$5000 per coin will never happen if PoW mining is allowed to continue - page 4.

devphp

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Quote from: inBitweTrust on October 24, 2014, 08:47:22 AM

Stop claiming its a Myth then. You should at least wait for a completed whitepaper and release of source code that is properly digested by security researchers before even suggesting Nxt is secure. To not do this is misleading and dishonest.

The most you should claim is that perhaps in the future some PoS algorithm can solve the NaS problems.

Source code of NXT has been available since February or March, can't remember exactly.
Some bugs were found by researchers and fixed by developers since then, no fatal bugs though which may be a promise of a robust design. Bugs exist in any other software, that's normal. As long as they are not fatal design bugs, they are fixed and software only gets better. Bitcoin itself had a serious forking bug as late as beginning of 2013, does that make it insecure? The point is software has to be improved or it gets replaced by more advanced software.

Quote from: DumbFruit on October 24, 2014, 08:51:47 AM

If you don't want to attain a decentralized consensus, then why bother with cryptocurrency at all?

NXT has been running in decentralized consensus for 11 months. That's a fact of life, deal with it.

DumbFruit

sr. member

Activity: 433

Merit: 263

Quote from: devphp on October 24, 2014, 08:42:33 AM

Quote from: inBitweTrust on October 24, 2014, 08:38:47 AM

So are you admitting that Nxt has some yet to be resolved security flaws?

NXT's security in the bootstrapping phase (before Transparent Forging is implemented) is similar to Bitcoin's, it can be 51% attacked. Transparent Forging is supposed to fix this flaw in NXT. However, in Bitcoin this flaw will remain unfixed forever, as miners will never agree to change status quo and will keep things running as they are now until Bitcoin becomes obsolete with other systems that actually move on with development. Not necessarily NXT, it could be something else, Ethereum or whatever.

NXT will do fine as long as it's run by benign technocratic overlords, like pretty much every other currency in the world.

Bitcoin is a trust-less currency, able to do the one thing PoS coins can never do; Attain a decentralized consensus among hostile parties all over the world.

If you don't want to attain a decentralized consensus, then why bother with cryptocurrency at all?

inBitweTrust

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 501

Quote from: devphp on October 24, 2014, 08:42:33 AM

NXT's security in the bootstrapping phase (before Transparent Forging is implemented) is similar to Bitcoin's, it can be 51% attacked. Transparent Forging is supposed to fix this flaw in NXT. However, in Bitcoin this flaw will remain unfixed forever, as miners will never agree to change status quo and will keep things running as they are now until Bitcoin becomes obsolete with other systems that actually move on with development. Not necessarily NXT, it could be something else, Ethereum or whatever.

Stop claiming its a Myth then. You should at least wait for a completed whitepaper and release of source code that is properly digested by security researchers before even suggesting Nxt is secure. To not do this is misleading and dishonest.

The most you should claim is that perhaps in the future some PoS algorithm can solve the NaS problems.

Additionally, it is indeed very well conceivable that miners will accept a hard fork introducing some other security mechanism instead of just PoW. If they are properly incentivized they would happily stop throwing away most of their profits into new asic technology. Perhaps a variation of bergstake, perhaps a variation of slasher ghost, perhaps PoR will be introduced into Bitcoin as a merged security mechanism. Until these fancy new toys get properly peer reviewed and tested, suggesting bitcoin migrate away from PoW is irresponsible.

hasherr

newbie

Activity: 18

Merit: 0

Lets say John have 100$ and he buys 0.3 bitcoin from miner and miner uses that 100$ to pay his debts and also buys new pair of jeans. So this is money "going out" of bitcoin ecosystem? And when John have 100$ and he buys 0.3 bitcoin from whale who bouht his 1K bitcoins 1$ each few years back, and this whale uses this 100$ on hookers, thats money "staying in" bitcoin ecosystem?

devphp

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Quote from: inBitweTrust on October 24, 2014, 08:38:47 AM

So are you admitting that Nxt has some yet to be resolved security flaws?

NXT's security in the bootstrapping phase (before Transparent Forging is implemented) is similar to Bitcoin's, it can be 51% attacked. Transparent Forging is supposed to fix this flaw in NXT. However, in Bitcoin this flaw will remain unfixed forever, as miners will never agree to change status quo and will keep things running as they are now until Bitcoin becomes obsolete with other systems that actually move on with development. Not necessarily NXT, it could be something else, Ethereum or whatever.

inBitweTrust

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 501

Quote from: devphp on October 24, 2014, 08:35:27 AM

Vitalik actually signed up on nxtforum.org a couple of months ago to learn how NXT solves the N@S issue and found the brief desciption of the approach NXT takes "reasonable". Of course, he can't use someone else's idea and is working to implement his own.

Don't quote mine without talking about the full context!

Quote from: Vitalik

So basically you use transactions-as-proof-of-stake. That sounds reasonable; it's as good as I can think of at this point, although it has the moderately-serious-but-not-fatal flaws that I described in my On Stake article. I eagerly await a full whitepaper description and open source code of your complete protocol so both myself and more formal academics can properly whack at the specifics.

So are you admitting that Nxt has some yet to be resolved security flaws?

devphp

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Quote from: inBitweTrust on October 24, 2014, 08:28:50 AM

I suppose you consider all Vitalik Buterin research mythological too, right?

Vitalik actually signed up on nxtforum.org a couple of months ago to learn how NXT solves the N@S issue and found the brief desciption of the approach NXT takes "reasonable". Of course, he can't use someone else's idea and is working to implement his own.

inBitweTrust

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 501

Quote from: devphp on October 24, 2014, 08:17:21 AM

You're so clueless and a parrot of myths, it's embarrassing. Somebody please attack NXT and finish off its 11-month run, I am sure it will be no more difficult that taking a morning crap.

A NAS attack with a PoS typically would happen from one of the original stakeholders. Thus the threat of an attack is always looming just like the threat of Satoshi dumping his 750k - 1 million coins on the market.

Just because an attack is difficult or unlikely doesn't mean that it isn't worth considering. Any serious security researcher goes out of his way to consider all vectors of attack and protect against them.

You are in serious denial if you believe the NaS is a myth.

I suppose you consider all Vitalik Buterin research mythological too, right?

https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/10/03/slasher-ghost-developments-proof-stake/
https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/05/stake/

There are many different types of attack that harm a currency. Your delusional attitude suggesting that PoS is uncrackable needs some serious reflection. We just witnessed a single DPoS developer leverage a competing DAC to undermine the currency by switching it from a deflationary one to an inflationary one for the express purpose of paying for dev and marketing salaries. If you don't consider that an attack on certain stakeholders than you really aren't serious about security.

amaclin

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1019

Quote

Somebody please attack NXT and finish off its 11-month run, I am sure it will be no more difficult that taking a morning crap.

Not today, man. But some day in future.
There is no reason to attack any altcoin today. Too low profit comparing with bitcoin. No markets, no merchants... Only traders on online-exchanges

Bitcoin will fall first.

devphp

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Quote from: opossum on October 23, 2014, 10:18:24 PM

A PoS coin on the other hand costs nothing to attack, so anyone who wants to attack such a coin is able to do so without any cost/risk.

You're so clueless and a parrot of myths, it's embarrassing. Somebody please attack NXT and finish off its 11-month run, I am sure it will be no more difficult that taking a morning crap.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: tokyopotato on October 24, 2014, 03:12:57 AM

The price of Bitcoin has to increase for the network to remain as strong as it is. Otherwise, it's likely for it to become unprofitable after halving until the hashrates come down.

Well it is simple. Go find a billionaire, make him buy $1B worth of Bitcoin. Then proceed and make his wallet.dat corrupt.
Problem solved.

amaclin

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1019

Quote

If Bitcoin switch to PoS system, all its rules and function will still be the same, just that it will no longer expend $500 million USD in value every year, to pay miners/pools/hardware vendors/electricity companies. All that money will stay in the Bitcoin eco-system, for the benefit of the eco-system.

It will not help either.

Distributed Consensus from Proof of Stake is Impossible ( by Andrew Poelstra, May 28, 2014 )
https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf

(From my side this link is unavailable now. Does anybody know the mirror link?)

amaclin

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1019

Quote

No, you don't understand there are superior functioning alternatives available.

Sorry. The only working alternative is current fiat system.
With governments, taxes, military forces, etc.

Decentralized crypto currencies are too expensive to be maintained by community.

rampage101

member

Activity: 182

Merit: 10

$500 million a year is not that much when you compare to something like Apple corporation which has a value over $600 billion.

I thin when the block reward halves it will make a big difference, as the difficulty will also be much higher by then.

tokyopotato

legendary

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Lauda on October 24, 2014, 01:00:39 AM

Quote from: kokojie on October 23, 2014, 04:13:34 PM

Halving does nothing to the PoW expense, I have explained the PoW expense is a function of Bitcoin marketcap.

