OK, lets clarify ,
The Overall Percentage of
Staking Coins determines the Security ,
(Which we should be able to agree on.) However Coins with Larger Numbers , will usually have more coins per block, and therefore have a higher coin-age # .
Yes, but that doesn't make them more secure. It's completely irrelevant if you stake 10 coins of a cryptocurrency with a supply of 1000 units or 10000 coins in a cryptocurrency with a supply of 100000 units. You have 1% in both cases. Coin age doesn't change anything there - you must calculate the "total possible coin age" and then your percentage of it, then you can determine your probability to get a PoS block.
A "coin" (e.g. 1 BTC) is an arbitrary division of the total supply. The "satoshi" is already a better measure because it's indivisible (at least on-chain), but the quantity of satoshis is not relevant for PoS either.
You are Correct the % is the Same, however you are not factoring in the Price per coin as a deterrent.
hashProofOfStake <= [Coin-age] x [Difficulty]
[Coin-age] = [amount of coins] x [days in stake]
Example
Amount of coins in a staked block = 10000
Difficulty =2
Days in Stake = 5
[Coin-age] = [amount of coins] x [days in stake]
50000 = 10000 x 5
hashProofOfStake <= [Coin-age] x [Difficulty]
100000 = 50000 x 2
If we decrease by 100 to 1 then the Amount of coins in a staked block = 100
[Coin-age] = [amount of coins] x [days in stake]
500 = 100 x 5
hashProofOfStake <= [Coin-age] x [Difficulty]
1000 = 500 x 2
Instead of a hashProofOfStake of 100000 protecting the block, then our security will be only 1000 protecting the block.
If the coins were $1 each.
It would require $100,001 to beat the Hash Proof of stake for that block of 100000 .
( , is used as a thousands indicator US style.)Where only $1001 dollars is required to beat the security of the 1000 hashProofOfStake block.
$100,001 verses $1001 , can you guess which is more secure?
He's not the only person coming to the conclusion that N@S is a problem to deal with, and I'm not talking only about Bitcoin Maximalists like Andrew Poelstra. Forum user @kushti has done a lot of research about it, see
here. He is a NXTer, so he is pro-PoS.
None of these so called Genius came to any conclusion on N@S,
G.Maxwell made the shit up as a propaganda tool against Proof of Stake,
(because surprise he makes his money from PoW companies.) And these so called Genius are so stupid , they can't see G.Maxwell Lied.
They all figure ,
Ok G.Maxwell is a smart guy, so there must be something to it.
What he is , is a straight up Liar , and the majority of people don't have the IQ to see thru his lies.
There is No reward for Multistaking, there is No extra Control of the Transactions system,
the Lie has been out for a few years now, and there are NO Multistaking Wallets.
Multistaking on a PoS coin is a waste of time.
The only thing the N@S Lie does is give PoW Supporters a way to scare Newbies away from PoS.
N@S is the Ultimate FUD, because there has never been ACTUAL PROOF it could cause any problems, except from the lies of G.Maxwell.
If you bother to follow the details of the N@S Fud, like I did, you can see it is Bullshit and will not hurt a PoS Chain Whatsoever.
FYI:
I read your link, and did you read the 2nd link in it.https://www.reddit.com/r/NXT/comments/2sewhu/nothing_at_stake_attack_researched_and_deemed_not/Nothing-at-stake attack - not possible at the moment! Will be possible when a lot of forgers will use multiple-branch forging to increase profits. Then attacker can contribute to all the chains(some of them e.g. containing a transaction) then start to contribute to one chain only behind the best(containing no transaction) making it winner. Previous statements on N@S attack
made with assumption it costs nothing to contribute to an each fork possible and that makes N@S attack a disaster.
In fact, it's not possible at all to contribute to each fork possible, as number of forks growing exponentially with time. So the only strategy for a multibranch forger is to contribute to N best forks. In such scenario attack is possible only within short-range e.g. with 25 confirmations needed 10% attacker can't make an attack. And attack is pretty random in nature, it's impossible to predict whether 2 forks will be within N best forks(from exponentially growing set) for k confirmations.
So from our point of view the importance of the attack is pretty overblown.
They missed the fact , their is no increased reward for mutistaking , but they were smart enough to see it's IMPORTANCE is OVERBLOWN!
One of the Biggest Lies about Multistaking is it will Increase Profits, the fact is it will not increase Profits at all.
If your Block was strong enough to stake on 2 forks, it would have staked on 1 fork, but you only get 1 Reward No Matter how many forks , you are staking on.
It was overblown because a Liar named G.Maxwell made it UP!