Topic: [ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 356. (Read 1277015 times)

One of the primary arguments against POS - that one doesn't need to spend/invest in order to earn money through fees - is also an argument against saving to earn interest.

Certainly there will be people who hoard in order to earn fees, but no entrepreneur will be satisfied with such low returns. They will spend/invest their money to develop useful products and services for the prospect of significantly greater returns than through collecting tolls. And other users will want to buy those products or services, since the product or service is worth more to them than the little income they earn from the POS transaction fees.

There will always be hoarders, as I say, but the hoarders provide ballast and stability to the currency. Most savers will use the currency because it only has value when it is spent to create or consume real-world products and services.

the question of network neutrality is quite elemental. But I can also understand the critique of abuse (not in the case of counterparty) but in general.

to see it on a broader scale, the problem of oligopolized mining and their political power seems already to be relevant. Just imagine the same situation we have with the pools, between a regulator and a mining pool. This situation has the potential to be a major drawback for mass adoption, because no regulator will support a situation where he can basically be extorted. I personally was quite shocked although I knew of the power of the miners that they would have the potential to abuse this power in an almost unlimited way. to put this system in a wider perspective a constitution is missing, I highly doubt that in that spot a kind of self-enforcing equilibrium will occur. 

If that's true, I'll be moving my miners off Eligius and recommend same to every other miner I know. Care to back quoted claim with some data?

Some of the comments on reddit..

Actually even if you had a way to distribute a Pure Proof of Stake implementation fairly and uniformly - it would still be a poor medium of exchange - this is because even if the currency was inflationary it would still only be inflationary for the holders, meaning that spending would be arbitrarily discouraged. (That is to say the person that did not spend but instead increased his Proof of Stake reserves would gain more and more advantage just with passing time, in a way currency already works this way (compare those for whom most of their income is consumed by day to day life, to those that have surplus to invest and earn a return on) - only it would be exacerbated by the Proof of Stake implementation (You wouldn't even need to invest to earn returns!).

It is possible to conceive a centralized inflationary PoS scheme (such as the government acquiring all newly created funds), but this would rather terminate the point of PoS and decentralized currency - although it would make it into a functional medium of exchange. I suspect terms similar to these are the only one's under which a government would actually back a cryptocurrency - since otherwise it would mean forfeiting centralized control of the money supply.

As to Jgarzik's comment, I'm not sure what the context is, but supposedly you are able to double or multi-sign the same numbered Block, this could be penalized for by doing something like a reverse Ghost weighting - i.e. reducing signature weight for outputs present in more than 1 uncle of the last block (but that might be too much added overhead). There are probably a lot of other issues though - I'm not that well technically informed.

edit: just to be clear, in the above I'm not talking about the distribution but about the actual equilibrium state that Pure PoS would gravitate to.

http://www.coindesk.com/developers-battle-bitcoin-block-chain/

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/21b4pm/developers_battle_over_bitcoin_block_chain/

can someone include a link please? TY

Hashpower talks. 

The problem with a pure implementation of Proof of Work is it's always going to be a monopoly in favor of those who have lots of hardware, which is untenable for a currency which needs to gain an audience and circulation.

Under both systems, investors (directly or in hardware/mining costs) / early adopters will have all the coins.  Once the currency gains usefulness, the demand will grow and these folks will sell their coins on the free market to anybody who wants one, at the right price.  

The "wider adoption" process works the same way eventually, it's just the initial distribution that's different.  One of them is a gigantic waste of electricity and hardware resources, and the other tends to make the developers rich.  Counterparty is the ONLY crypto-currency that has eschewed BOTH of these methods with a truly fair distribution.

As opposed to the current system where only the people who can afford $10,000 KNC miners have a say, and take 10% of the money supply?

Taking policy fights out in the press never gets the wronged party what it wants.

Blockchain.info got Apple to allow wallets in the iPhone when they took out multilple press releases/blog posts. People even shot up their iphones and Apple cried.

 its good to read unbiased opinions on reddit

The problem with a pure implementation of Proof of Stake - all technical difficulties aside, is it's always going to be a monopoly in favor of those that already have stakes - which is untenable for a currency which needs to gain an audience and circulation.

I think the hybrid model, like Peercoin, is the best. Benefits of both, without the drawbacks.

I mean you have to realize - your average person isn't going to read the article and then research the facts. He's going to read 'storage problems' - 'free ride' - 'Mike Hearn's proposal' - and then make pointed considerations as a credible authority about what he just read five minutes ago. 
Most of these arguments have been debunked (even the point that Jgarzik conceded in support of OP_Return 80) - I have not double checked dex7's analysis of multi-sig transactions - but as far as I can tell he is the only one that even performed said analysis - the Dev's apparently didn't feel obligated to do any such thing.

The article is not that bad, don't forget that we are all biaised toward XCP since most of us own some XCP and support the project. Besides, there is no such thing as bad press.

Glad to see it reached the top on reddit, I suspected it to be downvoted like hell because of the "get out of my blockchain effet"

I've heard many complaints about all the altcoins, then we can't allow an extra 40 bytes for the metachains that are trying to build on top of Bitcoin?

Blockchain bloat is a technical problem that can be solved. I don't think anyone should be gatekeepers to what should or should not be stored in the blockchain.

I saw. I made a few comments (though one of my coindesk comment's is missing idk why?) -

Overall I think this issue has brought out a lot about Bitcoin development and the environment around it, and I'd hate the for the serious discussion to be lost among those misinformed 'those whiny guys want to store their data' comments. I don't think that moves anything forward, and unfortunately I think the Coindesk article being poorly researched inclines people towards that kind of shallow point of view.
Then again maybe my expectations of redditors are far too high.

it is number 1 in reddit/bitcoin

it opens basically the question what the bitcoin blockchain is for - I think this question is quite elemental. anyway good to see your comment in the discussion on reddit

It's not very well researched.