Topic: Honestly, which is better? Monero or Dash? - page 18. (Read 35954 times)

That happens all the time.  PoS coins have to use (increasingly convoluted) checkpoint schemes to fight 'nothing-at-stake' type attacks.

NovaCoin, for example, just got #rekt by one.  And Balthazar is 100 times smarter and better at coding than Dash's trash developer.

It would be such a terrible tragedy if Dash suffered catastrophic consensus failure about an hour before Madoffield's Miami talk starts... 

I have linked to this post in my comparison table for the BitShares column of the Research row.


I've now separated the Research and Development into two rows on the comparison table upthread. I am recognizing the significant Development work done on all those coins.

As for the Research row of the table, I am definitely asserting that Dash's research is abysmal. Recent more detailed study on InstantX has further convinced me of my long-held "helicopter view" intuitions.

As for BitShares, let's discuss more below and I will adjust my perspective as necessary.


I can do all those features better than DPOS and with PoW. The insecurity of PoS has been explained in the prior couple of posts.


Before you posted, I had already edited my post as follows (to replace the underlined portion you quoted):

---

---

I haven't had time to study what changes were made after the initial design was discovered to be flawed (as I told them it was back in 2013) and whether the new design works correctly.

No you are incorrect about my views. I know a peg can work by employing speculation, but it can never be lossless. I wanted to do some more work on quantifying that, but it is not high on my priority list. If BitShares has perfected the math and understanding, then kudos. But I don't assume they have without studying it. And I haven't had the time to study their latest design iteration on BitUSD. You know there is so much garbage released in altcoin land, nobody has enough time to study every shred of it in detail.


The above is not useless in my view, but devil is in the details on assets and programmable block chains, so I can't access that until I am ready to do a deep study. Their work may be trivial or deep. I do not know.


I recently tested the waters a bit on that structure to see if it could really motivate me to work on a new feature for them. I discovered precisely what I am warning you about, that politics will tend to diverge not converge (should I provide a link?). I predict that chaos will reign in DPOS eventually and a dictator will have to take control. I remain somewhat open-minded, but the theory of the power-law distribution seems irrefutable.


I am smirking. Perhaps yeah on "currently exists", but don't ask me to start digging on the flaws because I will probably accidentally blow up BitShares the same as I did Dash (I didn't even plan to find that broken math in Dash, it came out of a discussion about security of my design in my thread). I don't have the time to waste on that though. Otherwise the "currently exists" will always be a valid retort.

I already blew up their claimed 1000+ TX/sec and got everyone to realize it is only about 100+ TX/sec in reality on current hardware.


Smart contract stuff is very interesting. But I am not sure if hard-coded contracts or a programmable block chain is best.

So it is difficult for me to agree that this is research. Unless I study it and find a lot of innovation on math and sort, I will say this is a lot of obvious development that anyone would do if they were enumerating different hard-coded variants of things one could do with a more generalized programmable block chain.

I hope you realize my point is that a generalized paradigm in theory has exponentially more network effects.

So I am bumping up BitShare's development rating significantly, but I maintain their Research level is some where between average and above average. It isn't fundamental Satoshi-level research for crypto (which is the sort of research I have been attempting).


They copied that. I admit their accumulated development is quite high. And I even saw they had a contributor whip up some of that anonymity work very quickly, so it isn't just one guy on the development side. On research side, I think it is less impressive.


I hope you realize now that I don't think it is entirely useless but it is rather my intuitions about priorities and scaling faster.

I think they've gone for the "I'll build every feature" approach. And I am going for the "I'll build the platform and let others build every feature" approach.

But I don't dismiss that they might get traction. We will see. As I said, I haven't entirely dismissed BitShares.

If I was forced to choose, I would choose Monero out of the two, mostly because of the Monero privacy aspects.

You are missing the point. The stake is an attack.

If you and few others who were Kings before but gave up majority stake, you fork but the users may not follow you. The masses tend to be very apathetic about changing what they are accustomed to.

The majority can change the protocol at-will. Ditto with Satoshi's PoW (but I claim not in my innovation), except it is an unbounded ongoing cost;whereas, with PoS it is a one-time cost. And you can even recoup that cost by shorting the coin if the manipulations will cause a drop in price, or by recouping profits gained from changing the protocol.

As long as the protocol changes don't too much inconvenience the masses, they won't bother to change. For example, adding a small transaction fee that is paid to the new Kings.

You claim we can't attack PoS, but this may be because there is no profit for us to do so, because your PoS coins have no usership nor sufficient non-mirage liquidity to profit from shorting. Go grow the usership and/or the true liquidity of the float, then observe the game theory.

You are also presuming that the majority of stake exists. Instead you may have 10 coalitions of minority stakes all fighting each other. Thus 10 forks and chaos due to being able to spend the coins 10 times.

Forking will almost always be avoided because politically it is devastating. Again the attackers can just short the coin.

A dictator attacker who unifies control (a la Napoleon) by acquiring majority stake would perhaps be cheered (ending the chaos). This is the strategy being deployed right now before our eyes to bring the world to its knees to beg for a NWO one world government to stop the nation-state chaos. The banksters created that chaos on purpose.

Refuted.

Btw, thanks for raising the point that my innovation to eliminate control-of-the-majority means hard forks become that much more difficult to accomplish. I do need to make sure I pay attention to that!

A PoW coin becomes progressively more difficult to hard fork as the mining becomes more diversified. Obviously Satoshi could—and Monero can still—hard fork, because they have loyalty of the miners because it is not yet a widely adopted block chain.

But yeah, a PoW coin needs to get their protocol correct before it becomes too widely deployed.

Also note that even widely deployed, miners are much more willing to accept a hard fork which fixes a bug for as long as it isn't injuring their vested interests.

Users invest in a protocol and if politics can change the protocol at any time in the future, then users can't trust the future. This is another reason Bitcoin can't just graft on all the innovations of altcoins. It is one of the prominent reasons I am trying to design a PoW block chain which can be hot-plugged with unlimited public block chain transaction format variants that are orthogonal to the PoW chain which remains a constant (so they don't all have to reinvent security).

Whereas, PoS proponents want absolute control forever. And thus they are private club designs. Their designs will never be ubiquitous platforms because they are not strictly protocol:


The PoW proponents are trying to design the protocol that will be the block chain for the entire internet, not some private club where we get to play King forever. Inventing a protocol that is orthogonal to politics is I think part of the definition of an end-to-end principled protocol (end-to-end is an underlying principle of all popular internet protocols).


Refuted.

Please help suggest the most objective ratings for the Development row of my chart. I can't really gauge that well, because I haven't tracked the source code and detailed development activities. I was happy to separate that row out so I could criticize myself.

Obviously that is not an ideal solution, but a worst-case scenario solution. Feel free to try and attack a PoS chain and let me know how successful you are.

That sounds like a horrible idea... you are banking on the fact you will release the cryptocurrency without any flaws. Furthermore, it will be hard to make changes if something desperately needs to be changed. One saboteur can ruin it for everybody. If Satoshi would have made Bitcoin that way, I'm sure Bitcoin would already be dead. Cryptocurrencies need to be able to evolve easily due to unknown issues that will certainly come up in the future.

As stated above, there is a reason why a "majority rules" system is best. And yes, I have no idea what you are referring to when you say "radical distinction", however I've probably read about it before as I have been in and/or read a lot of PoS v PoW debates before. I have a full time job, a life, etc.. I don't have all day to spend on the forums like some people...

That's nice, but you're largely discrediting the R&D Bitshares and other cryptocurrencies have done.

You PoW zealots love to harp on PoS as being insecure, yet there has only ever been one successful attack on a PoS coin (and it was one that is dying with little community support- similar to how numerous PoW coins with low hash rate have been successfully attacked.) dPoS also allows for many great features.. it is the backbone for SmartAssets, Hire-able employees, high scalability, etc..

bitUSD has not failed- look at a historic graph and it has held its peg quite well. It did not work as it was originally designed, but it certainly works. You (wrongly) think you are omniscient and know what features are important for a cryptocurrency to succeed, and thus disregard all innovations Bitshares has invented/implemented as useless. At least I can admit when I am wrong or when I am speculating.


They have done a lot of ideas that seem dubious to me. Agree they are very busy and have engineering talent. But they don't seem to have focused talent. They've accomplished somethings, but nothing stands out for me as a big win yet.

If you can point out any feature that is a really a big innovation, I am interested to reconsider my thinking about BitShares?


