Topic: It's about time to turn off PoW mining - page 10. (Read 39732 times)
Nope, Between those 2 links Bitcoin is further ahead on features and I don't see any feature that Nxt has completed that isn't done in Bitcoin already:
Here are 3 more features Bitcoin already does:
Bitmessage - decentralized , Encrypted messaging
bitcongress - decentralized voting
coinprism - decentralized assets / smart properties /stocks
colored coins/counterparty for decentralized asset exchange
Darkwallet for extra privacy with stealth addresses and coinjoin
darkmarket/openbazaar for decentralized marketplace marketplace
greenaddress/coinbase/circle/bitpay/open transactions/ect... for instant confirmations
Merge mined Namecoin for decentralized DNS
Merge mined Namecoin for decentralized NameID/openID
twister for decentralized blogging platform
All sorts of custom code written for exchanges which allow prediction markets, shorting, options, asset trading, ect....
So again, what specifically can Nxt accomplish that BTC cannot right now?
can you do all those functions from within a bitcoin client with out converting from one currency to another? Nope... Also the best ones aren't even released yet. Terrible defence I have to say.. Pick up your game or youl be on the bench son 
Bitcoin client? Which one?
All of those solutions I mentioned interact and depend upon the Bitcoin protocol to function.
I can tell you are not a developer or programmer. Integrating all of those functions directly within the Bitcoin core protocol is a recipe for disaster in terms of future bugs and security holes.
No, I want Bitcoin to remain a simple and efficient consensus mechanism where I have a choice as to what implementations and feature combinations to use.
Again, what can Nxt do that BTC cannot?
Www.multigateway.com or. Org
can you do all those functions from within a bitcoin client with out converting from one currency to another? Nope... Also the best ones aren't even released yet. Terrible defence I have to say.. Pick up your game or youl be on the bench son
Bitcoin client? Which one?
All of those solutions I mentioned interact and depend upon the Bitcoin protocol to function.
I can tell you are not a developer or programmer. Integrating all of those functions directly within the Bitcoin core protocol is a recipe for disaster in terms of future bugs and security holes.
No, I want Bitcoin to remain a simple and efficient consensus mechanism where I have a choice as to what implementations and feature combinations to use.
Again, what can Nxt do that BTC cannot?
But NXT is still growing.
And so is Bitcoin... and if you understand the importance of the network effect, Bitcoin may have reached a critical thresh-hold where nothing can reach it.
I wonder what all these hundreds of Bitcoin developers actually coded over the years if NXT already can do so much more than Bitcoin and more functions are coming.
Why wonder what they have done? You can see their commits , discussions, proposals , motivations, if you cared to bother looking.
People often get confused by the fact that the development of bitcoin is very modular and the core protocol has remained simple. This is not only by design but most of the
work the developers have done with the core protocol is to clean up Satoshi's sloppy code and make things simpler and more modular.
It is a good thing that bitcoin is simple and other aps and implementations interact with the BTC blockchain.
Name me one thing Nxt can do that BTC cannot.
To save you time Bitcoin already does -
colored coins/counterparty for decentralized asset exchange
Darkwallet for extra privacy with stealth addresses and coinjoin
darkmarket/openbazaar for decentralized marketplace marketplace
greenaddress/coinbase/circle/bitpay/open transactions/ect... for instant confirmations
Merge mined Namecoin for decentralized DNS
Merge mined Namecoin for decentralized NameID/openID
twister for decentralized blogging platform
All sorts of custom code written for exchanges which allow prediction markets, shorting, options, asset trading, ect....
ect....
It is a marketing lie that these "Next generation" cryptocurrencies have more features and development than Bitcoin.
I can name a hell of a lot development Bitcoin has done that other currencies lack however.
But NXT is still growing.
And so is Bitcoin... and if you understand the importance of the network effect, Bitcoin may have reached a critical thresh-hold where nothing can reach it.
I wonder what all these hundreds of Bitcoin developers actually coded over the years if NXT already can do so much more than Bitcoin and more functions are coming.
Why wonder what they have done? You can see their commits , discussions, proposals , motivations, if you cared to bother looking.
People often get confused by the fact that the development of bitcoin is very modular and the core protocol has remained simple. This is not only by design but most of the
work the developers have done with the core protocol is to clean up Satoshi's sloppy code and make things simpler and more modular.
It is a good thing that bitcoin is simple and other aps and implementations interact with the BTC blockchain.
Name me one thing Nxt can do that BTC cannot.
To save you time Bitcoin already does -
colored coins/counterparty for decentralized asset exchange
Darkwallet for extra privacy with stealth addresses and coinjoin
darkmarket/openbazaar for decentralized marketplace marketplace
greenaddress/coinbase/circle/bitpay/open transactions/ect... for instant confirmations
Merge mined Namecoin for decentralized DNS
Merge mined Namecoin for decentralized NameID/openID
twister for decentralized blogging platform
All sorts of custom code written for exchanges which allow prediction markets, shorting, options, asset trading, ect....
ect....
It is a marketing lie that these "Next generation" cryptocurrencies have more features and development than Bitcoin.
I can name a hell of a lot development Bitcoin has done that other currencies lack however.
How about the quantity of choice in smartphone wallets, hot wallets , standalone wallets, multi-sig wallets?
How about all the API's and frameworks written?
How about all the documentation and research?
How about all of the current and soon to be released Bitcoin Hardware wallets?
How about the Bitcoin ATM's?
How about the Bitcoin POS devices for merchants?
How about the numerous Bitcoin implementations written in many different frameworks and code?
I am not suggesting their isn't some interesting work being done in various alts.... merely a majority of the development is happening
within the Bitcoin ecosystem.
jean-luc, come-from-beyond, kushti, lyaffe, holgerd77, wesleyh (client), jl777 (non core), marcus 03 (non-core) and all other non core devs, are not enough for you?
"partially secret developers" ...satoshi was anon as well?
"partially secret developers" ...satoshi was anon as well?
Satoshi being anonymous doesn't matter when most of the bitcoin protocol has been re-written , audited, and peer reviewed by many different security analysts and developers with different backgrounds and specialties.
Yes , your paltry list of developers is not enough for something as important as an international currency with a large market cap. 8-20 developers is pathetic compared to Bitcoin's 250+ minimum that worked on the core alone, let alone the thousand other developers working on other wallets , aps, and other implementations which interact with the bitcoin blockchain(how many implementations does Nxt have.... 1?). We need far more testers and developers working with bitcoin to make it secure, and your boast listing 8 devs shows you really have a lot to learn when it comes to securing such a large open source project.
But NXT is still growing.
I wonder what all these hundreds of Bitcoin developers actually coded over the years if NXT already can do so much more than Bitcoin and more functions are coming.
jean-luc, come-from-beyond, kushti, lyaffe, holgerd77, wesleyh (client), jl777 (non core), marcus 03 (non-core) and all other non core devs, are not enough for you?
"partially secret developers" ...satoshi was anon as well?
"partially secret developers" ...satoshi was anon as well?
Mentioning a lack of whitepaper was in reference to a lack of the final whitepaper. Transparent Forging is quite a departure from the current Nxt PoS consensus algo that you may as well call it a new coin(with previous stakeholders still in control.)
Satoshi being anonymous doesn't matter when most of the bitcoin protocol has been re-written , audited, and peer reviewed by many different security analysts and developers with different backgrounds and specialties.
Yes , your paltry list of developers is not enough for something as important as an international currency with a large market cap. 8-20 developers is pathetic compared to Bitcoin's 250+ minimum that worked on the core alone, let alone the thousand other developers working on other wallets , aps, and other implementations which interact with the bitcoin blockchain(how many implementations does Nxt have.... 1?). We need far more testers and developers working with bitcoin to make it secure, and your boast listing 8 devs shows you really have a lot to learn when it comes to securing such a large open source project.
The Nxt team of partially secret developers(the lack of a diverse developer pool , auditing, and secrecy is a security concern in itself -- https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-core-developer-jeff-garzik-believes-nxt-is-a-scamcoin/ ) are still fleshing out the whitepaper and new consensus algorithm so we really cannot fully weigh the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed future in "Transparent Forging"
"lack of a diverse dev pool"
jean-luc, come-from-beyond, kushti, lyaffe, holgerd77, wesleyh (client), jl777 (non core), marcus 03 (non-core) and all other non core devs, are not enough for you?
"partially secret developers" ...satoshi was anon as well?
Whitepaper is here: https://wiki.nxtcrypto.org/wiki/Whitepaper:Nxt
The only point I give you is transparent forging. Let's wait until it is implemented (supposedly this year)
I would like to rephrase my question.
If a coin has both PoS and PoW, is it more secure than a coin with either PoS or PoW only?
If a coin has both PoS and PoW, is it more secure than a coin with either PoS or PoW only?
Depends on the implementation, possibly a workable PoR might be best if someone can get the incentives right in the algorithm . Generally, since they both have differing strengths and weaknesses, combining the 2 would be more secure at the cost of a greater expense(DPoS and PoS is cheaper to secure but has some serious drawbacks).
Here are some higher level discussions on TaPoS vs PoS vs PoW:
https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/06/19/mining/ (yes, there are many solutions to solve PoW weaknesses, some of which require nothing but time itself)
http://the-iland.net/static/downloads/TransactionsAsProofOfStake.pdf
https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/05/stake/
After reading this you will see that a NaS attack is indeed real but their are possible solutions to solve this weakness. TaPoS was one of them but it appears Daniel Larimer couldn't flesh out the details and a workable balance and than just settled on DPoS instead. DPoS still has multiple vulnerabilities and can be attacked with a long range NaS attack but is complicated by politics which adds a layer that both strengthens it and weakens it in different and complex ways. So you should be skeptical about those who claim that NaS (Nothing at Stake) is fictional and those that claim that there cannot be possible future solutions to secure PoS from NaS attacks.
The Nxt team of partially secret developers(the lack of a diverse developer pool and secrecy is a security concern in itself -- https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-core-developer-jeff-garzik-believes-nxt-is-a-scamcoin/ ) are still fleshing out the whitepaper and new consensus algorithm so we really cannot fully weigh the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed future in "Transparent Forging"
So a coin with combined PoS and PoW can be attacked both ways? I thought if a coin with combined PoW and PoS, an attack has to attack PoW and PoS part simultaneously.
Coins themselves can't be attacked. Only your ability to spend or receive them can be attacked.Sorry, I mean the coin network.
So a coin with combined PoS and PoW can be attacked both ways? I thought if a coin with combined PoW and PoS, an attack has to attack PoW and PoS part simultaneously.
Coins themselves can't be attacked. Only your ability to spend or receive them can be attacked.
So a coin with combined PoS and PoW can be attacked both ways? I thought if a coin with combined PoW and PoS, an attack has to attack PoW and PoS part simultaneously.
I would like to rephrase my question.
If a coin has both PoS and PoW, is it more secure than a coin with either PoS or PoW only?
when it's in pow phase it is as secure as pow and same goes for pos phase.. How it achieved consensus in the past has zero effect on the present or future If a coin has both PoS and PoW, is it more secure than a coin with either PoS or PoW only?
I would like to rephrase my question.
If a coin has both PoS and PoW, is it more secure than a coin with either PoS or PoW only?
Security has been a non-issue since PGP was created for email. All of them are secure. Trust is the issue between them. When you make a transaction, will it actually go through? That is the current debate. If a coin has both PoS and PoW, is it more secure than a coin with either PoS or PoW only?
At least PoS has some positive attributes.
I think that is as close as we can get to agreeing with each other
It should not be a war between PoW and PoS, but between crypto and fiat. Both Bitcoin and Nxt are great ideas and they can get mass adoption in the long term.
I would like to rephrase my question.
If a coin has both PoS and PoW, is it more secure than a coin with either PoS or PoW only?
If a coin has both PoS and PoW, is it more secure than a coin with either PoS or PoW only?
PoS is not a great idea. It replaces the competitive drive to innovate technology with authority.
I don't know where the authority part should come from. You seem to like the idea that a government will use a PoS coin (to control people? to conserve power?).
Why would a government be interested in a currency with fixed supply?
PoS is not a great idea. It replaces the competitive drive to innovate technology with authority.
I don't know where the authority part should come from. You seem to like the idea that a government will use a PoS coin (to control people? to conserve power?).
Why would a government be interested in a currency with fixed supply?
cbeast after reading Satoshi's paper you'll see that "CPU power" is the term used (for mining). The idea is great (Nobel-Prize worthy actually).
But the romantic times are gone: mining pools and ASIC factories brought everyone back to earth.
Now massive centralization is the reality.
TL;DR same problems as PoS but at the same time wasting tons of energy.
But the romantic times are gone: mining pools and ASIC factories brought everyone back to earth.
Now massive centralization is the reality.
TL;DR same problems as PoS but at the same time wasting tons of energy.
Quote
You think the cipherpunks were romantic?
Yes. But it was meant figuratively (you know bad fiat, bad central bank, power to the people and math ...)Quote
You think they couldn't predict the technology vectors?
Sure. But they couldn't predict the speed of success. ASICS came with the success.Quote
ASICs are just a technology that will be replaced by something faster and more efficient.
Again, sure. And your point is?Quote
PoS is not a great idea. It replaces the competitive drive to innovate technology with authority. PoS is Luddism incarnate.
It's better than the derailed idea of PoW, IMO. Innovation is not only hardware-races, sorry. PoS is sophistication for the moment - reason see the TL;DR of my previous post. Jump to: