Kaspa Anhänger schießen gegen BTC

Diskussionen
102

So we know that Satoshi Nakamoto envisioned the mining to be actually competitive meanwhile the founder of Kaspa wants every honest miner to win (hence why orphans are incorporated) - but why?

Well, the idea was to make the mining as appealing as possible while working with Iceriver on the production of ASICs. Millions were invested in Kaspa. Later Bitmain decided to join as well cuz why not?

I mean, let us have a look at the most profitable ASICs and how ridiculously expensive they were and still are.

Btw, the early miners mined BIG bags of Kaspa using FPGAs.

So apart from Iceriver and Bitmain to pump the price of the coin, many community members are also obsessed with shilling this thing as the next Bitcoin, hoping that people will be gullible enough to fall for it.
Kaspa is a speedmined coin and by 2025, 90% of its total supply will have been mined.

It is one of the best scams in the making and many clueless people will become victims.

And then, let us be honest, BlockDAGs are overrated and not yet battle-proven.

However, Sompolinksy decided to implement the DAG to speed up the mining by orders of magnitude and keep the network secure by implementing GHOST aka „greedy heaviest observable sub tree“ which is a consensus suitable for clients, not caring about the massive bloating. Now increase the bloating by 10 blocks per second or even worse, by 100! That is insanity. But many people are blinded by the value of this coin and it will not end well.

Compared to Bitcoin’s and other Satoshi-derived blockchains monetary policy, Kaspa is a mere speedmined shitcoin.
There are MUCH better projects, such as Alephium and Nexa which are striving to become digital value
systems by utilizing native UTXO-based tokens in smart-contracts of EVM-like complexity.

Kaspa is nothing. Don’t fall for the hype.

2 „Gefällt mir“
103
104

Bitcoin has a global miner consensus meanwhile Kaspa utilizes a client miner consensus which requires much, much less time than the global one. At this point, destroying Kaspa is many times easier since the blocktime is 1 second.

And yes, Kaspa literally incorporates the in parallel created blocks (which share the same transactions) via the DAG.
As you know, Kaspa is not a (traditional) Blockchain but a BlockDAG and it can add those blocks. A blockchain adds blocks only in one direction, discarding the blocks of miners who lost the competition.

In a client consensus, there are clusters of clients that validate transactions without propagating them to all other peers. So they validate the txs, mine the block and release them as quickly as possible but do not propagate them to all other peers. That is why it takes much, much less time to mine a block.
In that sense, Kaspa is trading security for speed meanwhile Bitcoin does not take any chances and takes its time in adding blocks to the chain.

1 „Gefällt mir“
105

Wieso sollte ich keine Lust mehr haben?
Nur weil ich 1h nicht geantwortet habe?

1 „Gefällt mir“
106

Where do people come up with this stuff?
The descriptions the structure allows double spends to be committed to the blockchain, which are then resolved in each client" and „a proof of existence on the blockchain is not a proof that the transaction is valid“ are true for literally every proof of work chain out there.
In Bitcoin, you wait six blocks for confirmation, even though you see your transaction after a single block. Why? Because PROOF OF EXISTENCE ON THE BLOCKCHAIN IS NOT A PROOF THAT THE TRANSACTION IS VALID. You have to wait and see that your transaction is (very very likely) on the heaviest chain.
Exactly the same, in Kaspa, you have to wait and see that your transaction is (very very likely) preceding any possible conflict in the GHOSTDAG ordering.
This by no means implies that SVP clients are impossible, only that the proofs of publication are a bit more complicated. Yes, a proof that the transaction is in the blockchain does not prove it was not on the losing side of a conflict. But every SELECTED CHAIN block contains a Merkle root of all transactions „merged“ by it. That is, a list of ALL VALID transactions from the point of view of this block that did not exist in the point of view of its selected parent.
So, to prove that txn is VALID (not just posted, but confirmed) you need to prove that it was merged by a block in the selected chain, and that’s definitely doable.
Due to pruning such proofs are a bit tricky (the hard part is actually proving that the merging block is a selected chain block), making it that such proof could be a few MBs large (though proofs of several txns that are temporally close, e.g. within the same few hours, could be aggregated to a single several MB proof). In the next HF we will introduce a small change that’ll reduce the sizes of such proofs to maybe several dozen KBs (I can’t give an exact figure because it depends on parameters we haven’t chosen yet).
The second scenario is completely incoherent to me, I have no idea what you were even trying to say. But the thing is that the GHOSTDAG consensus converges exactly like Nakamoto or GHOST consensus, so whatever scenario you were describing here could also happen there. In general, any argument that does not appeal to any unique property of Kaspa (and no, clients seeing both sides of a double spend is not unique, and can potentially happen in any PoW chain.) is true for PoW in general.

1 „Gefällt mir“
107

Du kannst deine Aussagen nicht einmal begründen. Allein das erklärt alles.

108

First of aff all, tune down fanboy.

So you are saying that the proof of existence is not a proof that the transaction is valid - well yes, I know.

In Bitcoin and Bitcoin-derived networks, transactions are globally audited as in getting checked by all peers for validity.
For example in Nexa, insta-payments are possible cuz of global audition and let’s say miners agree on transaction XYZ to be invalid then it will be rejected and the insta-payment will fail.
Then there is the mining competition in which only the block of the winner is added to the chain, deeming the transactions within the block as finalized.

The difference is that this approach takes more time. So when this blockchain has grown big enough and if there is a very good amount of hashrate, reorging the blockchain becomes more and more infeasible.

Sure, KAS is in a way similar (I seem to have gotten confused a bit at first):

creating blocks concurrently in parallel and sorting out the blocks of misbehaving miners and being faster than Bitcoin.
Cool but the difference is that Bitcoin adds only one block to the chain, meanwhile Kaspa adds all valid blocks which were created in parallel, to the ledger. That means that Kas incorporates alot of orphans.

But they are NOT needed in Bitcoin as those orphans have identical data and thus they are to be discarded. Meanwhile in Kas they are needed for the consensus which reminds me of GHOST and GHOSTDAG has something from GHOST.

And thus the major downside is that Kas bloats with these orphans.

However, without them the 1 second blocks would make the network very squishy and an easy target for attacks.

And I see you like to be aggressive just like all the other Kas supremacists but here is something:

Screw your BloatDAG. The bloating will get worse with more and more BPS. So have fun pruning and don’t forget to recover some more ledger data that is still missing.

Kaspa will never replace BTC or overthrow ETH cuz you cannot build a thing on Kas. Absolutely nothing.
Do you really think people will be ok with Faketoshi 2.0 claiming that the correctness of past transactions does not matter?

Do you think signatures a joke?

1 „Gefällt mir“
109

Screenshot_20231117_201141_Telegram
Screenshot_20231117_201141_Telegram1200×1920 158 KB

110

They do not have „the same data“, they are not „needed“, there is no bloat (due to pruning), the network is not „squishy“ (the fuck does that even mean?), the security is probably equivalent to Nakamoto consensus, and you have a strange attitude.

111

A valid, yet rejected block from a miner who lost in the mining competition is deemed an orphan in Bitcoin. And this block has identical block data as the non-rejected block.
Btw, as far as I can remember, in Kas all work is to be acknowledged, meaning that no block becomes orphaned or let us say from a Bitcoin perspective: de-orphaning the orphan and adding it to the ledger.

This is done to determine the longest chain according to GHOSTDAG and like I said before, GHOSTDAG has its roots in GHOST which was designed to bloat just as much as well.

Sure, you can prune alot but don’t forget that a public ledger is supposed to be able to provide a proof that the correctness of past transactions exists.

112

Hmm, after 13 years of research and development, one would expect Kas to do SCs as well.
See, more scalability is cool but it does not make more sense to take it easy and have SCs at 1BPS to see how it will work out?

On Nexa I can deploy a normal contract or a contract within in a contract and then either lock funds via the pubkey script or implement P2ST locking or create an atomic swap contract and send native tokens with ease from a group address etc.

Why not on KAS?

Something is really, really weird.

113

The whole idea of using DAG is to allow for many blocks to coexist simultaneously and be created in parallel, at whatever rate is affordable for validation and propagation by the average Joe’s computer of the time being

  1. It does not orphan blocks, thus every attacker must always confront the whole mining power of the network, unlike in BTC at times when concurrent blocks coexist.
  2. Much more frequent blocks allow for miners to frequently find them solo while having much less share of the total hashrate compared to BTC
  3. Last 2-3 days are verfiable by the user, all days before that are recursively provable to be valid. Google NiPoPoW and „mining in logarithmic space“

https://medium.com/p/76ed62313227

114

16:00-23:00 is well explained

115

@Igzorn Interessant das auf deutsch kaum etwas kam aber auf englisch antwortest du umfänglich. Warum?

Vor 10 Tagen warst du skeptisch was Kaspa anbelangt, vor 2 Tagen war es das beste und Bitcoin überlegene Projekt und neuerdings bist du Teil des Entwicklerteams oder wie erklärt sich dein „we will introduce“/„I can’t give an exact figure… we haven’t chosen yet“???
Spätestens an der Stelle fühlt es sich jedenfalls sehr fragwürdig an, was deine Motive und Objektivität anbelangt.

12 „Gefällt mir“
116

Es wird ja auch immer damit geworben dass es kein premine gab aber ich sehe irgendwie keinen richtigen Hinweis darauf, ihr dürft mir gerne eine Quelle dafür zeigen. Satoshi hat extra auf andere gewartet bis er weiter gemined hat. Aber bei Kaspar finde ich nichts dazu dass es von Anfang an die Möglichkeit gab ins Netzwerk einzusteigen. Vorallem unter dem Gesichtspunkt dass bei Kaspar am Anfang viel mehr der gesamten Menge an Coins gemined wurde als bei bei Bitcoin.

117

Zumal diese Frage durch das Pruning wohl nie mehr geklärt werden kann und trotsdem weben sie damit dass es einen faireren Start als bei Bitcoin gab. Wie gesagt, bei diesem Projekt gibt es mehr als nur eine RedFlag.

5 „Gefällt mir“
118

Weil er sich die Antworten von irgend einer discord/reddit/whatever Gruppe vorkauen lässt. Seit dieser Englisch Nummer wirkt das ganze noch absurder als vorher schon.

„Love to se my bags are pumpin !“
Logo, sie ziehen die Dullis ab, um am Ende selbst mehr Bitcoin zu haben :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

5 „Gefällt mir“
119

Hab mir grad sein ersten Satz in diesem Forum nochmal angeschaut:

Bitcoin ist das einzig Wahre in dem Space.
Trotzdem denkt doch jeder irgendwie nach, wie man vielleicht an mehr Bitcoin kommen könnte.
Altcoins sind da schon sehr verführerisch😁 Nicht weil sie zukünfig revolutionär sein könntrn, sondern einfach nur aus der Sicht des puren Profits.

Aus meiner Sicht hat er in irgendwas investiert und versucht nun andere zu „überzeugen“. Der Profit steigt schließlich nur wenn andere hinzukommen. So funktioniert ein Schneeballsystem.

6 „Gefällt mir“
120

Oder man muss sich selbst davon überzeugen, um das eigene seltsame Gefühl, sei es ein unwohles oder unsicheres, nicht zu hinterfragen.

Also sucht man Gleichgesinnte, die einem die nötige Bestätigung zurückspiegeln.

4 „Gefällt mir“
121

I do understand why the DAG has been implemented. It allows orphans to coexist because the idea is
to waste no work and have GHOSTDAG, which has its roots in GHOST, determine the longest chain by incorporating all valid blocks from honest miners (well orphans are technically valid blocks which are allowed to coexist in Kas).
No work to be wasted, making mining a walk in the park.

But you should understand that Satoshi envisioned mining to be competitive and have only one winner per mining round. Then it is just the block of the winner that will be added to the chain. The winner is chosen at random unless there is an attacker who can dominate the network completely.

Wanna solo mine and find a block? The difficulty is high? Ok, bring on your mining computers and hope you will find a block. No selfish mining. Discard all orphans as in the blocks of those who lost the mining competition, creating the hardest digital cash.
Bitcoin’s mining is not a walk in the park. A Bitcoin blockhash starts with a whooping 17 zeros. Some other Bitcoin-derived networks have 2 minute blocktimes and a blockhash that starts with a prefix of 12 zeros.

Meanwhile I expect 1 seond blocks to have no prefix of zeros or 1 zero at max. Huge difference.