That's a way of thinking about it. Maybe that explains why some people have lost faith in NXT but those weak hands will be replaced by stronger hands, no?
Topic: Is PoS dead? - page 12. (Read 17330 times)
You don't even need a derivative market (although that is another way to leverage the nothing at stake problem). You have some coins in block x, you sell the coins, you now have nothing however you can re-org the chain back from block x. Why? Although you have nothing "now" in the past back at block x you did have something. You are attacking with the "memory" or history of coins.
First you must secure $50 bln. (as in $50 000 000 000) funding to buy enough stake. Then you can try.
apparently it only costs 200BTC, or approx $100,000, to buy 45M NXT.
not quite the same maths.
Apparently yes, if you're a hacked exchange and the hacker is willing to sell, which is two big 'IFs'.
of course it's quite possible if Bter didn't do it, the price of all NXT on the market would be 0.
You don't even need a derivative market (although that is another way to leverage the nothing at stake problem). You have some coins in block x, you sell the coins, you now have nothing however you can re-org the chain back from block x. Why? Although you have nothing "now" in the past back at block x you did have something. You are attacking with the "memory" or history of coins.
First you must secure $50 bln. (as in $50 000 000 000) funding to buy enough stake. Then you can try.
apparently it only costs 200BTC, or approx $100,000, to buy 45M NXT.
not quite the same maths.
Apparently yes, if you're a hacked exchange and the hacker is willing to sell, which is two big 'IFs'.
You don't even need a derivative market (although that is another way to leverage the nothing at stake problem). You have some coins in block x, you sell the coins, you now have nothing however you can re-org the chain back from block x. Why? Although you have nothing "now" in the past back at block x you did have something. You are attacking with the "memory" or history of coins.
First you must secure $50 bln. (as in $50 000 000 000) funding to buy enough stake. Then you can try.
apparently it only costs 200BTC, or approx $100,000, to buy 45M NXT.
not quite the same maths.
You don't even need a derivative market (although that is another way to leverage the nothing at stake problem). You have some coins in block x, you sell the coins, you now have nothing however you can re-org the chain back from block x. Why? Although you have nothing "now" in the past back at block x you did have something. You are attacking with the "memory" or history of coins.
First you must secure $50 bln. (as in $50 000 000 000) funding to buy enough stake. Then you can try.
The problem with proof of stake is that stake in the coin does not equal exposure to the coin if a derivatives market in the coin exists. I explained this attack in this post and the subsequent discussion. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7946409 Basically one hedges one's stake in the coin by taking an equivalent short position in the derivatives market to create zero net exposure to the coin in order to launch the attack.
I explained in that same thread why this attack is two orders of magnitude more expensive than the 51% attack on Bitcoin.
The problem with proof of stake is that stake in the coin does not equal exposure to the coin if a derivatives market in the coin exists. I explained this attack in this post and the subsequent discussion. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7946409 Basically one hedges one's stake in the coin by taking an equivalent short position in the derivatives market to create zero net exposure to the coin in order to launch the attack.
You don't even need a derivative market (although that is another way to leverage the nothing at stake problem). You have some coins in block x, you sell the coins, you now have nothing however you can re-org the chain back from block x. Why? Although you have nothing "now" in the past back at block x you did have something. You are attacking with the "memory" or history of coins.
One can even combine both attacks.
1) Gradually build a position in both the coin (long) and derivative market (short).
2) Unwind both the long and short position in (1)
3) Launch memory attack.
The advantage for the attacker over a straight memory attack is keeping price fluctuation in the coin low during (1).
Edit: There is another advantage for the attacker in that there can also be "nothing at stake" during the build-up in (1) because of the hedged position.
The problem with proof of stake is that stake in the coin does not equal exposure to the coin if a derivatives market in the coin exists. I explained this attack in this post and the subsequent discussion. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7946409 Basically one hedges one's stake in the coin by taking an equivalent short position in the derivatives market to create zero net exposure to the coin in order to launch the attack.
You don't even need a derivative market (although that is another way to leverage the nothing at stake problem). You have some coins in block x, you sell the coins, you now have nothing however you can re-org the chain back from block x. Why? Although you have nothing "now" in the past back at block x you did have something. You are attacking with the "memory" or history of coins.
The problem with proof of stake is that stake in the coin does not equal exposure to the coin if a derivatives market in the coin exists. I explained this attack in this post and the subsequent discussion. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7946409 Basically one hedges one's stake in the coin by taking an equivalent short position in the derivatives market to create zero net exposure to the coin in order to launch the attack.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=584719.140
Here someone is trying to solve the attack vectors of proof of stake.
If we can just make it more decentralized then it will be better than proof of work hands down, in my opinion. The dev can't have checkpoint control, and there needs to be a requirement similar to PoW where 51% of the nodes must accept a new fork for a fork to happen. Once PoS is equal to PoW in that regard then the system can become decentralized and autonomous.
PoS has problems but it is far from dead. In fact, in may be the future of decentralized currencies.
Here someone is trying to solve the attack vectors of proof of stake.
If we can just make it more decentralized then it will be better than proof of work hands down, in my opinion. The dev can't have checkpoint control, and there needs to be a requirement similar to PoW where 51% of the nodes must accept a new fork for a fork to happen. Once PoS is equal to PoW in that regard then the system can become decentralized and autonomous.
PoS has problems but it is far from dead. In fact, in may be the future of decentralized currencies.
I would like to see a beta of this up and running. Whatever he's creating is definitely not a bog standard shit coin, it's next generation stuff.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=584719.140
Here someone is trying to solve the attack vectors of proof of stake.
If we can just make it more decentralized then it will be better than proof of work hands down, in my opinion. The dev can't have checkpoint control, and there needs to be a requirement similar to PoW where 51% of the nodes must accept a new fork for a fork to happen. Once PoS is equal to PoW in that regard then the system can become decentralized and autonomous.
PoS has problems but it is far from dead. In fact, in may be the future of decentralized currencies.
Here someone is trying to solve the attack vectors of proof of stake.
If we can just make it more decentralized then it will be better than proof of work hands down, in my opinion. The dev can't have checkpoint control, and there needs to be a requirement similar to PoW where 51% of the nodes must accept a new fork for a fork to happen. Once PoS is equal to PoW in that regard then the system can become decentralized and autonomous.
PoS has problems but it is far from dead. In fact, in may be the future of decentralized currencies.
IMO this thread should be re-titled "Is POW dead for new currencies ?". Bitcoin isn't changing anytime soon, but it is hard to see why a currency developer would choose POW at this point.
Vitalik Buterin of Ethereum and winner of the Peter Thiel fellowship award ($100k) has an interesting blogpost where he discusses the merits of PoW versus PoS.
Check it out here, https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/05/stake/
He points out Daniel Larimer's TaPos as a promising alternative to PoW.
Daniel Larimer recently improved the idea and developed DPOS, illustrated above.
This is a kludge. He's trying to solve a complex problem with an even more complex solution. These issues can be done with layers on top of Bitcoin. We don't need to solve all the world's problems today, even if an engineer thinks he can do so. I would really prefer if our best theoreticians and programmers were working on Bitcoin and Colored Coin.Check it out here, https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/05/stake/
He points out Daniel Larimer's TaPos as a promising alternative to PoW.
Daniel Larimer recently improved the idea and developed DPOS, illustrated above.
Now, having said that, I think it's a great idea to try. There is plenty of room for many more cryptocurrencies.
That's a good attitude. What do you think about this quote that it might be a good thing to have different chains having separate fates?
Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale.
Bitcoin and BitDNS can be used separately. Users shouldn't have to download all of both to use one or the other. BitDNS users may not want to download everything the next several unrelated networks decide to pile in either.
The networks need to have separate fates. BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.
Bitcoin and BitDNS can be used separately. Users shouldn't have to download all of both to use one or the other. BitDNS users may not want to download everything the next several unrelated networks decide to pile in either.
The networks need to have separate fates. BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.
Bitcoin is the DNA building blocks that can be fashioned into things that are wondrous and monstrous. I suspect the nations and states will choose an alternate cryptocurrency or derivative coin that best serves its political ideologies, but if they want to play the global economics game, they will use bitcoins.
Agree with most of this. It really is a sociological issue to some extent. We can't forget the IRL context of the blockchain. It's an interesting idea that one has to pick two out the three, price, quality and service - have really never thought about it that way, but when you point it out I sure see a lot of successful products following that 2/3 rule
@CLains
Each idea of DPoS is already implemented or will be implemented in the near future.
Each idea of DPoS is already implemented or will be implemented in the near future.
pos/pow hybrid could be best.
I think pos only is the way to go. Why complicate if you can make it simple?
Vitalik Buterin of Ethereum and winner of the Peter Thiel fellowship award ($100k) has an interesting blogpost where he discusses the merits of PoW versus PoS.
Check it out here, https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/05/stake/
He points out Daniel Larimer's TaPos as a promising alternative to PoW.
Daniel Larimer recently improved the idea and developed DPOS, illustrated above.
Check it out here, https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/05/stake/
He points out Daniel Larimer's TaPos as a promising alternative to PoW.
Daniel Larimer recently improved the idea and developed DPOS, illustrated above.
Vitalik joined NXT forum to discuss the nothing-at-stake issue:
https://nxtforum.org/index.php?topic=3343.msg60114#msg60114
Vitalik Buterin of Ethereum and winner of the Peter Thiel fellowship award ($100k) has an interesting blogpost where he discusses the merits of PoW versus PoS.
Check it out here, https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/05/stake/
He points out Daniel Larimer's TaPos as a promising alternative to PoW.
Daniel Larimer recently improved the idea and developed DPOS, illustrated above.
This is a kludge. He's trying to solve a complex problem with an even more complex solution. These issues can be done with layers on top of Bitcoin. We don't need to solve all the world's problems today, even if an engineer thinks he can do so. I would really prefer if our best theoreticians and programmers were working on Bitcoin and Colored Coin.Check it out here, https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/05/stake/
He points out Daniel Larimer's TaPos as a promising alternative to PoW.
Daniel Larimer recently improved the idea and developed DPOS, illustrated above.
Now, having said that, I think it's a great idea to try. There is plenty of room for many more cryptocurrencies.
That's a good attitude. What do you think about this quote that it might be a good thing to have different chains having separate fates?
Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale.
Bitcoin and BitDNS can be used separately. Users shouldn't have to download all of both to use one or the other. BitDNS users may not want to download everything the next several unrelated networks decide to pile in either.
The networks need to have separate fates. BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.
Bitcoin and BitDNS can be used separately. Users shouldn't have to download all of both to use one or the other. BitDNS users may not want to download everything the next several unrelated networks decide to pile in either.
The networks need to have separate fates. BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.
Bitcoin is the DNA building blocks that can be fashioned into things that are wondrous and monstrous. I suspect the nations and states will choose an alternate cryptocurrency or derivative coin that best serves its political ideologies, but if they want to play the global economics game, they will use bitcoins.
Vitalik Buterin of Ethereum and winner of the Peter Thiel fellowship award ($100k) has an interesting blogpost where he discusses the merits of PoW versus PoS.
Check it out here, https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/05/stake/
He points out Daniel Larimer's TaPos as a promising alternative to PoW.
Daniel Larimer recently improved the idea and developed DPOS, illustrated above.
This is a kludge. He's trying to solve a complex problem with an even more complex solution. These issues can be done with layers on top of Bitcoin. We don't need to solve all the world's problems today, even if an engineer thinks he can do so. I would really prefer if our best theoreticians and programmers were working on Bitcoin and Colored Coin.Check it out here, https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/05/stake/
He points out Daniel Larimer's TaPos as a promising alternative to PoW.
Daniel Larimer recently improved the idea and developed DPOS, illustrated above.
Now, having said that, I think it's a great idea to try. There is plenty of room for many more cryptocurrencies.
That's a good attitude. What do you think about this quote that it might be a good thing to have different chains having separate fates?
Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale.
Bitcoin and BitDNS can be used separately. Users shouldn't have to download all of both to use one or the other. BitDNS users may not want to download everything the next several unrelated networks decide to pile in either.
The networks need to have separate fates. BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.
Bitcoin and BitDNS can be used separately. Users shouldn't have to download all of both to use one or the other. BitDNS users may not want to download everything the next several unrelated networks decide to pile in either.
The networks need to have separate fates. BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.
Vitalik Buterin of Ethereum and winner of the Peter Thiel fellowship award ($100k) has an interesting blogpost where he discusses the merits of PoW versus PoS.
Check it out here, https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/05/stake/
He points out Daniel Larimer's TaPos as a promising alternative to PoW.
Daniel Larimer recently improved the idea and developed DPOS, illustrated above.
This is a kludge. He's trying to solve a complex problem with an even more complex solution. These issues can be done with layers on top of Bitcoin. We don't need to solve all the world's problems today, even if an engineer thinks he can do so. I would really prefer if our best theoreticians and programmers were working on Bitcoin and Colored Coin.Check it out here, https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/05/stake/
He points out Daniel Larimer's TaPos as a promising alternative to PoW.
Daniel Larimer recently improved the idea and developed DPOS, illustrated above.
Now, having said that, I think it's a great idea to try. There is plenty of room for many more cryptocurrencies.
Jump to: