no one will dump I assure you that, the wallets will be distributted into 3 wallets and will be held by 3 trusted board members, like everyone else here we will promise not to dump, maybe sign an agreement with Joel etc...
So a decentralized currency designed to enable commerce without the need for a trusted third party which needs the implicit and absolute trust in third parties?
Im SOOO close to walking away after comments like this....What do you suggest then? People keep all their money on exchanges that don't stake, and other people complain that the stake interest is too high. I cant please everyone. I have a full time job and I am at my tipping point.
First it doesn't matter what I think so feel free to ignore the comment; my interest in this is only academic because it is a 51% attack on a PoS based coin. The comment was more a wakeup call. When someone promotes an idea to keep a decentralized network secure by just handing it over to a trusted central authority you have to take a second to pause and reflect. Even if it it works out, is that really a good idea? What is the value in a decentralized network which needs a trusted central authority? Centralized security is easy, decentralized security is hard but you can't be kinda decentralized with centralized security; it is like being kinda pregnant.
As for what should happen? Users need to be responsible for the security of their own network. If users allow the network stake to fall to a point where it is economical for an attacker to exploit it then someone eventually is going to exploit it. The users of the network only have themselves to blame. Loss is good. It reminds people that risk is real. It makes people cautious, pragmatic, and wary. I would hope after this event, users would be keeping a close eye on the network stake and not just assuming "somebody" will keep it secure. Decentralized networks are hard, it requires some personal responsibility. So the solution is for the users/owners to take personal responsibility not for the network to be centralized around absolute trust because it is too hard.
Simple version: Either stakeholders keep the network secure or it will continue to be attacked. If the only "solution" is to trade that for a network that requires absolute and implicit trust in a board of nobles then the network is dead anyways.
In full disclosure, I am not a proponent of PoS due to various potential exploits however those exploits are sophisticated in nature (and some are theoretical at this point). To my knowledge none of those occurred here. This was a simple attack resulting from apathy which allowed an attacker to cheaply obtain 51% of the network stake. Losing coins is a good way for people to realize "hey we actually do need to take active steps to keep our wealth secure". If Bitcoin miners allowed the hashrate to decline 99% such that a single person could cheaply amass the hardware to 51% attack the network, someone probably would. The solution is to not let the network become that weak.
