Was Cryptocurrency created solely to demoralize the adopters, builders with pump-n-dumps by whales,
It's why Etherium was made. As you can make as many shit coins as you want on the Etherium blockchain. It's also why they went proof of stake. As they see themself as above proof of work, and wish to be paid for simply having money.
Contracts on markets also inflate volume leading to the devaluation of coins such as Bitcoin. These are the tools they use to detract and devalue projects they can not control.
Formally, proof-of-work crypto is proof-of-energy crypto, and energy is perfectly valuable thing. The problem is that you can't extract that energy back to utilize it for your needs.
Proof-of-stack crypto is obvious scam, so not need even to take it into account.
There could be another crypto with proof-of-networking, i.e. mining occur when node service network long enough, i.e. you getting new coins for supporting network activity and availability. It shoud be much less energy hungry, with much more sustainable network and nearly instant transactions. This will be "proof-of-time" kind of crypto.
In any case crypto, while backed with some real values like energy or time, which means every single coin was not made "from air" like fiat, still have a problem with extracting its value back. It's like making coins from gold without ability to make a raw gold from coins.
So, there is still long enough way for independent currencies to go. Wile it have limited, but decent use as an alternative payment system, crypto is in no way perfect. It's just a beta version of independent currency.
Precious metals are far from perfect too. Just a simple problem with precious metal verification, when you don't have a simple way to check if coin/bullion is really made from precious metal with necessary purity makes gold limited currency too.
A fundamental problem with proof-of-work (or any proof-of-energy system, really), is that they favour the existing unequal distribution of wealth. The people with the most access to the ability to do computing work, or the most energy, are the existing rich. Obviously, the billionaires of the world can easily afford access to vast computing power that ensures that they would be the ones that would gain most of the newly minted cryptocurrencies.
So, even with the end of fiat and all money is now crypto, lo and behold, the current billionaires are still the billionaires and nothing has really changed. Except maybe people are more dependent on energy, computing resources and access to the network to do something as trivial as buying something, giving the billionaires even more power to de-person anyone they don't want, by denying them access to these things that a person cannot produce by themselves.
Your proof-of-network might be an improvement on this but I'm not sure it really fixes the problem. How hard would it be for a billionaire to own millions of nodes on the network? It's simply a matter of devoting computing resources to running independent nodes instead of calculating hashes.
How hard would it be for a billionaire to own millions of nodes on the network?
It could be limited to IPs, IP ranges or even AS, so IP, IP range or whole AS with multiple nodes receive as much as single node in IP, IP range or AS. So there will be no any reason even to buy IP ranges or Autonomous systems, since it will not give billionaire any advantage over average regular user running node at home, because all his nodes will be accounted as one.
It could be limited to IPs, IP ranges or even AS, so IP, IP range or whole AS with multiple nodes receive as much as single node in IP, IP range or AS.
But this would now limit the ability of an average user to run a node at home. If me and my neighbour have the same ISP, we will likely be on the same subnet and thus function as only a single node. So one node is effectively redundant and will receive no reward (or the reward will be divided). On the other hand, people with control of the IP address allocation will have the ability to allocate themselves a node on every subnet. This likely favours those with control of the network infrastructure, i.e. tech companies who are in turn owned by billionaires. Not sure this has really made anything better.
If me and my neighbour have the same ISP, we will likely be on the same subnet and thus function as only a single node.
You will have half of propability to get reward than single user in network of same size.
Statistically, there will be some known ratio of number of regular crypto users per, say /24 range of regular provider. That could be taken in account and prevent bying of networks specifically to mine coins.
On the other hand, people with control of the IP address allocation will have the ability to allocate themselves a node on every subnet.
So, they will share probability of getting reward with regular users in this networks doing the job of network support.
This likely favours those with control of the network infrastructure, i.e. tech companies who are in turn owned by billionaires.
Even largest companies have a limited address space. And they can't utilise whole networks to run nodes. So, there will be nodes of regular users that will have same probability of getting reward as nodes installed by owners of networks. In any case this will give more uniform distribution of rewards for supporting network than proof-of work degenerate into.
Notice, that even proof-of-work crypto finally come to idea of minimg pools, where multiple people combine their computing power and share reward. Proof-of-network have this feature as basis out-of-the box.
Also, there could be many other ways to prevent "networking power concentration". It is just a testing ground for now, so nothing is settled yet.
All I said is just example that crypto have other ways to develop in something more interesting, than conventional proof-of-work crypto to avoid many drawbacks proof-of-work have.
proof-of-work crypto is proof-of-energy crypto, and energy is perfectly valuable thing. The problem is that you can't extract that energy back to utilize it for your needs.
