Do you think Bitcoin should modify to POW + POS ? █████ Poll █████ - page 4.

inBitweTrust

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 501

Quote from: Alty on January 06, 2015, 02:56:20 PM

I voted yes.

A hybrid system would be great for btc and probably secure the network in a less centralized fashion as many many more nodes contributed to PoS mining.

I doubt that the bitcoin community / foundation / core devs would ever have the balls to make it happen though.

They don't need to make anything happen. I already mentioned one example that requires no soft/hard fork at all and simply requires a wallet that many would happily adopt.

Quote from: inBitweTrust on January 05, 2015, 11:05:01 PM

Sidechain or not. No need for burning bitcoins, as someone could simply create a TaPoS blockchain that mirrored and synced the distribution of BTC and than have a wallet acknowledge both blockchains but have the TaPoS layer hidden where only BTC is used and the TaPoS layer acts to add another form of security that could have 1-30 second confirmation times in addition to PoW 10 min confirmation times.

I.E... pay for a cup of Coffee the confirmations start rolling in this way:
TaPoS 1 second confirmation, TaPoS 3 second confirmation, TaPoS 5 second confirmation, TaPoS 10 second confirmation, TaPoS 30 second confirmation, TaPoS 1 min confirmation, TaPoS 3min confirmation, TaPoS 5 min confirmation,TaPoS 7min confirmation, PoW Bitcoin 1st confirmation ~10min, TaPoS 13min confirmation, ect...

This would allow you to have instant confirmations and better security because now you are trusting full nodes and miners and you could detect a PoW 51% attack if the TaPoS confirmations weren't confirming while the PoW confirmations were.

You wouldn't even need a softfork or hardfork to accomplish this, just a TapoS blockchain and a wallet that acknowledged it.

Flashman

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Hodl!

Quote from: Alty on January 06, 2015, 02:56:20 PM

I doubt that the bitcoin community / foundation / core devs would ever have the balls to make it happen though.

The proxy for balls is market cap, PoS supporters with balls will inevitably support a PoS coin that will supplant bitcoin "any day now".

Alty

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

RISE Project Manager

I voted yes.

A hybrid system would be great for btc and probably secure the network in a less centralized fashion as many many more nodes contributed to PoS mining.

I doubt that the bitcoin community / foundation / core devs would ever have the balls to make it happen though.

inBitweTrust

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 501

Quote from: onemorebtc on January 06, 2015, 02:49:54 PM

i've read most of this discussions and my impressions differs.
but anyhow its an experiment. if there is a better solution to the byzantine generalis problem than bitcoin i'd welcome it.

Look at the poll above which shows almost 50% of people open to a PoW + PoS Bitcoin hybrid. They are open to it because PoS has certain advantages.(I would argue disadvantages as well)

Nxt is ultimately doomed because its legacy history of a botched ICO and centralization problems which haven't gotten better.... and this is reflected in it loosing ground to Bitcoin and other currencies regardless of how bad they are doing themselves.

achimsmile

legendary

Activity: 1225

Merit: 1000

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on January 06, 2015, 02:33:27 PM

We were talking about Vitalik's proposal; now you seem
to be referring to NXT. Difficult to have a debate about
it if we keep switching implementations.

Nxt uses "weak subjectivity" too in the form of the "security deposit length" he talks about, so it should not be a problem.

Quote

You do realize you do not need 51% of resources
to do a re-org, right? It's just that at 51%, you
are guaranteed to succeed.

Yes, just did it ot of convenience. Same as in PoW systems

and it depends on the length of the re-org Wink

The longer the reorg, the more unprobable it is to succeed with less than 51%

Quote

Also, why do you say you only have 1 block time
to build a longer chain? You would have up
to 720 blocks to do it. Obviously, if you're
an attacker, you would want to do it as fast
as you can to maximize your chances of success.

I was just following your example where you try to sell your stake after 1 block of being eligible to forge.
Agree with the rest, reorg is only possible up to 720 blocks.

Quote

So you have to wait 1440 blocks; Since NXT's
blocks are 1m, that means you can attempt
the attack once a day with the same amount
of stake.

yes, attempt.

Quote

Arguably, you could make it safer by increasing
the security margin. However, that would basically
give more stake to fewer people, who could attack
less often but with greater chances.

Don't know if it would be safer, but why would it give more stake to fewer people?

onemorebtc

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: inBitweTrust on January 06, 2015, 02:47:48 PM

Quote from: onemorebtc on January 06, 2015, 02:45:29 PM

Quote from: inBitweTrust on January 06, 2015, 02:43:46 PM

We already do consider it relatively secure

i dont
who is "we"

This topic has been discussed to death over the last 2 years. I notice at least 30% are open to PoS security model having both benefits and weaknesses compared to PoW.

i've read most of this discussions and my impressions differs.
but anyhow its an experiment. if there is a better solution to the byzantine generalis problem than bitcoin i'd welcome it.

inBitweTrust

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 501

Quote from: onemorebtc on January 06, 2015, 02:45:29 PM

Quote from: inBitweTrust on January 06, 2015, 02:43:46 PM

We already do consider it relatively secure

i dont
who is "we"

This topic has been discussed to death over the last 2 years. I notice at least 30% are open to PoS security model having both security benefits and weaknesses compared to PoW.

Every variation of PoS has nuances that can get very complicated when you start studying them . I good place to start if Vitalik's blog and than start reading the research papers.

onemorebtc

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: inBitweTrust on January 06, 2015, 02:43:46 PM

We already do consider it relatively secure

i dont
who is "we"

inBitweTrust

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 501

Quote from: achimsmile on January 06, 2015, 02:40:18 PM

Quote from: inBitweTrust on January 06, 2015, 02:15:17 PM

One undeniable bit of evidence Bitcoin has is the fact that it has been extremely secure after 6 years and a market cap of 4-10billion for over a year thus has maintained much higher level of scrutiny from both hackers and security researchers alike vs any other alt.

That's a good point, bitcoin is proven many times, over a long time.

I wonder how many years it takes until people begin to consider PoS as secure.

We already do consider it relatively secure, many have for a while. The disagreement lies within other factors like fair distribution mechanism PoW facilitates because miners are forced to sell most of their block reward to cover costs and the degree of security which is unresolved because no one has enough data.

Despite the costs and inefficiencies Vitalik has still settled upon PoW for ethereum and he really wanted badly to use TaPoS with weak subjectivity.

onemorebtc

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: achimsmile on January 06, 2015, 02:40:18 PM

Quote from: inBitweTrust on January 06, 2015, 02:15:17 PM

One undeniable bit of evidence Bitcoin has is the fact that it has been extremely secure after 6 years and a market cap of 4-10billion for over a year thus has maintained much higher level of scrutiny from both hackers and security researchers alike vs any other alt.

That's a good point, bitcoin is proven many times, over a long time.

I wonder how many years it takes until people begin to consider PoS as secure.

i'd say its more about market cap than time...
i wouldnt trust a pos system if it ran for ten years but only deals with ten dollars max

achimsmile

legendary

Activity: 1225

Merit: 1000

Quote from: inBitweTrust on January 06, 2015, 02:15:17 PM

One undeniable bit of evidence Bitcoin has is the fact that it has been extremely secure after 6 years and a market cap of 4-10billion for over a year thus has maintained much higher level of scrutiny from both hackers and security researchers alike vs any other alt.

That's a good point, bitcoin is proven many times, over a long time.

I wonder how many years it takes until people begin to consider PoS as secure.

onemorebtc

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: achimsmile on January 06, 2015, 02:07:33 PM

The protocol forbids blockchain reorgs of more than 720 blocks.

without knowing too much about nxt this sounds attackable.

if i can control the network access from a new node (because for him its not an reorg he just sees to chains).
pow prevents this by using work which the new user can verify.

what does pos in this case?

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: achimsmile on January 06, 2015, 02:07:33 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on January 06, 2015, 01:13:04 PM

Regarding the stake grinding attack, suppose you must
keep coins for 1000 blocks with a security deposit in
order to mint. You buy coins at block 1000, keep them
till block 2000, get your deposit back, and
sell them at block 2001, and then broadcast
a fake chain from block 2000.

The protocol does not allow you to forge for 1440 blocks, from the moment when you bought your stake. (security margin)
The protocol forbids blockchain reorgs of more than 720 blocks.

Your chain would violate the protocol and not be accepted.

This is a real world example.

You could argue that a fake chain <720 would be enough to do nasty stuff (which is right).

I don't quite get the magic that happens between buying and:

Quote

broadcast a fake chain

In your example, if you bought 51% (good luck!), and waited 1440 blocks, you could not build a fake chain during that time because you're not allowed to produce any blocks... so, you have 1 blocks time to build a longer chain (and be sure to trick the algo so that you're always the one to be selected for generating the next block... again, good luck!)

tl:dr

PoS is safe.

We were talking about Vitalik's proposal; now you seem
to be referring to NXT. Difficult to have a debate about
it if we keep switching implementations.

You do realize you do not need 51% of resources
to do a re-org, right? It's just that at 51%, you
are guaranteed to succeed.

Also, why do you say you only have 1 block time
to build a longer chain? You would have up
to 720 blocks to do it. Obviously, if you're
an attacker, you would want to do it as fast
as you can to maximize your chances of success.

So you have to wait 1440 blocks; Since NXT's
blocks are 1m, that means you can attempt
the attack once a day with the same amount
of stake.

Arguably, you could make it safer by increasing
the security margin. However, that would basically
give more stake to fewer people, who could attack
less often but with greater chances.

Flashman

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Hodl!

Quote from: achimsmile on January 06, 2015, 02:09:34 PM

And I didn't know technological advances were bad.

Oh good, I've got this home power system you can try out for me, uses thorium, there's a few unresolved questions about spontaneous criticality, but we can probably handwave them away if it holds off for the duration of your participation.

inBitweTrust

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 501

Quote from: achimsmile on January 06, 2015, 02:14:26 PM

Please tell me where Nxt tends towards privatization,
and tell me if big mining companies are private companies.

Nxt started extremely centralized and remains so. 7 to 10 people have over 50% of the coins .
http://charts.nxtcrypto.org/cDistribution.aspx
https://web.archive.org/web/20140825040132/http://charts.nxtcrypto.org/

inBitweTrust

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 501

One undeniable bit of evidence Bitcoin has is the fact that it has been extremely secure after 6 years and a market cap of 4-10billion for over a year thus has maintained much higher level of scrutiny from both hackers and security researchers alike vs any other alt.

achimsmile

legendary

Activity: 1225

Merit: 1000

Quote from: VectorChief on January 06, 2015, 02:04:27 PM

In short the differences are as follows:
PoS - tends towards privatization of the whole system as rich get richer and at the same time automatically acquire more control.
PoW - forces rich to compete for control on a common ground judged by a neutral algorithm thus automatically taxing them.

I disagree

Please tell me where Nxt tends towards privatization,
and tell me if big mining companies are private companies.

achimsmile

legendary

Activity: 1225

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Flashman on January 06, 2015, 02:01:20 PM

the "still working on it" implication

Where did you get that? And I didn't know technological advances were bad.

achimsmile

legendary

Activity: 1225

Merit: 1000

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on January 06, 2015, 01:13:04 PM

Regarding the stake grinding attack, suppose you must
keep coins for 1000 blocks with a security deposit in
order to mint. You buy coins at block 1000, keep them
till block 2000, get your deposit back, and
sell them at block 2001, and then broadcast
a fake chain from block 2000.

The protocol does not allow you to forge for 1440 blocks, from the moment when you bought your stake. (security margin)
The protocol forbids blockchain reorgs of more than 720 blocks.

Your chain would violate the protocol and not be accepted.

This is a real world example.

You could argue that a fake chain <720 would be enough to do nasty stuff (which is right).

I don't quite get the magic that happens between buying and:

Quote

broadcast a fake chain

In your example, if you bought 51% (good luck!), and waited 1440 blocks, you could not build a fake chain during that time because you're not allowed to produce any blocks... so, you have 1 blocks time to build a longer chain (and be sure to trick the algo so that you're always the one to be selected for generating the next block... again, good luck!)

tl:dr

PoS is safe.

VectorChief

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

It is important to recognize the differences between two systems (PoW and PoS) and equally validate both of them on their own right. Only from that perspective we would be able to make a neutral choice. As was mentioned before, converting one system to another will take that choice away from us. Would you like to paint everything blue?

In short the differences are as follows:
PoS - tends towards privatization of the whole system as rich get richer and at the same time automatically acquire more control.
PoW - forces rich to compete for control on a common ground judged by a neutral algorithm thus automatically taxing them.

All in all, PoW is more suitable for global money system as (enough degrees of freedom for) competition is built-in, while PoS is better for private hierarchical organizations and businesses that require outside competititon to stay robust, because acquisition of 51% stake depends solely on major stakeholders' permission to sell, while 51% of hashing power in PoW is permission-less.

Satoshi gave people tool for freedom, and yet they urge to build yet another fiat zoo with it.
How bitcoiner of you! Grin

Topic: Do you think Bitcoin should modify to POW + POS ? █████ Poll █████ - page 4. (Read 7535 times)