100 blocks back from right now without huge problems, or possibly even hitting signed checkpoints from a centralized trusted source, let alone years back or all the way back to its first day of operation.

woolcycle 1y ago

Thanks, this is fantastic engagement from someone of your standing - even if a lot of it is not what I necessarily wanted to hear!

Can I ask if you feel there is utility in pitching protagonists for PoW versus PoS against each other in a broadcast or conference setting? If nothing else, it might provide a contrast to more routine "preaching to the choir" type content. Cutting to the chase, do you feel able and willing to put the case for PoW versus PoS and I would do my best to hunt around for the strongest proponent in the Nimiq team to go up against you? (No worries if not, just trying to stir things up a bit on an otherwise quiet Sunday afternoon!)

Otis Bitmeyer 1y ago

There is tremendous opportunity for decentralizing hashrate through miner heat reuse in all kinds of applications, both domestic and commercial. People are already using miners to heat their homes and water, amongst other uses. In places where heat was already provided by electricity, the bitcoin earned from mining is essentially a rebate on the energy cost.

It seems likely that large miners who rely on cheap power to stay profitable will continue to struggle with each halving, while those who are clever about leveraging miners to provide low grade heat will successfully stack sats without worry.

This is a decentralizing trend that I don’t see discussed much in mainstream circles yet.

woolcycle 1y ago

Interesting, maybe not totally mainstream, but my understanding is that there are documentaries out there with titles like "Stranded" or "Dirty Coin" iirc, making the type of case in favour of Bitcoin which you describe. However, I find it interesting to reflect on the forthcoming Nimiq 2.0 PoS having an inherently much lower energy and hardware requirement to run a validator, and the potential for decentralisation implied by that.

Otis Bitmeyer 1y ago

I think it’s a matter of time before you can buy a bitcoin powered water heater at Lowes.

Guy Swann 1y ago

1000% I hear my house with 2 Whatsminers. Not worried about making a profit. I make heat.

Guy Swann 1y ago

HEAT*

Damn autocorrect

Otis Bitmeyer 1y ago

This is the way.

₿illy 1y ago

Very much agree, have thought about this a lot too. People become complacent, take things for granted. “That could never happen here”

21 Stackage 🦡 1y ago

Funny you mention bitcoin mining since I've found a lot of complacency there. The FPPS dominance and all-time lows of miner reserves are heading towards a collision course if things don't change enough in a cycle or two

Guy Swann 1y ago

True, but I think that’s a different problem, not one that is inherent to belief in mining itself, but in the networking and operation of coordinating miners themselves. In other words, I agree, but it’s a layer above the issue I’m referring to.

21 Stackage 🦡 1y ago

Also true. I read your response to nostr:nprofile1qqsxrqwquvwd72dwam7274jcl2sukjk3md5a8z62jwx04g8asyplv7cpr3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt4w35ku7thv9kxcet59e3k7mgprys8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnsdaehgetj9ecxcctrv5q35amnwvaz7tm5dpjkvmmjv4ehgtnwdaehgu339e3k7mgjjwl7d right after I posted lol. They still pay a bunch of upkeep costs in fiat, as well. It's a real pickle

I've had frustrating conversations with people recently who have survivorship bias from living in the US. Amongst them, there's an utter lack of what an egregious political incursion that the COVID lockdowns were and they have no inclination to become resistant to those incursions. That led me to adopting freedom tech

As for sound money, people are already in talks about fractional reserve schemes with Bitcoin, with all of the rug risk that comes with them. From what I know, that won't last forever with a supply cap but people will keep trying so long as there's demand for it

woolcycle 1y ago

I feel if you are into freedom tech, you need to grasp the nettle on the potential weaknesses of #Bitcoin as well as its undoubted strengths, plus also explore all possible avenues for building the most censorship-resistant financial freedom tech stack. This short video is relevant in this context. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dA40oyDVtqs

Chris Liss 1y ago

If the deterrent is too successful, it eventually stops getting tested, becomes invisible, then is taken for granted.

The parallel problem is status quo bias which people just assume the familiar state of affairs will persist indefinitely and don’t realize that it’s only so due to conditions. When they see those conditions removed, they are unconcerned because of this bias.

It’s a kind of inductive reasoning which Bertrand Russell attacked by saying “it’s like jumping off the Empire State Building, counting the windows as you fall, and when you get to 80, saying ‘So far, so good!’”

Jonathan 1y ago

I was having this discussion the other day with a normie. He was hyper focused and myopic on one particular positive outcome that banning guns could possibly have, but I said to him everything is a good idea if you ignore all other consequences.

You could blow up a freeway so one man can cross without getting hit but you are ignoring all the cars that would crash from the giant hole in the road. Seems to be a common mistake in our thinking to not consider the cost.