EN'ERGY, noun [Gr. work.] - "internal or inherent power"...
a) each one represents the evaluation (perceiving) inherent within the value (perceivable) of energy.
b) each one represents the want (choice) inherent within the need (balance) of energy.
c) each partial one represents a worker (reaction) inherent within the whole work (action) of energy.
d) each one represents a partial problem (living) inherent within the whole solution (process of dying) of energy.
No. Proof-of-work is in the figuring out additional bytes in block to get hash that represent a number that is less than certain number set by implemented rules, not in the signing of block or being online. That depends on computing power and so energy expensive.
Proof-of-networking does not need huge amount of complex calculations, just online time and accessability. Block just signed by node that is voted among other nodes. Nodes with larger online for certain period get higher weight in voting process. So any online node could be choosen and get reward for signing current block without all that usual megahashes per second. This will force users keep their nodes online constantly and such crypto will have much larger and much stable network and since there are no need to do a lot of calculations there will be very fast transactions. There are no known crypto based on that principle yet, but many p2p projects like i2p or tox already have some potential to add that functionality.
With proof-of-work, those who have higher computing power have higher probability to get award from transactions fee. With proof-of-networking, those who have higher online have higher probability of getting reward. I think it is much more fair for network based independent currency.
a) everything perceivable represents value; each one perceiving it from within represents evaluation.
b) whole value (process of dying) transmutes itself into each partial evaluation (life)
c) others suggest values (plural) to tempt one (partial) to ignore perceivable value (whole).
d) consenting to suggested values gives those suggesting the power to "transmute" the "evaluation" of oneself, hence gaining control over the "trans-evaluation of all suggested values".
a) any effort put into artificial intelligence will be accumulated and then used against everyone putting in less effort.
b) like vs dislike (reasoning) represents the argument shaped within your mind.
c) 'ARGUE, verb [Latin arguo, to show, argue accuse or convict.] - "to reason; to invent and offer reasons to support or overthrow a proposition".
Perceivable inspiration represents the only proposition...suggested information tempts one to ignore perceivable by arguing about suggested. Suggestion cannot overthrow perceivable, but it can tempt those perceiving to submit by "standing under" (understanding) to those suggesting.
d) CHAT, verb - "to talk without form or ceremony; to talk idly; to prate; to talk much and without weight"...this is what the few tempt the many to consent to.
e) like to see implies wanted outcome, while ignoring the need to adapt to what you see. Meanwhile, wanted outcomes represents suggested progressivism aka...
"...we will still direct thought towards different fantastic theories which will appear to be progressive. For it was by the word "progressive" that we have successfully turned the brains of the stupid Goys. There are no brains among the Goys to realize that this word is but a cover for digression...progress, being a false conception, serves to conceal the truth so that nobody may know it except ourselves; God's elect; who are its guardians."
It's why Etherium was made. As you can make as many shit coins as you want on the Etherium blockchain. It's also why they went proof of stake. As they see themself as above proof of work, and wish to be paid for simply having money.
Contracts on markets also inflate volume leading to the devaluation of coins such as Bitcoin. These are the tools they use to detract and devalue projects they can not control.
Formally, proof-of-work crypto is proof-of-energy crypto, and energy is perfectly valuable thing. The problem is that you can't extract that energy back to utilize it for your needs.
Proof-of-stack crypto is obvious scam, so not need even to take it into account.
There could be another crypto with proof-of-networking, i.e. mining occur when node service network long enough, i.e. you getting new coins for supporting network activity and availability. It shoud be much less energy hungry, with much more sustainable network and nearly instant transactions. This will be "proof-of-time" kind of crypto.
In any case crypto, while backed with some real values like energy or time, which means every single coin was not made "from air" like fiat, still have a problem with extracting its value back. It's like making coins from gold without ability to make a raw gold from coins.
So, there is still long enough way for independent currencies to go. Wile it have limited, but decent use as an alternative payment system, crypto is in no way perfect. It's just a beta version of independent currency.
Precious metals are far from perfect too. Just a simple problem with precious metal verification, when you don't have a simple way to check if coin/bullion is really made from precious metal with necessary purity makes gold limited currency too.
Yes, that's more correct.
A fundamental problem with proof-of-work (or any proof-of-energy system, really), is that they favour the existing unequal distribution of wealth. The people with the most access to the ability to do computing work, or the most energy, are the existing rich. Obviously, the billionaires of the world can easily afford access to vast computing power that ensures that they would be the ones that would gain most of the newly minted cryptocurrencies.
So, even with the end of fiat and all money is now crypto, lo and behold, the current billionaires are still the billionaires and nothing has really changed. Except maybe people are more dependent on energy, computing resources and access to the network to do something as trivial as buying something, giving the billionaires even more power to de-person anyone they don't want, by denying them access to these things that a person cannot produce by themselves.
Your proof-of-network might be an improvement on this but I'm not sure it really fixes the problem. How hard would it be for a billionaire to own millions of nodes on the network? It's simply a matter of devoting computing resources to running independent nodes instead of calculating hashes.
It could be limited to IPs, IP ranges or even AS, so IP, IP range or whole AS with multiple nodes receive as much as single node in IP, IP range or AS. So there will be no any reason even to buy IP ranges or Autonomous systems, since it will not give billionaire any advantage over average regular user running node at home, because all his nodes will be accounted as one.
But this would now limit the ability of an average user to run a node at home. If me and my neighbour have the same ISP, we will likely be on the same subnet and thus function as only a single node. So one node is effectively redundant and will receive no reward (or the reward will be divided). On the other hand, people with control of the IP address allocation will have the ability to allocate themselves a node on every subnet. This likely favours those with control of the network infrastructure, i.e. tech companies who are in turn owned by billionaires. Not sure this has really made anything better.
You will have half of propability to get reward than single user in network of same size.
Statistically, there will be some known ratio of number of regular crypto users per, say /24 range of regular provider. That could be taken in account and prevent bying of networks specifically to mine coins.
So, they will share probability of getting reward with regular users in this networks doing the job of network support.
Even largest companies have a limited address space. And they can't utilise whole networks to run nodes. So, there will be nodes of regular users that will have same probability of getting reward as nodes installed by owners of networks. In any case this will give more uniform distribution of rewards for supporting network than proof-of work degenerate into.
Notice, that even proof-of-work crypto finally come to idea of minimg pools, where multiple people combine their computing power and share reward. Proof-of-network have this feature as basis out-of-the box.
Also, there could be many other ways to prevent "networking power concentration". It is just a testing ground for now, so nothing is settled yet.
All I said is just example that crypto have other ways to develop in something more interesting, than conventional proof-of-work crypto to avoid many drawbacks proof-of-work have.
a) each one represents the evaluation (perceiving) inherent within the value (perceivable) of energy.
b) each one represents the want (choice) inherent within the need (balance) of energy.
c) each partial one represents a worker (reaction) inherent within the whole work (action) of energy.
d) each one represents a partial problem (living) inherent within the whole solution (process of dying) of energy.
No. Proof-of-work is in the figuring out additional bytes in block to get hash that represent a number that is less than certain number set by implemented rules, not in the signing of block or being online. That depends on computing power and so energy expensive.
Proof-of-networking does not need huge amount of complex calculations, just online time and accessability. Block just signed by node that is voted among other nodes. Nodes with larger online for certain period get higher weight in voting process. So any online node could be choosen and get reward for signing current block without all that usual megahashes per second. This will force users keep their nodes online constantly and such crypto will have much larger and much stable network and since there are no need to do a lot of calculations there will be very fast transactions. There are no known crypto based on that principle yet, but many p2p projects like i2p or tox already have some potential to add that functionality.
With proof-of-work, those who have higher computing power have higher probability to get award from transactions fee. With proof-of-networking, those who have higher online have higher probability of getting reward. I think it is much more fair for network based independent currency.
Proof of networking? Sounds like you’d have an issue with spam.
a) everything perceivable represents value; each one perceiving it from within represents evaluation.
b) whole value (process of dying) transmutes itself into each partial evaluation (life)
c) others suggest values (plural) to tempt one (partial) to ignore perceivable value (whole).
d) consenting to suggested values gives those suggesting the power to "transmute" the "evaluation" of oneself, hence gaining control over the "trans-evaluation of all suggested values".
I'd like to see you and ChatGPT in an argument.
a) any effort put into artificial intelligence will be accumulated and then used against everyone putting in less effort.
b) like vs dislike (reasoning) represents the argument shaped within your mind.
c) 'ARGUE, verb [Latin arguo, to show, argue accuse or convict.] - "to reason; to invent and offer reasons to support or overthrow a proposition".
Perceivable inspiration represents the only proposition...suggested information tempts one to ignore perceivable by arguing about suggested. Suggestion cannot overthrow perceivable, but it can tempt those perceiving to submit by "standing under" (understanding) to those suggesting.
d) CHAT, verb - "to talk without form or ceremony; to talk idly; to prate; to talk much and without weight"...this is what the few tempt the many to consent to.
e) like to see implies wanted outcome, while ignoring the need to adapt to what you see. Meanwhile, wanted outcomes represents suggested progressivism aka...
"...we will still direct thought towards different fantastic theories which will appear to be progressive. For it was by the word "progressive" that we have successfully turned the brains of the stupid Goys. There are no brains among the Goys to realize that this word is but a cover for digression...progress, being a false conception, serves to conceal the truth so that nobody may know it except ourselves; God's elect; who are its guardians."
~Protocol 13