Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> You can get coins in other ways

What guarantees that this continues to be true? Yes coins that can't be sold are worthless, but coins that can only be sold with KYC aren't.

> We are talking about staking oligopolies not about someone buying 10 dollars worth of coins

The staking providers or delegatees are the (potential) oligopolies

> I did not mention miners but producers of mining equipment.

Those are also anonymous and, if not completely portable, fungible with general electronic manufacturing equipment that's widely possessed.

> Also, a nation state can produce mining equipment themselves, they can't create new coins.

Which supports my point - the capability to exclude a nation state also allows the staking cabals to exclude people they don't like. Given that a staking cabal by its very nature controls the chain, they can stop other people getting or making coins. But a mining cabal can't stop other people getting or making mining equipment.




> What guarantees that this continues to be true? Yes coins that can't be sold are worthless, but coins that can only be sold with KYC aren't.

This applies to PoW coins too. Miners can't be anonymous if they want to sell their coins. Why would anybody mine for nothing?

> The staking providers or delegatees are the (potential) oligopolies

Yes, and miners mine in pools. Why are you not considering pools as (potential) oligopolies? What is the difference?

> Those are also anonymous and, if not completely portable, fungible with general electronic manufacturing equipment that's widely possessed.

They need physical locations with people physically present with physical inputs and outputs. The idea that it is easier for miners and hardware manufacturers to be anonymous than a guy spinning some software on some server is... stupid. To think that it is easier for miners and hardware producers to change location than a guy moving private keys from one server to another is just... retarded.

> Which supports my point - the capability to exclude a nation state also allows the staking cabals to exclude people they don't like.

I've asked you already how would a staking cabal exclude people they don't like and for some reason you are not answering that question. I'm guessing you are avoiding it because your answer, as all you've written so far in this thread, also applies to mining cabals.

> Given that a staking cabal by its very nature controls the chain, they can stop other people getting or making coins. But a mining cabal can't stop other people getting or making mining equipment.

No they can't make them stop making mining equipment, why do you think that that is relevant? The mining cabal can produce their own hardware and prevent anybody using any different hardware from joining the network, could they not?

Can you please try to clearly answer the original question. What makes mining oligopolies better than staking oligopolies? If you are sticking with your answer that it is harder to create mining oligopolies then please explain how? And before you press reply could you please stop for a minute and thing how what you wrote is applicable to mining oligopolies and not to staking oligopolies or vice versa.


As I've said repeatedly, it's different because staking means that the same people control both the current coin supply and the means of creating new ones.

A mining cabal can't stop other people from mining, because you don't need anything (other than commodity hardware and an internet connection) to mine. But a staking cabal controls both staking and current coins (by the nature of how staking works), and new entrants need to have coins to stake, so such a cabal can stop other people from staking.


> As I've said repeatedly, it's different because staking means that the same people control both the current coin supply and the means of creating new ones.

This is the first time you are saying that, and you aren't explaining how that is relevant to PoS oligopolies. What was said by me and by rtkwe, on this matter, is that due to this characteristic of PoS coins the only way, we can think of (you've ignored both of our posts on this subject so I'm assuming that you agree?), a staking oligopoly can remain oligopoly is by controlling the majority of coins and not selling those coins which in effect means that a PoS oligopolies don't make any money from being oligopolies. In fact maintaining a staking oligopoly would destroy all the money that was invested in creating it.

In my opinion, and I would love to hear yours if you ever read and parse this, that discourages creation of oligopolies since there is no profit in them.

> A mining cabal can't stop other people from mining

They can't stop them from running their machines but they can stop them from producing any blocks that are accepted in to the chain making it unprofitable for anybody not part of the oligopoly to mine. Unlike with staking this doesn't prevent the mining oligopolies from making a profit since it requires no manipulation of the markets to retain their position as an oligopoly.


> a staking oligopoly can remain oligopoly is by controlling the majority of coins and not selling those coins which in effect means that a PoS oligopolies don't make any money from being oligopolies. In fact maintaining a staking oligopoly would destroy all the money that was invested in creating it.

Eh, maybe. I think there's a lot of middle ground between selling freely/anonymously to anyone and not selling at all.

> They can't stop them from running their machines but they can stop them from producing any blocks that are accepted in to the chain making it unprofitable for anybody not part of the oligopoly to mine.

I think/hope that would destroy whatever coin that was, and far more quickly, because there's no way to be subtle about that one - everyone can see blocks being broadcast and ignored. Whereas if every time an outsider tries to buy some coins, their name didn't quite match for KYC and they need to resubmit their documents, or someone else bought them first, or the exchange suddenly needs to freeze all transactions to investigate an issue, you can maintain the illusion of an active market for quite some time.


> I think/hope that would destroy whatever coin that was, and far more quickly, because there's no way to be subtle about that one - everyone can see blocks being broadcast and ignored.

This also applies to staking oligopolies. Either all the coins are owned by the oligopoly rendering them valueless or they need to ignore blocks from others. Again, it seems that staking oligopolies are "better" than mining ones.

> Whereas if every time an outsider tries to buy some coins, their name didn't quite match for KYC and they need to resubmit their documents, or someone else bought them first, or the exchange suddenly needs to freeze all transactions to investigate an issue, you can maintain the illusion of an active market for quite some time.

This assumes that the exchanges are the oligopoly and ignores that the coins that the vast majority of coins that exchanges stake are owned by someone else and can be pulled. And no, if you freeze all transactions for whatever reason you can't maintain the illusion of an active market for quite some time.


You don't have to freeze all transactions, just the ones being made by outsiders. Who would know, or care? Just make sure the subreddit mod is an insider, toss a few coins to any of the crypto press (who are all on the take) and you're good.


I don’t see it worth arguing with you. Your responses are not very friendly. Adding please doesn’t defuse the insults.

Note: I am not the other poster. We just agree that PoS is a sham.


Maybe I've not been very friendly but I've insulted no one person.

Also it isn't quite friendly to ignore what the person you are arguing with has written or pretending to be two different people in an argument.

Have a nice day.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: