Honestly, you cannot compare Mint to Apex. Apex has bad pos parameters. For example 24 hour min stake time...60 second blocks, that is terrible for security, which is exactly what we are talking about. Mintcoin has less than 30 second confirmations and 20 days min stake time and a max coin weight of 40 days so you cannot save up weight indefinitely to create an attack. It is secure both from too little, and too much staking time. You need a balance and MINT has this balance, for performance, security, and minting fairness, imo.
Yes I can compare mint to apex, Different PoS Parameter do affect security, but PoS is still PoS,
your current parameters will only work well with a PoS 1 style coin, as not everyone can keep a system online 20 days straight, that is why min stake age would have to be lowered with a PoS II coin.
The only point I am stating is
if there is a switch to PoS II, it will require a change in min stake time, no way around it. When you get a new dev , he will say the same thing, if you want your users to be able to stake a PoS II style coin. If you don't switch to PoS II , then parameters change is not an issue, only if you do switch.
PoS security is determined by the # of coins staking and their weight.
Currently 3% staking at the time of this post, comes out to 635,5557,506 mintcoins.
51% attack
635,557,506*51%= 324,134,328.06
if someone waited until max weight is achieved 20X
324,134,328.06 /20 = 16,206,716.403
Then for only ~16,206,716.403 mintcoins purchased , someone could doublespend on your network after reaching full weight.
FYI:
Your Max weight is 20 days not 40 days, weight does not begin until 20 days and it stops gaining weight at 40 days. So only 20X the amount per block is the max weight, not 40x.
This exactly. POS 2.0 is nice way to force people to stake. If say 30-50% would have been staking, then i would be okay with POS 1.0 but that is not the case. The technical details dont matter. I am just worried about security.
POS 2.0 is also a nice way to scam people because it forces centralizatoin into only the top few holders that will ever be the ones staking anything. If the vast majority of people are not able to stake their coins because they don't have enough weight after 24 hours, or 8 hours, everyday, or every 8 hours, those top holders will be staking fresh over and over again while the rest of the people never do. If you eliminate access to staking to vast majority of coin holders, such as POS 2.0 then how does that make it anymore secure, when you basically guaranteeing the same top people have total control over the network and could doublespend even easier? You make it harder for some to stake, yet easier for others, so in the end it is a mute point. Trading one dirty dog for a different dirty dog of a different breed...still a dirty dog, and that dog may actually be "dirtier". It would be interesting to do the calculation on POS 2.0 to examine how much EASIER with lowering the minimum stake age, does attacking the network actually become, for those with the weight to do it.
In the end, with POS you still have to trust your other stakers at the end of the day, just like in Bitcoin, you need to trust your other miners. Exchanging decentralized mining, for centralized mining is essentially what POS 2.0 achieves in staking.
Mintcoin's POS is much more decentralized, "fairer" (people with a just a few thousand mintcoins will be able to stake and mint new coins - so just about anyone can get in on the rewards of minting. This is potentially motivating for a much broader audience to even attempt to participate in the staking process. POS 2.0 eliminates access to staking to the vast majority of coin holders.
POS 1.0 may be less secure from one angle, one point of view; however, it may be "secure enough", and potentially more secure in the long run. I must say, it has been successful thus far. In you above example, there are other variables to consider that may affect your judgement, such as lost coins. For example, if Mintcoin has a higher % of lost coins than other coins, then the total staking in the last 1000, may be 3% but that could really be a higher % of total coins in actual circulation. From a calculation standpoint. Let's just run with it for a moment and assume that an attack actually could happen with 16-million coins. Assuming this is true, then it means a greater "risk" for top holders, relative to low coin holders, than say a POS 2.0 coin. Question: What would be the result?
The result would be a greater tendency toward fairer distribution on the network. High net worth "whale" individuals, might be wary of going all in on Mintcoin. On the other hand, If I can only afford 300,000 mintcoins, but I am guaranteed to be able to stake with that amount, then it might be worth it to go with Mintcoin, rather than go with some other coin where I cannot get in on the staking reward.
But as Mintcoin scales, so does the security...
Say the price rises to where 1 Mintcoin = $1 USD
Then that same 16-million mintcoins needed for an attack ...costs $16,000,000 USD
The investor logic still carries... anyone who has $300,000 is still guaranteed to mint, but they would not be able to with a POS 2.0 coin of the same market-cap comparative to Mintcoin.
If you are following my reasoning here, hopefully you are beginning to see how POS 1.0 is a self balancing system. Yes, it may not be as secure as you want it to be "right now" for how much money you have "right now", but then, don't invest in it. If you feel it is too insecure, then you won't. You may just dip your toe into the market, and grab 300,000 coins because, at least you will be able to generate staking rewards and mint new coins indefinitely. It is all about determining your risk-reward ratio. The "Security Risk-Reward Ratio" is something built into every POS coin. Mintcoin has it's parameters, other coins have theirs. As user adoption increases, so does the security, or hypothetical "cost of attack". With enough adoption, Mintcoin could be more secure than any POS 2.0 coin. Maybe people have already tried to attack it and failed, so they decide to go Long MINT. Just sharing some possible insights and other ways to look at it.
Mintcoin promotes decentralized nodes. This may sound scary for those without the "control" over the network. But I think in the long run, a more decentralized method will win out in the end. People will get miffed if they can never get a successful staking. If many different people are able to mint coins, it will actually promote a greater variety of nodes in the long-term to be motivated to come online and connect to network. The opposite is what happens with POS 2.0 because if you never are able to stake, then what's the point of ever turning your wallet on at all? At least with Mintcoin, people are connecting to the network every 20 days or so, and successfully minting, and that is better than not connecting at all.
All I am saying is the whole topic is not so cut and dry, black and white. This is a massive grey area. This stuff is afterall and "experiment" lol. Personally, I choose Mintcoin because I believe in it long term. I believe it will last the test of time, and we can overcome any hurdles or challenges that may come. I like the parameters it has, and think it is the best combination of "fair" and "secure". Mintcoin allows for approximately 58,000 mintings every 20 days. THen the cycle starts over again. That is a great distribution, vs., say, 8 hours * 60 minutes = 480 stakings (what you get with blackcoin?).
That is one of the main reasons I support Mintcoin, because I think it is a great coin to benefit the most amount of people. I mean I would venture to guess, that even Bitcoin miners are not even that will distributed accross 58,000 all consistently able to to count on getting a piece of a block every 20 days.
This is why I like Mintcoin, and am resistant to anyone proposing some change to it. Unless it is truely discovered that it's current design is broken, I see no reason to.
Blessings