SmartCoins (bitAssets) (https://bitshares.org/technology/price-stable-cryptocurrencies/)
Decentralized SmartCoin Exchange (https://bitshares.org/technology/decentralized-asset-exchange/)
Referral Program (https://bitshares.org/technology/referral-rewards-program/)
Bridges/Gateways (built-in to the wallet)
Hire-able Employees (self-funding development, advertising, etc..) (due to dPoS)
Fee-backed assets (in development/conceptual phase)
The most scalable blockchain (that currently exists) (https://bitshares.org/technology/industrial-performance-and-scalability/)
An improved multi-signature transaction protocol (https://bitshares.org/technology/dynamic-account-permissions/)
Recurring and scheduled payments (https://bitshares.org/technology/recurring-and-scheduled-payments/)
Collateralized Bond Market (https://bitshares.org/technology/collateralized-bond-market/)
Stakeholder-Approved project funding (https://bitshares.org/technology/transferable-named-accounts/)
Transferable named accounts (https://bitshares.org/technology/transferable-named-accounts/)
Insurance (in a conceptual phase)
Stealth addresses + Confidential Transactions (more as to the Developmental side of R&D as these ideas were not original)
Etc..

This is all apparently useless according to you. You must not fully understand how everything works, that it exists, and/or the implications of all the features listed.

Reasonable point. I will move Development to a separate row or just delete Development.

Maybe you are correct (that I thread-jacked and you deserve to criticize me for that), but if I have to expend the effort to create a comparison chart table, then I want to do it once for every reason I might need it.

Sorry I really don't want to re-enter extended discussions, but that liar table hit a nerve.

Your very high-level conceptualizations are analogous to way Evan thinks when he is designing Dash. The flaw in your logic is you haven't even thought about the details of what it entails to accomplish what you wrote. You are broadstroking your conceptualizations without expert introspection.

The only way you could accomplish what you stated is for the system to not enforce a consensus protocol.

Your conceptualization is that you can identify who is acting in bad faith and confiscate their stake. But if you could do that in a proof-of-stake design, then it would be impossible to attack the coin at the protocol level with any level of stake. Since we we know that is not true, then it follows logically that your conceptualization is proven to be impossible. I have explained in my thread that the only way to achieve 100% permissionless security at the protocol level is with my innovation on consensus.

Either proof-of-stake is not a decentralized protocol for consensus so your point is correct, or vice versa so your point is incorrect. This ties into the point that politics has absolute control in proof-of-stake. Does everyone always agree with the decision of the government. Who is that again who predicted DPOS would end up in a shooting war?


You will be unable to refute this:

To be fair you replied to a table that included SDC. That is also off topic on this thread. No reason to go even more off topic though.

In that case, the system doesn't work at all, because it doesn't enforce consensus. You might as well have "the community" record everyone's holdings on a spreadsheet.

Also, attacking via 50% doesn't necessarily require "buying up" anything. It could be (at least in part) having hacked an exchange or other large holder, or having accumulated stake through borrowing. The same with PoW (compromising a large pool for example), except that it isn't permanent.

Wrong. If someone buys up 50%+ of the currency supply to attack it, the PoS coin's community thanks them for the donation, forks the coin, rolls back the blockchain, and continues business as usual.

Will correct the table now. Afaics the distinction would be the wallet can be a lite (not full node) client. That was on the prior table, so I included it.


Any besides R & D? If yes, please explain what is not objective?

That is why I included BitShares in the same table, since we concluded recently in my thread that Dash is really proof-of-stake. And BitShares and ShadowCoin are other coins attempting to add on chain protocol level anonymity. Someone else brought up ShadowCoin, so I figured I would preempt someone bringing up BitShares and not having it already in the table.

1. Monero has released many more than one "white paper". There is one formal research paper (ringCT) but at least 4 other MRL reports and some other documents.

2. Bitshares is off topic on this thread. PoS isn't entirely off topic since Dash's masternodes are a form of PoS (even more so in evolution since masternodes/stake will verify transactions).


It is absolutely correct. Once you control a PoS coin, you control it forever at no additional (significant) cost. How can anyone else ever take control away from you since you control staking and the only way anyone else can get stake is by buying it from you? No one can and you don't need to continue expending resources (mining) to retain control as you do with PoW.

@TPTB_need_war: Monero has a Mobile App -> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ionicframework.monerowallet116498&hl=nl

Not sure what the difference is between "Browser wallet" & "Browser/SPV wallet", but Monero got https://mymonero.com.

Some other points are quite subjective in my opinion.

Not likely during the launch phase (not in any significant volume). As was covered in detail in a discussion in my thread. Nuanced issues fly over the head of people who think they know everything.