Topic: From POW to POS： is it the evolution or retrogress of cryptography currency? (Read 1333 times)
July 03, 2015, 06:29:40 AM
exactly, PoS, if/when scaled up, would not look much different to today's banking industry cartel (just with updated software).
July 03, 2015, 04:26:58 AM
With regards to distribution, in PoW all you need to get into the economy is mining equipment and an internet connection. In PoS the only way to acquire currency is from a stakeholder. After distribution, the stakeholders can transact with whom they choose and nobody has any other way to join the system. I realize this is a simplistic perspective, but it is a powerful tool to promote exclusionary policies. For instance, it would be easy for a state to exclude foreign PoS currencies and promote their own. This could be a positive thing depending on your political perspective. It could also be used to segregate social groups by denying them participation. PoW however, cannot exclude anyone that has adequate hashing power.
Finally someone who also realizes this. Although your stance in particular is probably a bit too negative. However, if one really thinks about this he/she would realize it.This might simplify it for those who do not understand:
In a PoW coin such as Bitcoin: In order to acquire coins you can buy equipment and mine it yourself (aside from buying from others).
In a PoS coin such as Peercoin: In order to acquire coins you need to find someone who is willing to sell i.e. who is willing to let you be part of it.
PoW however, cannot exclude anyone that has adequate hashing power.
cannot exclude anyone that has adequate hashing power.
anyone that has adequate hashing power.
hashing power.
Right, and hashing power grows on trees. And Bitcoin early adopters are not billionaires.
July 03, 2015, 03:40:31 AM
With regards to distribution, in PoW all you need to get into the economy is mining equipment and an internet connection. In PoS the only way to acquire currency is from a stakeholder. After distribution, the stakeholders can transact with whom they choose and nobody has any other way to join the system. I realize this is a simplistic perspective, but it is a powerful tool to promote exclusionary policies. For instance, it would be easy for a state to exclude foreign PoS currencies and promote their own. This could be a positive thing depending on your political perspective. It could also be used to segregate social groups by denying them participation. PoW however, cannot exclude anyone that has adequate hashing power.
Finally someone who also realizes this. Although your stance in particular is probably a bit too negative. However, if one really thinks about this he/she would realize it.This might simplify it for those who do not understand:
In a PoW coin such as Bitcoin: In order to acquire coins you can buy equipment and mine it yourself (aside from buying from others).
In a PoS coin such as Peercoin: In order to acquire coins you need to find someone who is willing to sell i.e. who is willing to let you be part of it.
PoW however, cannot exclude anyone that has adequate hashing power.
cannot exclude anyone that has adequate hashing power.
anyone that has adequate hashing power.
hashing power.
Right, and hashing power grows on trees. And Bitcoin early adopters are not billionaires.
July 03, 2015, 03:22:23 AM
PoS is apartheid. You must ask permission to become part of the economy. If the stakeholders are racist, then they will exclude that race from participation. So far that isn't a problem, but it is an excellent tool for despots to promote. This is not evolution. That is social darwinism.
what kind of despots here are referring in particular to? Do they have the power and wild ambition to shake the authorities?
isn't the same as saying simply holding majority of the mining activity wields network control, which is happening right now with chinese and their 60%...
the only difference is that while miners need to sustain their businesss and so need to dump their coins, they cannot control a good portion of the total supply
instead with pos, for the fact that you do not consume energy like in pow, it will be more easy for you to control a good portion of the total coin in circulation if you start big...
July 03, 2015, 12:14:19 AM
what's the final purpose of POS? I feel it terrible.
Inflation which tends to be unstable and often leads to 'boom and bust' cycles. Aside from making the rich even more richer, it is devaluing the currency because of it. It's not that bad, however it isn't that good either.
July 02, 2015, 10:11:03 PM
PoS is apartheid. You must ask permission to become part of the economy. If the stakeholders are racist, then they will exclude that race from participation. So far that isn't a problem, but it is an excellent tool for despots to promote. This is not evolution. That is social darwinism.
what kind of despots here are referring in particular to? Do they have the power and wild ambition to shake the authorities?
July 02, 2015, 09:07:25 PM
PoS is apartheid. You must ask permission to become part of the economy. If the stakeholders are racist, then they will exclude that race from participation. So far that isn't a problem, but it is an excellent tool for despots to promote. This is not evolution. That is social darwinism.
what kind of despots here are referring in particular to? Do they have the power and wild ambition to shake the authorities?
July 02, 2015, 08:23:03 PM
To this date, I have not seen a satisfactory debunking
of the "nothing at stake/costless simulation" issue,
which is the fundamental problem with Proof of Stake.
Polestra's latest paper:
https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf
of the "nothing at stake/costless simulation" issue,
which is the fundamental problem with Proof of Stake.
Polestra's latest paper:
https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf
Simply speaking, no matter POW or POS, if a single miner could create big amount of blocks, then any cryptocurrency is untrusted.
True, however please note that the paper I referenced is basically saying PoW is capable of true distributed consensus, while PoS is not.
yes, the true distributed consensus is the original intention of bitcoin, while there seems other purpose for coins of POS which makes me feel terrible.
July 02, 2015, 08:18:21 PM
With regards to distribution, in PoW all you need to get into the economy is mining equipment and an internet connection. In PoS the only way to acquire currency is from a stakeholder. After distribution, the stakeholders can transact with whom they choose and nobody has any other way to join the system. I realize this is a simplistic perspective, but it is a powerful tool to promote exclusionary policies. For instance, it would be easy for a state to exclude foreign PoS currencies and promote their own. This could be a positive thing depending on your political perspective. It could also be used to segregate social groups by denying them participation. PoW however, cannot exclude anyone that has adequate hashing power.
Finally someone who also realizes this. Although your stance in particular is probably a bit too negative. However, if one really thinks about this he/she would realize it.This might simplify it for those who do not understand:
In a PoW coin such as Bitcoin: In order to acquire coins you can buy equipment and mine it yourself (aside from buying from others).
In a PoS coin such as Peercoin: In order to acquire coins you need to find someone who is willing to sell i.e. who is willing to let you be part of it.
July 02, 2015, 08:09:23 PM
PoW is still the best method with all it's negative points. The fact you can keep issuing new currency into the coins's ecosystem is a great feature that is lost with the idea of having some rothchild type of stakeholders that make money by holding and may or not make use of the coins in a healthy way.
Yes, that's what we said rich people who appreciate POS and poor ones who appreciate POW. However, we could not judge the value of coins just by the different modes. I feel the mode of POW is less easier to be influenced by the market, but the work amount itself.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
July 02, 2015, 11:43:35 AM
To this date, I have not seen a satisfactory debunking
of the "nothing at stake/costless simulation" issue,
which is the fundamental problem with Proof of Stake.
of the "nothing at stake/costless simulation" issue,
which is the fundamental problem with Proof of Stake.
Please be more specific with the POS implementation and the attack you are referring to. The 4 descriptions of nothing-at-stake describe in enough detail to be tested rigorously have been found to not hold any water > https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10152632
Deadelus, we've debated this before and clearly are drawing different conclusions
from the same paper.
To me, it says N@S is still a problem:
Quote
As we have all the algorithms developed to simulate N@S attack we
present result in the separate paper along with possible ways to resist it.
Giving some results now we present not the full picture of the problem. Fol-
lowing this section it is reasonable to get the impression that this problem
actually matters and we concentrate to possible solutions at the moment.
present result in the separate paper along with possible ways to resist it.
Giving some results now we present not the full picture of the problem. Fol-
lowing this section it is reasonable to get the impression that this problem
actually matters and we concentrate to possible solutions at the moment.
I'm not really interested in another debate, however, I would
like to understand this idea of "multibranch forging"
more clearly. Perhaps you can explain it.
From what I understand, there's a structure called a blocktree,
and then an algorithm is applied to arrive at the longest/best branch.
To me, that sounds like a convoluted way for PoS to arrive at the
same thing that PoW does very straightforwardly, which is to compute
chains of blocks and using the longest chain as consensus.
And that's also what the original multibranch paper seems to be
implying:
Quote
However it's obvious that an account which has more powerful comput-
ing node also has some bene ts in comparison with other nodes because
it could predict more branches to somehow determine which branch will
win in the longer run. That is the question for the future research still
we don't like to transform the PoS systems to the PoW-like.
ing node also has some bene ts in comparison with other nodes because
it could predict more branches to somehow determine which branch will
win in the longer run. That is the question for the future research still
we don't like to transform the PoS systems to the PoW-like.
Maybe, if you understand the subject well, you can explain in
plain english how multibranch forging works. If it is a powerful innovation
as you seem to imply, it would be useful for all of us to understand it.
Can you explain?
July 02, 2015, 11:43:18 AM
With regards to distribution, in PoW all you need to get into the economy is mining equipment and an internet connection. In PoS the only way to acquire currency is from a stakeholder. After distribution, the stakeholders can transact with whom they choose and nobody has any other way to join the system. I realize this is a simplistic perspective, but it is a powerful tool to promote exclusionary policies. For instance, it would be easy for a state to exclude foreign PoS currencies and promote their own. This could be a positive thing depending on your political perspective. It could also be used to segregate social groups by denying them participation. PoW however, cannot exclude anyone that has adequate hashing power.
Finally someone who also realizes this. Although your stance in particular is probably a bit too negative. However, if one really thinks about this he/she would realize it.This might simplify it for those who do not understand:
In a PoW coin such as Bitcoin: In order to acquire coins you can buy equipment and mine it yourself (aside from buying from others).
In a PoS coin such as Peercoin: In order to acquire coins you need to find someone who is willing to sell i.e. who is willing to let you be part of it.
July 02, 2015, 10:03:55 AM
PoS is apartheid. You must ask permission to become part of the economy. If the stakeholders are racist, then they will exclude that race from participation. So far that isn't a problem, but it is an excellent tool for despots to promote. This is not evolution. That is social darwinism.
Can you expand on this pls?
July 02, 2015, 09:18:40 AM
It would be easier to run solar power laptop or a pos wallet on a raspberry pi 2 then a sha miner for bitcoin, with a 100w solar panel you could run 2 netbooks runing pos wallets and ther for moving the network, talk about a revolution in power usage.
the fact is POS right now is more profitable running then any POW coin.
the fact is POS right now is more profitable running then any POW coin.
July 02, 2015, 09:10:36 AM
PoS is apartheid. You must ask permission to become part of the economy. If the stakeholders are racist, then they will exclude that race from participation. So far that isn't a problem, but it is an excellent tool for despots to promote. This is not evolution. That is social darwinism.
Can you expand on this pls?
July 02, 2015, 09:09:57 AM
To this date, I have not seen a satisfactory debunking
of the "nothing at stake/costless simulation" issue,
which is the fundamental problem with Proof of Stake.
of the "nothing at stake/costless simulation" issue,
which is the fundamental problem with Proof of Stake.
Please be more specific with the POS implementation and the attack you are referring to. The 4 descriptions of nothing-at-stake describe in enough detail to be tested rigorously have been found to not hold any water > https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10152632
July 01, 2015, 01:03:27 PM
PoW is still the best method with all it's negative points. The fact you can keep issuing new currency into the coins's ecosystem is a great feature that is lost with the idea of having some rothchild type of stakeholders that make money by holding and may or not make use of the coins in a healthy way.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
July 01, 2015, 08:13:18 AM
To this date, I have not seen a satisfactory debunking
of the "nothing at stake/costless simulation" issue,
which is the fundamental problem with Proof of Stake.
Polestra's latest paper:
https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf
of the "nothing at stake/costless simulation" issue,
which is the fundamental problem with Proof of Stake.
Polestra's latest paper:
https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf
Simply speaking, no matter POW or POS, if a single miner could create big amount of blocks, then any cryptocurrency is untrusted.
True, however please note that the paper I referenced is basically saying PoW is capable of true distributed consensus, while PoS is not.
July 01, 2015, 05:41:58 AM
PoS is apartheid. You must ask permission to become part of the economy. If the stakeholders are racist, then they will exclude that race from participation. So far that isn't a problem, but it is an excellent tool for despots to promote. This is not evolution. That is social darwinism.
July 01, 2015, 04:13:44 AM
To this date, I have not seen a satisfactory debunking
of the "nothing at stake/costless simulation" issue,
which is the fundamental problem with Proof of Stake.
Polestra's latest paper:
https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf
of the "nothing at stake/costless simulation" issue,
which is the fundamental problem with Proof of Stake.
Polestra's latest paper:
https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf
Simply speaking, no matter POW or POS, if a single miner could create big amount of blocks, then any cryptocurrency is untrusted.
Jump to: