pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @nerd2ninja 9 Aug 2023 \ parent \ on: Bitcoin Staking: Unlocking 21M Bitcoins to Secure the Proof-of-Stake Economy bitcoin
So it sounds like you'd like to scope out exactly what you find to be acceptable and what you don't find to be acceptable. Your paper certainly didn't. Happy to see we've scoped this down a bit.
Unfortunately, I can see you've decided to include decentralized in name only as part of that scope. I was avoiding DeFi, because I felt it would have been a bad faith example.
You see these as product market fits, but they're scam market fits because they're markets fundamentally built on lies, but its also another mechanism to gain an exit event. Just like how SBF of FTX took out loans from Alameda using FTT as collateral, so too, do scammers take out loans against coins with near 0 market liquidity and abandon the "collateral" because it never had value anyway.
You seem to want to keep going "Yeah but if you didn't look at real life, and you looked at hypotheticals it could be good" but it can't. Debt on an appreciating asset makes that asset harder to pay off, unless you're using it as collateral. So what good faith token or coin are you going to take on the other side of that loan? A dollar certificate issued by a dollar custodian? "DeFi". A coin that relies on an price API (central point of failure). George Soros got famous off of breaking that mechanism:
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/george-soros-bank-of-england.asp
I was going to go into more details about the technical failures of specific "DeFi" marketplaces, but Hitchens's razor, rather than spending all that time disproving, how about you spend time proving.
Quick blurb on the minority shareholder problem. You sell the shitcoin, (or use "DeFi"). You now have dollars. Guess what you can do with dollars? Buy Bitcoin. So you got Bitcoin. You got WAY more Bitcoin than the aggregate of the average user because you've already scammed so many people before them. You rug pull everyone, sell the Bitcoin back for dollars (or don't).
Now instead you could assume a system where 50 fortune 500 companies are staking and therefore that isn't going to happen, but then that's a mere 50 fully regulated targets. Actually 50 is a really good faith example. POS systems tend to have way less than that. Then there's hot wallet risk and on and on and on and on. Shit is a waste a time.
When you already have problems at a high level like that, how and why do you muster the energy to keep digging into lower level technical details?
Now, as far as "Don't comment on my posts if you're not going to read my links". You know I'm not going to let you just post misleading security models promote markets built on lies or put another way, to go around scamming people unencumbered.
I already should have posted less. I don't know why you've come to the conclusions that you have. Are you yourself trying to come up with some scam? Did you just fail to think critically of these systems? Are you just surrounded by other people who think this way and as a result of that bias fail to question the validity of the use cases of these systems? Please assume all assertions of all the systems you're interested in are wrong and seek to actively disprove them. You might end up proving them in the process and thereby understand those systems.
To another commenter, you asked "What shitcoinery". I don't want that question to go unanswered. Here's a screenshot from your paper
https://imgprxy.stacker.news/3hEIVF2IXofWe9ZerqI4LeafOaHi46uTuaZM42_ga-U/rs:fit:600:500:0/g:no/aHR0cHM6Ly9nY2RuYi5wYnJkLmNvL2ltYWdlcy9nOEhNRU9zbWdwbXoucG5nP289MQ
Your paper certainly didn't. ... Here's a screenshot from your paper
It's not my paper.
But in any case, the screenshot you shared merely shows examples of existing chains that could plug into this protocol for illustration. The BTC staking protocol could be used with any PoS chain, including a PoS chain that only uses BTC as the staking asset and fee payment currency and has no new native asset of its own (not that there is anything inherently wrong with a chain having its own native asset).
I can see you've decided to include decentralized in name only as part of that scope... You see these as product market fits, but they're scam market fits because they're markets fundamentally built on lies... You seem to want to keep going "Yeah but if you didn't look at real life, and you looked at hypotheticals it could be good" but it can't.. So what good faith token or coin are you going to take on the other side of that loan? A dollar certificate issued by a dollar custodian? "DeFi"... rather than spending all that time disproving, how about you spend time proving.
I am not talking about the scams or ponzis or hypotheticals, I am talking about real life with assets that have real value. Billions of dollars in TVL, right now. We can simply use the BTC assets locked in DeFi as an example, since that seems to be as close as we'll get to meeting your standard for what is real: https://defillama.com/tokenUsage?token=btc
And if you don't like the name "DeFi" then for the purpose of this thread we can call it "onchain finance". The point is these are contracts that require global state, and their use far surpasses any alternative that lacks global state. All I needed to do to disprove your statement that "no one uses this shit" is to show that one person uses it. Instead I have shown many more people using it for billions of dollars worth of assets. QED
George Soros got famous off of breaking that mechanism: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/george-soros-bank-of-england.asp
What George Soros did to the BoE is not possible with the fiat and overcollateralized stablecoins today. The structural economic conditions and mechanics of the ERM system that led to the incident you are referring to are incomparable to how fiat and overcollateralized stablecoins operate today. There are superficial similarities, in that they both involve an asset that is pegged to another, but that is where the similarities end. Dunning–Kruger effect in action here.
Quick blurb on the minority shareholder problem. You sell the shitcoin, (or use "DeFi"). You now have dollars. Guess what you can do with dollars? Buy Bitcoin. So you got Bitcoin. You got WAY more Bitcoin than the aggregate of the average user because you've already scammed so many people before them. You rug pull everyone, sell the Bitcoin back for dollars (or don't).
I asked you before to explain what exactly "rug pull" means in this context and how it is supposed to harm the BTC staking protocol. You have again evaded this, instead again using the term as a replacement for an actual analysis and detailed attack description. You might as well just say: "I know enough jargon to make noobs think I know what I'm talking about and appear morally righteous, but actually I know very little, and I need to say something other than admit I don't know so I am filling this space with things that sound good but don't actually make sense".
Now, as far as "Don't comment on my posts if you're not going to read my links". You know I'm not going to let you just post misleading security models promote markets built on lies or put another way, to go around scamming people unencumbered.
Let it be shown for the record that several posts into a request for a meaningful critique of the original paper shared, you have yet to actually disprove anything in the paper, or expose any new attacks against the protocol. You have attempted to make an orthogonal critique against the concept of "non money use cases that require global state", which -- aside from the ample evidence showing that there are in fact non money use cases that, maybe not require, but certainly benefit from, global state -- completely ignores that a PoS chain secured by the BTC staking protocol described in the paper could also be used to extend upon BTC money uses cases, as other sidechains and statechains such as Liquid, Rootstock, and Mercury already do today. Will any examples of such a BTC PoS sidechain ever achieve significant adoption? Maybe, maybe not! No one here has a crystal ball and, more importantly, that's orthogonal to protocol design and analysis. If you have concerns about technology adoption, take it up with the product and marketing teams, not the research and development teams. You have also gone into tangents about shitcoins and premines and rugpulls which, again, is completely orthogonal to the protocol being analyzed.
Your posts on this thread are the epitome of Brandolini's Law: post some driveby critique with no explanation, which means that anyone who wants to know if your critique is true then needs to take time to type a request for an explanation, to which you respond with a bunch of bullshit and goal post moving that takes several more posts and more time to debunk than it takes to produce, going into deeper and deeper levels of bullshit as we peel back your false premises and assumptions and projected insecurities and traumas one layer at a time until we get to the shitpacked core of your epistemology. If anyone here is the scammer it is you, for claiming that other people are scammers and then giving no real and meaningful justification for this accusation. You scam the reader out of their time and brainpower trying to dig through your shit for the truth, which ultimately and inevitably is a quest that leads nowhere.
I will not be responding to your posts any further, except perhaps to link back to this thread which lays bare your bullheaded ignorance and faulty logic. Thank you for providing a thorough demonstration of this, as it will save me any further time and effort debunking your bullshit in the future.
reply
(not that there is anything inherently wrong with a chain having its own native asset).
Ayyy there's the shitcoinery. Oh but you wrote a whole article about how "making your own token is a short term decision" right? A whole article about what's wrong with creating your own native asset.
You want to sit here and go back and forth on your positions. I showed you the problems with local currencies as a barrier to trade (assuming the rare non malicious case) and so you said you acknowledge that with your article, but now you want to backtrack on that, so now I'll present that a native asset is a barrier to trade again and show arcade city article again or not, because I don't need to be on this merry go round.
And if you don't like the name "DeFi" then for the purpose of this thread we can call it "onchain finance".
Is it on-chain finance? How much of the security actually comes from on-chain? WBTC (the example you provided) has all kinds of custodians.
"TVL for WBTC consists of the BTC deposits in custody that were used to mint WBTC"
And that's just one of many WBTC implementations.
Lets ignore that for a minute because in spite of you providing the worst example imaginable, we can just shove in drivechain or spacechains or something real quick to satisfy that. So then it comes to the dollar side of it, which rely typically on price APIs (central points of failure) to maintain its price. So why bother?
The structural economic conditions and mechanics of the ERM system that led to the incident you are referring to are incomparable to how fiat and overcollateralized stablecoins operate today.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" -Hitchens's razor
The point is these are contracts that require global state, and their use far surpasses any alternative that lacks global state.
But we're going to provide the worst examples in the world
I asked you before to explain what exactly "rug pull" means in this context and how it is supposed to harm the BTC staking protocol. You have again evaded this,
Where the fuck are you confused? "Whenever there is a safety violation, 1/3 of the Bitcoin stake is guaranteed to be slashed. As long as 2/3 of the Bitcoin stake follows the PoS protocol honestly, the PoS chain is live."
So I provided a scenario where we have 2/3 of the Bitcoin stake. Guess what, new rules, the other 1/3 belongs to me now.
Say I'm wrong. Tell me exactly where I fucked up with my reading comprehension.
Let it be shown for the record that several posts into a request for a meaningful critique of the original paper shared
Let the record show that I provided high level issues with the very premise of the protocol and yeah put the book down about giving a shit after that. Because there's no point in analyzing a whole protocol if the high level overview is flawed from the start, but I did read the paper, which is already more than it deserved.
projected insecurities and traumas one layer at a time until we get to the shitpacked core of your epistemology
Its called pattern recognition not projecting trauma. People are machines of pattern recognition. All I'm saying is I recognize a pattern and it isn't good.
reply