Topic: DECENTRALIZED crypto currency (including Bitcoin) is a delusion (any solutions?) - page 26. (Read 91087 times)

I think I know what needs to be done and I think I have the knowledge and skills to do what needs to be done. But words are cheap... silence is golden...

Here you can qualify what might happen analog, Great Monopoly


http://i.imgur.com/Vbdz4Qi.jpg

ftfy

---

I couldn't agree more with that statement - a lot of people are being deceived with PoS, which is a great shame.

I'll be waiting to everybody playing with own money or  otherones just read & understand page 9 of

http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/WhitePapers/Beyond_the_Horizon_White_Paper_Systemic_Risk.ashx

and my strongest wish is that those parts there will be adjusted esp for investments into crypto ccys ASAP.
Hereunder should go as well all elaborated stuff from this thread and much more,otherwise I fear that crypto ccy will never reach next level of investments and stay nichy by burning small people money that just have NO clue about proper risk management.

Lighting Networks will be the next technobabble lie that I need to slaughter:

https://www.coingecko.com/buzz/eric-lombrozo-7-use-cases-lightning-network

Most of that is bullshit. I will endeavor to explain why in the future...essentially LN is centralization thus another sham with similar failure modes...

Check this out
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/cleanup-ill-attack-some-coins-i-owned-apexcoin-for-90-blocks-897493

I didn't read the whole thread so maybe this is covered but the reason* these attacks don't happen in practice is that none of the deployed chains actually operate as decentralized consensus systems. They are centralized in some manner with checkpoints, centrally signed blocks, etc.

This makes them impossible to attack but it also makes them a sham. They're just centralized systems implemented in an inefficient way that gives the appearance of decentralization.

* The other reason these systems aren't necessarily attacked is that attacking takes work, and often no one really cares (competent people have better things to do). Shadowcash was recently deanonymized due to a mathematical flaw that rendered their anonymity technique utterly and completely worthless, and which existed in their design for over a year, with a bounty offered. But the flaw was only discovered by accident. Apart from this accidental discovery, the flaw could easily have stayed there for years longer but that would not have made the system any less worthless. Do not assume that since something hasn't been broken yet, it is secure. That is completely wrong.

No you can't if stake has been sold and purchased, because the order of those transactions in time is entirely arbitrary and controlled by whom ever is claiming to have the stake now.

That is why PoS requires checkpoints and always online nodes with > 50% of the stake (who all agree with each other due to Nash equilibrium[1]) to avoid a Sybil attack.

[1] but the Nash equilibrium doesn't exist if one can earn more profit by shorting the coin or attacking an exchange, etc.. PoS is a mess that requires centralization. Note that Satoshi's PoW is also a mess that also centralizes as well due to the economics of mining+verification and wastes a lot of electricity (Bitcoin is already controlled by the Chinese mining cartel), so it is sort of stalemate at this point which explains the popularity of PoS (other reason PoS is popular is it is technically easier to implement and it is much superior for controlling P&D schemes and top-down governance).


Decentralized nodes provide DDoS resistance, higher availability and uptime. But a centralized controller can provide decentralized nodes. The significant advantages of decentralization derives from decentralizing control so that failure modes are removed that revolve around disagreements or vested interests. You can see that PoS has no Nash equilibrium unless it is controlled by one "winner take all".

---

PoS systems have already been attacked, I believe it was by an exchange. But that is not even the main point, which apparently you are also not cognisant of.

The main point is that the centralization required to obtain a Nash equilibrium in PoS is the attack. A centralized system is a political and vested interest leverage against everyone who uses the system. For example, the centralized control can veto feature changes, such as how the Chinese mining cartel has vetoed a block size increase for Bitcoin so they can ostensibly force transaction fees high to fatten their profits.


The ill-informed hubris that n00bs slobber on threads is incredulous.

The 50% attacks have already occurred numerous times for PoS and PoW coins. You are just blinded because you are not looking at all forms of "attack". Typical myopia of n00bs (non-experts) who haven't conceptualized all the issues thoroughly. Live and breathe this stuff for years as monsterer, smooth, and myself have and then you may start to have the foresight that we have. We would simply appreciate a bit more respect for the effort we have invested.

I am respectful to those who respect those who invest effort. This is called a meritocracy. I put the mirror in the face of weekend warriors who disrespect those who have done their homework.

I've added this to the post about PoS on the first page of the thread. You've pointed out that PoS can be Sybil attacked achieving an attack with less than 50% of the stake when the majority of the stake is not always online. In other words, PoS is only secure as a federation, not decentralized consensus.

Still waiting.................

Hope you did not apply for some op-risk position at any reasonable company with that sentence above.

Why multi-billion and not multi-million?  These chains are already valued in the multi-millions.  Also, some of these attacks are free or nearly free, so why not just go ahead and do it (unless of course it can't be done, which I suspect). 

Again, until someone demonstrates that these attacks are possible and can cause significant damage, then POS is deemed sufficiently secure. 

I'd expect this happening only if there IS already multi billion business available to attack.... as usually always too late.    

My hope is - and thanks to TPTB - that here is platform to elaborate on this issues in public, cause that's the risk managament we all can afford.

Yes, this is a good description of a syncing node. The checkpoints thing is a mitigation, but I maintain that once you start using checkpoints for security, all you end up with is a centralised service with redundancy, not a decentralised or trustless system, which are they key tenants of cryptocurrency.

edit: simple thought experiment: if checkpoints are so great, why not use them for every single block and have a 100% attack resilient system?

I'm with spartacusrex.  The ultimate test is for someone to pull of one of these (theoretical) attacks and catastrophically and irreparably damage the network in some way, or at least prove that one of the attacks can be used to consistently and successfully attack the network and/or individual users.  Until this test is completed, I'm going to assume that POS and other variations (DPOS) is sufficiently secure. 

Also, it would be in everyone's best interest if POS was broken sooner rather than later while valuations are low.  So please, if you have a guaranteed attack, go ahead and do it and prove POS useless.

Thanks ! Sounds really monstreous!

So everybody feel free to run   Multi Billion Contract Solutions on a PoS system.