After the 1st halving, the PoW expense actually increased significantly. Therefore, your theory is invalid.

I don't want any crazy Bitcoin price, but I legitimately think without PoW, we would be most likely close to $5000 per coin now. We have spent a lot of money on PoW in the past 5 years.

It does not reduce the expense?
You're saying it costs Bitcoin $500 million a year right now. If the block reward were to halve tomorrow.
It would not cost Bitcoin $250 million a year afterwards (to sustain price)?

The price of Bitcoin has to increase for the network to remain as strong as it is. Otherwise, it's likely for it to become unprofitable after halving until the hashrates come down.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: kokojie on October 23, 2014, 04:13:34 PM

Halving does nothing to the PoW expense, I have explained the PoW expense is a function of Bitcoin marketcap.

After the 1st halving, the PoW expense actually increased significantly. Therefore, your theory is invalid.

I don't want any crazy Bitcoin price, but I legitimately think without PoW, we would be most likely close to $5000 per coin now. We have spent a lot of money on PoW in the past 5 years.

It does not reduce the expense?
You're saying it costs Bitcoin $500 million a year right now. If the block reward were to halve tomorrow.
It would not cost Bitcoin $250 million a year afterwards (to sustain price)?

jaybny

sr. member

Activity: 410

Merit: 250

Proof-of-Skill - protoblock.com

i say we start a bitcoin bergstake. and then fork.

http://satoshifantasy.com/bergstake-2/

seriouscoin

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: Cubic Earth on October 23, 2014, 08:29:05 PM

Quote from: OgNasty on October 23, 2014, 05:33:31 PM

Quote from: kokojie on October 23, 2014, 11:25:47 AM

All Bitcoin holders are essentially charged a 10% tax per year, perpetually, by the PoW mining network. How can this be sustainable?

The free market will adjust as necessary.

+1

And.... kokojie... I don't see how you can possibly think the cost of mining will be 10% per year. It will soon be 5% per year, then 2% etc. etc., as far as the block subsidy. And as for fees... no one knows how that will play out. Not you, not me, not anyone.

I kinda feel like I shouldn't even be posting in this thread. I don't like to dignify trolling.

I love how OP called it "tax" when its actually "inflation". He also thinks POS wont have inflation due to coins supply.

OP is a fcking idiot,, simple as that. In POS system, new coins will be sold every day as well.... but its worse that you cant see the real cost of those "mined" coin. With POW, its not hard to estimate these coins, electricity, R&D, manufacturing, management, real estate...etc are not out of thin air.

opossum

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

Quote from: kokojie on October 23, 2014, 04:33:26 PM

Quote from: inBitweTrust on October 23, 2014, 04:28:31 PM

Quote from: kokojie on October 23, 2014, 04:21:32 PM

Your "big pile of money" analogy is actually pretty accurate. PoW mining drains away $500 million of that money each year, therefore $500 million new money must be added, in order to just maintain the size of the "pile" (Bitcoin price).

Now that you have conceded to a longterm and constant payout to support Bitshares dev and marketing how do you compare the costs of mining to your costs of constant dilution to support dev and marketing?

PoW mining is transferring value to outside of the eco-system, with ZERO benefit to the eco-system. PoS is fully capable of processing transactions for nearly no cost.

Community voting to pay dev team to support development, is directly benefiting the eco-system. Also it's a rather static cost, it doesn't grow as a function of the marketcap, like PoW mining expense does.

There's your comparison.

This is only true if you do not value the fact that a payment sent to you cannot be reversed in the future. This is the value that the miners are giving to the bitcoin ecosystem.

What you are suggesting is that we switch to a PoS (piece of shit) mining algo. The different between PoS and PoW is that in order to attack a PoW coin, you will need to invest money to attack the network, more money then such an attack would yield in profitability, this results in it being economically irrational to attempt to attack a PoW coin. A PoS coin on the other hand costs nothing to attack, so anyone who wants to attack such a coin is able to do so without any cost/risk.

The money that is transferred to ASIC manufacturers is transferred to them because they have invested in technology to make mining more efficient on an electrical standpoint. If you are against giving money to these kinds of entities, then I would suggest that you design your own efficient technology to mine a PoW coin and not demand a price on the machines you manufacture to allow you to recoup your investment

ytr8

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

Electricity, this is really a huge expenditure, if bitcoin price does not rise words, means that our hands bitcoins are in devaluation .

Topic: $5000 per coin will never happen if PoW mining is allowed to continue - page 4. (Read 10118 times)