Topic: It's about time to turn off PoW mining - page 8. (Read 39732 times)

Yep all my miners are off now. Everything is in PoS with MMXIV and BALLS. I make more staking thoae two on the 5w dedicated staker than I was with several tens of terahashes and a huge electricity bill every month

I actually agree that Nxt and Bitshares are far cheaper to secure than Bitcoin. The thing we disagree upon (and I am not even sure myself) is how secure each of these are comparitively as you cannot directly compare their security models as there are many nuances.

So it could be possible that nxt and bitshares are more secure than Bitcoin(if you remove all the developers and user advantage BTC has) or it could be that Nxt /Bitshares only achieves 97% of the security bitcoin does and that extra 3 % is very expensive to achieve. Who knows...  I suppose we will see.

You are welcome. It is all about coming to a better understanding together! That is the value of a discussion for me.

I think it makes sense to keep two things apart: The technical discussion about what algo is more efficient and what the market prices things at.
The market does not only consider efficiency of the algo and is often not very rational anyway (at least in the short run).

Is DPOS more efficient? Depends on your definition of efficiency. I think we can agree that efficiency here can be defined as security per cost. We debated a lot here what is more secure and it seems impossible to agree on what is finally more secure. I argued that DPOS is more secure at scale since reputation (of delegates) is something that can be very very valuable (especially if delegates are not only individuals big corporate entities that value their reputation a lot) but does not have direct costs (like burning electricity).
What can be observed as a fact though is that the network security costs of Bitcoin at the moment are far higher than for BitShares, in total anyway but also in relative terms: Bitcoin has a ~ 10 dilution per year, BitShares has a ~ 1% dilution per year. This 1% is mainly due to paid developer delegates (http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2qv3rt/i_turned_down_an_offer_from_google_to_be_the/). It would be about pretty close to zero (I guess ~ <0.1% dilution) if delegates would only be there for security like miners are paid with 10% newly issued coins per year also only for security and not for developing....


It is great to see that we agree on this part That was exactly what I was saying with "the market also considers other factors aside from efficiency and that efficiency is more a long term consideration".

Thanks for admitting you were wrong. So I suppose we can agree that kokojie jumped to the conclusion and we don't know if DPoS is more efficient than PoW because others could point to this historical data and show that the inflation that occurred to support the delegates was the reason for the price decline relative to Bitcoin and that DPoS security model depends more upon social methods with delegates and election process and Bitcoin more upon ASICs/electricity to achieve security.

So we still don't really know unless this reverses itself and we start seeing trend lines of Bitcoin dropping to multiple PoS / DPoS coins . Additionally, if we want to be fair, even if all DPoS and PoS coins weaken against bitcoin over the next few years it doesn't prove PoW is superior to DPoS /TaPoS for security as Bitcoin could simply perform better because of the network effect and first mover advantage regardless of whether it is more or less efficient.

It is really cool all these tests with DPoS and PoS are happening regardless. Nxt and Bitshares have proven they have real development and developers backing them unlike paycoin2 ponzicoin.

Ah your are right there. Thanks for the hint! It would be correct to say that the delta between the blue and the yellow line is the price drop of BTC and the delta you mentioned is the price decrease in BTS. So we are on the same page here.

The answer I guess is that it has not anything to do with DPOS directly. Marketing was not done well with BitShares to this point (the marketing directors has been fired). And there were delays with respect to 1.0 status of the client. People thought that a stable 1.0 version would come at the end of 2013 as well as marketing which depends partly on 1.0 capabilities.

The point the OP made is that LONG TERM the circumstance that miners have to sell their coins to fund their operations and the associated dilution of btc holders by which miners are paid will take effect. Short term speculation will always overrule this long term efficiency problem as it is the case with BTS at the moment.

You may take a look at two marketing initiatives BitShares has started as an answer to the problems above: http://tv.bitshares.org/ and http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/

No, here you go :

http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitshares-x/

Price of BTS(x) on sept 5 2014= 0.00006497 BTS
Price of BTS(x) on Jan 3 2015= 0.00005277 BTS

This means that bitshares has dropped against BTC by almost 19%

So why is DPoS doing so poorly against PoW with bitcoin ?

Nxt hasn't done well either against BTC:

http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/nxt/

You are reading the chart wrong. The blue line is the price of BTS in BTC (see right side of the chart), not the price of BTC. BTS has gained in value against BTC.

If this is true than what has Bitshares fallen to Bitcoin(DPoS coin you are promoting)?

You started this thread on Sept 5 2014 and look at how much Bitshares has dropped compared to Bitcoin(Price and market cap):



Do you acknowledge this ? Why do you think Bitshares is dropping being that PoW is so wasteful compared to DPoS?

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2r77td/lets_talk_about_the_price/

It's funny to see everyone asking "why the price is constantly dropping". While the answer is right in front of them.

Bitcoin price went down $70 since I made this post.

Without significant new money to offset PoW mining expense, all Bitcoin holders are basically screwed and pays the mining tax perpetually.

At current stage i would say "no" because it will be too drastic. However once all the 21 million has been mined, we should consider it. I assume distribution would not be a problem by then.

I see what you did there.

Good point! What was the reason ethereum didn't go with slasher? I think it wasn't super scaleable.

Nope, no centralized checkpoints in Nxt.

Quoting the wiki:


and

NXT uses automatic rolling checkpoints 720 blocks deep in its bootstrapping phase (which is now). After it is out of the bootstrapping phase and Transparent Forging is implemented, this window should be only 10 blocks deep.

NAS is solved with Bergstake: https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/10/03/slasher-ghost-developments-proof-stake/

also see Slasher: https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/10/03/slasher-ghost-developments-proof-stake/
 

Nxt doesn't use checkpoints? I doubt  that. are you saying that there is 0 developer centralization in nxt? I dont believe it.

Did Nxt change it original PoS algorithm, where you can sign blocks based on a hit number?
 

Don't mine. If you want to get a bitcoin just buy them.. A lot of trouble in mining.

about checkpoints and NAS https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6638.0

Nxt doesn't use checkpoints. Please don't talk about PoS coins as if they were all the same. They use different algorithms.

Let's just say it's diabolical.