Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 1023. (Read 2032266 times)
proof of self-importance seems to be gaining evidence in this thread ...
Found the original post. Perhaps I shouldn't have said quoted, I apologize for that. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ethereum-bitshares-partnership-740684
The fact is nxt worked as advertised. The developers released a patch to roll back the transaction but it was unsuccessful, proving that they did not have complete control over the network and the integrity of the currency remained intact.
I don't disagree. A PoS network comes to some sort of a consensus.
In PoW, that consensus is tethered to physical reality because resources are consumed when voting for a chain; in PoS, that consensus is tethered only to popular opinion. In my mind, PoW cryptos are like gold coins--they take energy and effort to create, and only physical methods can be used to steal them. PoS cryptos are like share certificates--they can be created for zero cost only based on the desires of stake holders, and they can be voided just as easily (voided by social methods as opposed to stolen by physical methods).
Quote
POS is subject to similar game theory type stuff as POW. Why would someone who has a large stake in the system attempt to compromise it?
They can attack with "nothing at stake" by using coins they once held but have since sold. To attack a PoW system, one must expend resources in this reality. The game theory is completely different.
Again, Vitalik has been doing a TON of research on this topic and look what he found: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6990
is there a mirror site for bitshares.org? it wont load for me at all. wouldnt earlier ether, even the homepage.. :/
Hmm your right but no I don't know a mirror. Basically it looks like Ethereum is going to be teaming up with bitshares and DPOS (similar to how nxt works) he is quoted as saying that it has become clear the POW is dead.
you are simply delusional:
mr.e are you able to locate the quote? has he put this in writing somewhere or did someone just repeat what he has said vocally?
Here's the nxt discussion on this particular link. Perhaps I should have waited to see the actual quote again before saying that as I'm going based off a relatively poor memory . We'll have to wait till the bitshares forum comes back.
https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/nxt-vs-bitsharesethereum/20/
Again, Vitalik has been doing a TON of research on this topic and look what he found: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6990
is there a mirror site for bitshares.org? it wont load for me at all. wouldnt earlier ether, even the homepage.. :/
Hmm your right but no I don't know a mirror. Basically it looks like Ethereum is going to be teaming up with bitshares and DPOS (similar to how nxt works) he is quoted as saying that it has become clear the POW is dead.
you are simply delusional:
I'm not saying I agree with that particular statement although I'd guess he was talking more long term.
The Nxt community was debating "rewriting history" to rollback the theft from Bter! The users become the attackers, and in their echo chamber they decide to make up whatever truth appears convenient at the time. If you don't see this, then you don't want to see it.
On the topic of a single malicious cabal attacking the network, the cabal needs only 51% of what is currently staked, which may be significantly less than 51% of the money supply. Furthermore, the cabal can attack with coins they once had but have since sold. This is the nothing-at-stake problem (aka the history-rewrite problem). This can be prevented with checkpoints or if the developers sign blocks as valid, but then your decentralized currency is no longer decentralized! We saw this with the viacoin roll back or fork it and get rid of it.
Lastly, the idea that some special sauce known as "transparent forging" will require 90% of the critical resource to attack is a highly dubious claim. I strongly suspect that the following PoX Theorem holds:
A malicious user controlling 51% of the critical resource X in a PoX distributed consensus system can attack the network.
Bitcoin was "rolled back" at one point in the early days. Whether objective or subjective, no one wanted 92 billion bitcoins to remain in the blockchain and controlled by a single entity. If that were to happen today I almost guarantee the miners would find a way to roll it back.
The fact is nxt worked as advertised. The developers released a patch to roll back the transaction but it was unsuccessful, proving that they did not have complete control over the network and the integrity of the currency remained intact. POS is subject to similar game theory type stuff as POW. Why would someone who has a large stake in the system attempt to compromise it?
We can debate whether POW or POS can be compromised, but the fact is cryptocurrency is proven to be sound money once relatively mature. If 5% (or 7% in bitcoin's case - mtgox) of US dollars had somehow been stolen, you can be guaranteed that the federal reserve would have arbitrarily started a counterfeit program (2008 bailouts and QE). Our systems are better and the beauty is users have a choice of POW or POS.
thank you for interjecting that. i didnt know bitcoin once did a rollback...
also, you will all be debating proof of importance soon too.. now that, is a revolutionary new consensus algorithm..
The Nxt community was debating "rewriting history" to rollback the theft from Bter! The users become the attackers, and in their echo chamber they decide to make up whatever truth appears convenient at the time. If you don't see this, then you don't want to see it.
On the topic of a single malicious cabal attacking the network, the cabal needs only 51% of what is currently staked, which may be significantly less than 51% of the money supply. Furthermore, the cabal can attack with coins they once had but have since sold. This is the nothing-at-stake problem (aka the history-rewrite problem). This can be prevented with checkpoints or if the developers sign blocks as valid, but then your decentralized currency is no longer decentralized! We saw this with the viacoin roll back or fork it and get rid of it.
Lastly, the idea that some special sauce known as "transparent forging" will require 90% of the critical resource to attack is a highly dubious claim. I strongly suspect that the following PoX Theorem holds:
A malicious user controlling 51% of the critical resource X in a PoX distributed consensus system can attack the network.
Bitcoin was "rolled back" at one point in the early days. Whether objective or subjective, no one wanted 92 billion bitcoins to remain in the blockchain and controlled by a single entity. If that were to happen today I almost guarantee the miners would find a way to roll it back.
The fact is nxt worked as advertised. The developers released a patch to roll back the transaction but it was unsuccessful, proving that they did not have complete control over the network and the integrity of the currency remained intact. POS is subject to similar game theory type stuff as POW. Why would someone who has a large stake in the system attempt to compromise it?
We can debate whether POW or POS can be compromised, but the fact is cryptocurrency is proven to be sound money once relatively mature. If 5% (or 7% in bitcoin's case - mtgox) of US dollars had somehow been stolen, you can be guaranteed that the federal reserve would have arbitrarily started a counterfeit program (2008 bailouts and QE). Our systems are better and the beauty is users have a choice of POW or POS.
Again, Vitalik has been doing a TON of research on this topic and look what he found: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6990
is there a mirror site for bitshares.org? it wont load for me at all. wouldnt earlier ether, even the homepage.. :/
Hmm your right but no I don't know a mirror. Basically it looks like Ethereum is going to be teaming up with bitshares and DPOS (similar to how nxt works) he is quoted as saying that it has become clear the POW is dead.
you are simply delusional:
mr.e are you able to locate the quote? has he put this in writing somewhere or did someone just repeat what he has said vocally?
Again, Vitalik has been doing a TON of research on this topic and look what he found: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6990
is there a mirror site for bitshares.org? it wont load for me at all. wouldnt earlier ether, even the homepage.. :/
Hmm your right but no I don't know a mirror. Basically it looks like Ethereum is going to be teaming up with bitshares and DPOS (similar to how nxt works) he is quoted as saying that it has become clear the POW is dead.
you are simply delusional:
HAHAHA im sorry but i find that absolutely hilarious lol not because i disagree, i do agree it is/will be, but because of all the pow buffs fighting the pow corner so hard and then someone, that so many pow buffs have put on a crypto pedestal and someone so high profile, turns around and says pow is dead... after all these PoW buffs have given him millions.. that is priceless!!!!!! 
OMG LOLZ... hahaha
OMG LOLZ... hahahaIf Ethereum merged with BitShares and used DPoS it would be hilarious indeed. I think my fellow "PoW buffs" would agree. Personally, I don't believe this rumour, however.
Again, Vitalik has been doing a TON of research on this topic and look what he found: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6990
is there a mirror site for bitshares.org? it wont load for me at all. wouldnt earlier ether, even the homepage.. :/
Hmm your right but no I don't know a mirror. Basically it looks like Ethereum is going to be teaming up with bitshares and DPOS (similar to how nxt works) he is quoted as saying that it has become clear the POW is dead.
your joking?
?HAHAHA im sorry but i find that absolutely hilarious lol not because i disagree, i do agree it is/will be, but because of all the pow buffs fighting the pow corner so hard and then someone, that so many pow buffs have put on a crypto pedestal and someone so high profile, turns around and says pow is dead... after all these PoW buffs have given him millions.. that is priceless!!!!!!
OMG LOLZ... hahaha Again, Vitalik has been doing a TON of research on this topic and look what he found: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6990
is there a mirror site for bitshares.org? it wont load for me at all. wouldnt earlier ether, even the homepage.. :/
Hmm your right but no I don't know a mirror. Basically it looks like Ethereum is going to be teaming up with bitshares and DPOS (similar to how nxt works) he is quoted as saying that it has become clear the POW is dead.
... in order to be able to rewrite history, a malicious user would have to buy well over 50% of the currency.. to do that and then fuck the system is as you say, uneconomical..
The Nxt community was debating "rewriting history" to rollback the theft from Bter! The users become the attackers, and in their echo chamber they decide to make up whatever truth appears convenient at the time. If you don't see this, then you don't want to see it.
On the topic of a single malicious cabal attacking the network, the cabal needs only 51% of what is currently staked, which may be significantly less than 51% of the money supply. Furthermore, the cabal can attack with coins they once had but have since sold. This is the nothing-at-stake problem (aka the history-rewrite problem). This can be prevented with checkpoints or if the developers sign blocks as valid, but then your decentralized currency is no longer decentralized! We saw this with the viacoin roll back.
Lastly, the idea that some special sauce known as "transparent forging" will require 90% of the critical resource to attack is a highly dubious claim. I strongly suspect that the following PoX Theorem holds:
A malicious user controlling 51% of the critical resource X in a PoX distributed consensus system can attack the network.
transparent forging: will be sure to send you documentation once integrated.
nothing at stake: read this, its done in a decentralised manner.. believe it or not...
make up whatever truth appears convenient: was it in the best interest of the forgers and in the best interest for the security and future of the network to perform a rollback? no... did the forgers agree to the rollback by forging on the new chain? a fraction yes... but the majority agreed that the best thing for the network was to stay on the current chain and not do a roll back.. even in such a dire time when, tbh, not much worse could have happened to require a rollback/reorg but even this worse case scenario did not induce the forgers to remove themselves from the main chain to the reorg chain..
... in order to be able to rewrite history, a malicious user would have to buy well over 50% of the currency.. to do that and then fuck the system is as you say, uneconomical..
... transparent forging ... would need over 90%/95% of forging power to do a roll back or reorg ...
... transparent forging ... would need over 90%/95% of forging power to do a roll back or reorg ...
The Nxt community was debating "rewriting history" to rollback the theft from Bter! The users become the attackers, and in their echo chamber they decide to make up whatever truth appears convenient at the time. If you don't see this, then you don't want to see it.
On the topic of a single malicious cabal attacking the network, the cabal needs only 51% of what is currently staked, which may be significantly less than 51% of the money supply. Furthermore, the cabal can attack with coins they once had but have since sold. This is the nothing-at-stake problem (aka the history-rewrite problem). This can be prevented with checkpoints or if the developers sign blocks as valid, but then your decentralized currency is no longer decentralized! We saw this with the viacoin roll back.
Lastly, the idea that some special sauce known as "transparent forging" will require 90% of the critical resource to attack is a highly dubious claim. I strongly suspect that the following PoX Theorem holds:
A malicious user controlling 51% of the critical resource X in a PoX distributed consensus system can attack the network.
Again, Vitalik has been doing a TON of research on this topic and look what he found: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6990
is there a mirror site for bitshares.org? it wont load for me at all. wouldnt earlier ether, even the homepage.. :/
Again, Vitalik has been doing a TON of research on this topic and look what he found: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6990
SHA-based PoW has shown to be "centralisable" though ...
That word sounds scary, but what does it mean?Is it the case that people who can afford to perform negative ROI attacks of sufficient magnitude can break a PoW system?
Yes, and Bitcoin never promised that they couldn't.
We know from math it's impossible to make a distributed consensus system that's cryptographically secure, so trying to find such a system is a pointless distraction. It's a question of how do we best use the tools we have within the confines of what is possible.
the "truth" in a POW system is determined by the objective laws of thermodynamics which are fundamental laws that exist outside the POW system. it cannot be gamed by the stakeholders.
the "truth" in a POS system is not determined by any such laws outside its own system. it is self referencing, aka an echo chamber, of whatever the stakeholders "want" to be the truth, whether objective or not. it can be gamed by the stakeholders, if they all agree.
I'd add the clarification that PoW only promises that defeating the consensus process is uneconomical, not impossible.the "truth" in a POS system is not determined by any such laws outside its own system. it is self referencing, aka an echo chamber, of whatever the stakeholders "want" to be the truth, whether objective or not. it can be gamed by the stakeholders, if they all agree.
The paper shows that PoS can't even make that promise.
regardless, even if you are correct.. soon the roolback or reorg wont be possible.. transparent forging will soon be fully in place and when it is, you would need over 90%/95% of forging power to do a roll back or reorg and that would be virtually, or economically, impossible... or so unlikely that its enough... the same way a 51% attack is so unlikely it is enough.
[/quote]
...
http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/bino
SHA-based PoW has shown to be "centralisable" though ...
http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/bino
SHA-based PoW has shown to be "centralisable" though ...
Yeah, I skimmed that post earlier today. First off, mining converging to industrial scale is not "centralization" in the sense that a single entity will irrevocably obtain control of the network. Also note that the author said Satoshi made a "miscalculation" about this tendency toward industrial mining, when in fact, in one of Satoshi's earliest writings he pointed out that mining would converge to be done by a relatively small number of large enterprises. People who didn't 1) foresee this themselves and/or 2) read Satoshi's early writings are one of the following: 1) stupid, 2) lazy. And now such people crying "bino" because of this "realization", when in fact they're just further behind on the thinking-things-through department than the rest of us.
...
But why would they all agree when doing so would destroy the integrity of their stake? ...
But why would they all agree when doing so would destroy the integrity of their stake? ...
Because they could've just sold their stake. I believe the paper points that out.
So an entity sells their stake and then hopes that the rest of the network will agree to fork it back for them? Highly unlikely. If this fork, which would have only changed the outcome of a single known malicious transaction was unable to pass, then I can't imagine how a fork like that would ever pass.
Jump to: