Topic: Delegated Proof of Stake (DPOS) White Paper by Daniel Larimer - page 3. (Read 11467 times)

If you make a CPU only coin and assuming it remains so over time, you will have huge botnets controlling the coin. It doesn't make it any better.

The idea in the OP sounds promising, even though I have quite a few reservations. Of course, its still a theory now and unless we see it working in practice we won't know if it is any good.

Bitcoin hasn't been fundamentally improved since Satoshi exited years ago.

Mining pools can be algorithmically decentralized, but you will never see this in Bitcoin.

Mining can be decentralized with cpu-only PoW, but you will never see this in Bitcoin. Scrypt is not cpu-only.

Checkpoints are a precaution while the network hashing rate is smaller than for example Google's server farms, but isn't needed after that.

Cpu-only will reach that point much faster than Bitcoin did.

Soon.

Btw., your solution is no contribution of the state of the art.

Nxt introduced Transparent Mining in production and Leasing of Mining Power conceptually some time ago. Now, the latter is going to be in production within a few days.

You should read http://www.links.org/files/decentralised-currencies.pdf It explains why PoW is also not the way to go. The reasoning is quite simple:

Why does Bitcoin introduce checkpoints periodically? Because PoW is not secure either.

How is the network gonna find consensus on that checkpoints? Assumption: the developers find it.  <<< is that decentralized? I doubt it.

so when is your coin coming out? hehehe

Spot on, everything in life is a compromise.  While DPOS is not 110% decentralized, DPOS appears to be MORE decentralized compared to many of the current alternatives.  An index would be a great start for us to compare what technology is decentralized "good enough."

Tribalism is hard-wired in human. We have evolved to be peer-loving social animals. We fondly think we are individuals. Yet we seek out peers with reputation for survival and for solving big problems.  

We can't have absolute mathematically bullet-proof decentralization. Instead we should seek pretty-good-decentralization.

Could there exist a decentralization index, with which we know how good is pretty good? I guess the index  for a given coin could have sub-indices e.g. percentage of new blocks minted by top 5 richest address for POS,  percentage of new blocks mined by top 5 biggest pools for POW, even percentage of new blocks generated by the same  brand of mining rigs,  by a country,  by group of countries having the same background ... If you want to maximize decentralization, choose a low index coin and diversify.

It doesn't sound decentralised enough, and there is the possibility that the delegates may collude. or a single entity may run multiple delegates.

I don't get the love for PoW either. Bitcoin is controlled by a dozen entities (the Cartel) and makes it opposite to being decentralised.

this doesn't rely on colored coins...

shares, assets etc. are not legal terms they are economic terms that have nothing to do with governments or jurisdictions except that governments attempt to regulate their exchange. these terms do not apply in the same way because the legal ramifications do not apply, but the economic consequences do. this is why bitshares is better than bitcoin and all 2nd generation crypto systems, because it is supported by sound economics.

also what is a non-ecash effort?

clout and Voluntold, you need to study the three validity tests for the Byzantine Generals Problem and understand at a very deep level what proof-of-work solves.

It is not possible to just centralize a subset of the system, because the security and game theory of the system is pre-imageable and manipulable from that subset, thus there is no subset (it is not containable).

The word 'reputation' in this context means any attribute you want to associate with a node in the network. Proof-of-work avoids the need for any persistent attributes, thus centralization does not need to be contained in a subset, because there isn't any centralization subset because there is no attribute that has to be validated.

Think about the Byzantine problem in another abstract way. There can't exist a tally of votes without agreeing who will validate and count the votes (unless perhaps using some group signature algorithm, however these are always two-steps and thus are subject to denial-of-service). Yet who ever is trusted to count the votes, can now game the entire system.

Any reputation attribute metastasizes to centralized game theory.

Sorry. End of story. High IQ abstraction complete.


No they can't be fired in all possible game theory scenarios. Devil is the details. I could spend my entire life doing adhoc analysis of every new N.A.O.D.

yes, that's complicated. the spectrum between cyperpunks and free market capitalists is pretty wide. certainly a bunch of people in N jurisdictions have not the power to incorporate whatever legal entity they want. corporations and states are deeply coupled. corporations have become state-like entities, playing the game of jurisdiction arbitrage and leveraging their power through all kinds of venues, see the recent global trade agreement and the off-shore markets.

i literally just ROFL'd so hard i thought i was going to choke to death ahhahhahahaa

i like my white papers beige

Thank you.
Very interesting article !

This is exactly how I've felt when reading all protoshares/invictus/etc stuff in the past.  I mean, anything can happen, and it's possible they could make some of this stuff work, but why rely on colored coins when you can rely on authoritarianism and men with guns.

the big problem here is: shares, assets, instruments are legal terms. but we're not talking about transactions within jurisdictions, but in cyberspace. that is a HUGE difference, and very few people understand this. which is quite amazing really, because it should be obvious that these terms just don't apply in the same way. so bitshares don't have the legal system under them, which makes them ineffective. the same applies to pretty much all non-ecash efforts.

Same question with you .Want a explaination.

I skimmed through and all I had to see was 'reputation is centralization'.... No it's not.  A reputation system is not what led to fiat money.  That's ridiculous.  Please explain to me how a reputation system would lead to manipulation??? Ebay seems to be doing fine.