Topic: [CLOSED] StakeCoin Bounty - page 2. (Read 5683 times)

Gotta love people who quote the wiki written by and for bitcoin sycophants is used to make an argument.

From the wiki (myths):

If you control 1% of the coins, you can still rely on the other 99% to work towards "keeping your coins from becoming worthless", so you yourself don't have a direct incentive.

I don't understand what's the big difference between hashing power and financial power. They're convertible and therefore ultimately equivalent.

StakeCoin is a way to reduce the friction of this conversion and decentralize the network.

This is a fair point, however it doesn't allow the masses to participate. Therefore for all practical purposes, one tyrant or a few oligarchs results in the same situation. At least you can talk to a tyrant. Oligarchs are paranoid fucks who need to be spoonfed incentives.


The checkpoints also affect low stakeholders. In an effort to gain more control, high stakeholders can pay for attacks (including psychological) which create chain forks that send money from low stakeholders to them.
Incentivism is a futile exercise in trying to motivate the lazy. There's an undercurrent in the bitcoin and litecoin communities that will throw off the dead weight of fat wankers who need an incentive to tie their own shoes never mind create.

So far those proposing proof-of-stake have failed a simple test:
I haven't heard of one proposal that allows pools of peasants to be stake miners. Effectively these would function as cryptocities as there would be an incentive to keep cryptocoins within communities. This would create feedback loops and self-propelled microeconomies.

It was a simple extension that never crossed anyone's mind. Fail.

Failing this simple test does not give me confidence in proof-of-stake models. The people looking to add this feature are still thinking in terms of maintaining value rather than creating value. You guys are not thinking forward and it scares me to death.

There's a thread here that is going to cover the whole gamut of proof types that could make cryptocurrencies work.
http://litecoinforums.org/index.php?/topic/22-cartel-wars/

You mean Steak Coin Bounty. Do you think they let you pay for your BBC with Steak Coins?? Let me bring the Beer Coin™ (The coin you wanna drink!™) and get this BBC started!

The incentive is: it keeps their (bit|lite)coins from becoming worthless. When you have or control a significant portion of the total supply of coins, that is no small incentive.

+1

It needs some kind of incentive to get people to sign the checkpoints.

PoS is better than relying on one developer to lock the chain.

The wiki is just the start of the discussion.

I don't have time to re-read it now, but I believe StakeCoin should have some incentive for coin owners that participate in the signing process, much like miners are incentivized.

1. I don't consider interest harmful. There will always be an incentive for people for lend their coins for interest, rather the storing them under the mattress, regardless of protocol rules. It's just the way the world works.


This is true in Bitcoin, Litecoin, Gold, Foocoin. The richer you are, the richer you'll get, and no cryptocurrency is going to change that. DemurageCoin is not a viable solution. So ... there's no use complaining about it. If in StakeCoin this is part of the protocol, then that's fine. The amount of interest, however, shouldn't be a hard-coded number, but rather negotiable by the market somehow - not sure how to design that exactly.

You don't "need to acquire coins in order to get income" - you can sell goods & services to get an income, you can have your employer pay you salary in this coin, there are plenty of other ways to get the income.

You kind of sound like an OWS protestor.


Well, one could make the argument that most of the plutocracy in place today has root in the Rothschilds/gold moneylending industry that eventually turned into central banking. That happened because a super scarce resource (gold) was easily controlled.

Who knows how different the world could be today if money was honest. Bitcoin is not honest money and would likely follow the same path as gold were it to become a significant force in the world.


If you have honest money, the wealth of the world will be distributed far more equally than it is today. Perhaps we will lose some of our pettiness if that ever becomes the case.

The dumbest theory I ever saw: Trust the rich to protect the network.

From the guy who said litecoin was irrelevant. So irrelevant that 2 exchanges are going up in response to the btc-e hack.

The rich are rich because of their connections and backroom deals not because of their holdings.

NO FEDERAL RESERVE (trusted nodes) IN THE CRYPTOCOIN WORLD!

Go away scammers.

Stakeholders are not rewarded with coins, just the ability to select checkpoints. I recommend reading the wiki page on the subject: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_Stake.

The more stakecoin you have the higher the reward the more you accumulate the more stakecoin you have, etc...

What compound interest?

It doesn't really matter where the income is coming from, if it is anything which can be expressed as compound interest it is bad IMO.

I'm not sure what relation, if any, that has to do with proof-of-stake. Could you elaborate?

Proof-of-stake is a mechanism for negotiating checkpoints weighted by bitcoin balances. Checkpoints are way of mitigating attacks on the network and have nothing to do with income.

I can't see how that is related to the issues I brought up. I recognize some people want a mechanism which enables them the charging of interest. But I consider interest a harmful concept in a limited base. Worse the concept does amplify the early adopter advantage issue. Those with many coins will get even more, to the point where joining isn't simply worth it anymore for latecomers.

I would even consider the idea itself harmful btw, but I don't wanna derail the thread.

Hmm.
I'm unsure what is the correct way to proceed. If 0.01% of Bitcoin hash power starts using this modified client, I'll accept the bounty (added to OP), regardless of whether if it's an altchain or not. For Litecoin, 1% is required.

Yes. In a sense this is less disruptive than P2SH, since it doesn't involve a backwards-incompatible change to the interpretation of the block chain structure. It's essentially an overlay network on top of bitcoin for negotiating checkpoints (I'm assuming we're talking about Mini's proposal).

There will be a hard-fork as soon as there is disagreement over a block, however. You'd better have near-unanimous mining pool support before you turn it on...

EDIT: Your SE question is a misquote of me. PoS does require a hard-fork no matter how you slice it, but that's simply due to PoS working as advertised, not because of a change to the blockchain structure. I simply maintain that it would be a diversion to create an alt coin specifically for this purpose, when it could be developed as a patch against the mainline clients of Bitcoin or Litecoin (or Freicoin), and tried out on their test nets.