Topic: Noob Q: Can bitcoin be turned into POS? - page 4. (Read 3917 times)

What about it, it had nothing to do with N@S.

PoS or PoW Coin gets hacked, odds are the thief will sell on another exchange and crash the market.
Time Passes and the price recovers or the coin dies , no difference PoS or PoW.

or are you afraid of 1 entity controlling network.
Hate to break it to you , all PoW coins will become over 51% controlled by 1 entity. (Due to economic factors.)
BTC with China having ~67% for over a year now. (already happened)

PoS Coins not as big a deal, because the ones that use coin age ,
PoS coins deactivate after staking for a prescribed amount of time, unlike ASICS where they maintain the exact same % of ASICS.
So you can have 60% of the coins and someone else with a higher coin age per block can outstake you,
PoS is in constant flux, not static like PoW.  

 

It's possible but I doubt if miners and stakes holders will want to change the algo now that mining is already finished but in case Bitcoin changed from pow to pos at the end of the mining,there's a possibility that the price of bitcoin will increase as big whales will prefer to stake their coins.

what about the notorious case of mintcoin and mint exchange, where users were holding the majority of their coins in the exchange, who was then hacked and therefore there was the possibility to do an attack because the hacker had the majority of the coins under his control?

it's dangerous for pos to have all the coins in the same place, and with people rushing to sell them at certain price they end deposit a large amount on the exchange

It is an attack that HAS NEVER BEEN EXECUTED ON ANY COIN!

None of the CURRENT PoS WALLETS ARE MULTISTAKING, until MULTISTAKING POS WALLETS ARE CREATED , an attack from that BS LIE, can not even be attempted.

LONG RANGE ATTACKS ARE IMPOSSIBLE , past a Checkpoint!  

If a Network Splits the internet in Half , then it will cause problems for any coins.
But only if it happen for a time period longer than the rolling or hard coded checkpoint.
Reorgs would happen , if no checkpoint was in place, BTC & most Alts use Hard coded Checkpoints, so a PoW coin could also be affected.
But either way redownloading a blockchain is no big deal if some catastrophe just cut the internet in half for a week or two.
You seem to not understand that PoS coins also reorg to the Longest Chain with the Highest Difficulty.  

I said rolling checkpoint could be used if N@S was a problem,
but it is not a problem, if you have bothered to read my links where I detailed out the 2 different concerns of a N@S and why it was a non issue.  

LONG RANGE ATTACKS ARE BLOCKED IN PoS by Proof of Hash : proofhash< coinage * target
So the higher the Difficulty and the longer the chain , the harder a history rewrite attack becomes.

The people that want you to believe that lie state, a staker will stake a block on 2 separate forks at the same time.

The Staker will receive the exact same reward of coins on either fork,
if the block was strong enough to stake on both forks , it definitely would have staked on the single fork.
So by trying to stake on 2 forks all he does is allow someone else to determine the stronger fork, it is stupidly at its worst.
If some asshat ever does write a multistaking Wallet ,
it will look like so
Forks
2
4
8
16
32
64
128
256
512
1024
2048
4096
8192
16384
32768  Different Forks drain CPU & Memory & Bandwidth

That is only a 15 Blocks long multistaking chain, anyone that can't see it will drive your Ram & CPU & Bandwith Sky high is an idiot.
Which will also increase power consumption , destroying the energy efficiency of PoS.

And for what, absolutely nothing , you earn the same amount of coins on a single chain as a multiforked chain, you just waste more resources on a multifork.
Waste of time.

 

FYI:
Attempting to Multistake on a PoS coin does not make you a smooth criminal , it makes you an idiot , because there is no reward for doing it.
G.Maxwell Started the N@S Lie, and now he spreads lies about how BTC can't increase block size or move to a faster blockspeed, when alts have been doing it for years.

It's not a lie, kiklo. It's an attack with at least theoretical relevance, although practically as far as I know the only time a PoS coin was successfully attacked was CynicSOB's APEXcoin attack in 2014 (?) and that was a pretty dead coin.

Why would NXT have a "reorg prohibition"?

The problem of rolling checkpoints is:
- if you connect to the chain and just at this moment an attacker is trying to do a long-range attack and you connect first to him, you will follow his fake chain. You will never catch up to the "real" chain because of reorg prohibition. If you want to use your coins you could get even double-spent by the attacker because in that chain he probably has a large stake majority.
- if the network splits for more blocks than the reorg prohibition because of an external factor (bandwidth problems between parts of the world) then the "minor" split will have to redownload the whole blockchain.

Both cases are, above all, problems for users without technical knowledge. But the "longest chain" rule in PoW coins avoids them.

Nothing at Stake , the Biggest Lie out there.
If N@S was a big deal, which it is not, all that has to be done to stop it is a rolling checkpoint , say after 100 blocks , No reorgs are allowed.
But that is unnecessary because N@S is a LIE.

Details
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17135430

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17136990

Theymos proposed a Hybrid PoW / PoS system for BTC.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/idea-for-an-altcoin-3-way-hybrid-pow-1654457


 

@dinofelis: It's unfortunately not that easy. N@S is a potential threat, above all because of the infamous "history attack". It's difficult to perform on a mature chain and very probably won't give the attacker any profits (even if he shorts the coins), but in the case a big malicious actor (banks, governments) conspire, they could do more harm with this kind of attack than with 51%ing a PoW currency.

There have been numerous ways to deal with it, including centralized checkpoints (Peercoin and clones), rolling decentralized checkpoints ("reorg prohibition" of NXT), trust inclusion (NEM) and Byzantine Agreement (Casper, DPOS), but all have drawbacks. They however work, for now, buit in most sources you will hear that they are less secure than PoW and depend on "weak subjectivity" (having a trusted party as a source for the blockchain when you first connect to the network).

I heard, however, that there is a "famous" Bitcoin Core dev that could imagine a switch to PoS if it's secure enough for him.

The best bet for a really secure algorithm would be, in my opinion, for now a hybrid design like Decred. It could save ~50-70% of Bitcoin's energy use.

Instead of pos you could benefit off a node instead I think. Bitcoin doesn't really need pos. Pos is normally for quick and short term investments and sometimes coin burning is required.

I would propose even a PoS system that is not:
- rewarding anything (you just do it to keep the system running)
- necessarily proportional to stake.  I see it more like the "masternode" scheme of DASH, where you lock a modest amount of coins (say, 1 BTC) to your node in order for you to be uniformly eligible to mint a block.  Yes, if you have 100 coins, you CAN set up 100 nodes, and lock each of the single 1 BTC addresses to one node.  Why not.  But each of these nodes are separate minters. 

Essentially, when switching to that system, the amount of bitcoin is then blocked for ever, no new coin will ever be created on that chain.  NO rewards, no fees.  Nodes mint blocks when they see they are eligible, with the transactions they feel fit to put in a block.  They don't care if their block is finally orphaned by a "higher-value" block or not, they are just making the network run.  No greed, just altruism to make the node run.

That's what I mean: bitcoin is frozen now, it is what it is (in my opinion, also with its 1MB block).

If you change the algorithm to POS, then it will not be bitcoin anymore. It will be another alt-coin. Even though there are a lot of energy needed to run this system, I think it is way safer than just being controlled by whales.

If bitcoin can be mined using POS then it will give power to the community to mine bitcoins without having to think about the difficulty. If POS is the system for bitcoin then I have purchase a huge amount of bitcoins so I can start staking my bitcoins and will be earning a significant amount from just turning on my computer. If we have POS in bitcoin then we are no longer having problems on confirmations and high miner fees.

It maybe possible but no one will want to have that system who are the users of bitcoin for them bitcoin is a best and perfect in its own technology and they will feel fear of any inconvenience in any other system shift. For bitcoin I also favor for POW

Yes, PoS can of course be forked from bitcoin.  PoS has some theoretical problems, but at least, it doesn't need to waste $400 million a year on "cryptographic security", because PoS is cryptographically secure with digital signatures, not with "good guys can spend more electricity than an attacker".

PoS has, as a cryptographic security system, far, far more security than PoW.  However, PoS WITH REWARDS (fees and coinbase) is problematic, because you run into the problem of "nothing at stake".  PoS without any reward, purely voluntarily, like the people running bitcoin nodes right now, would be perfectly safe, because nobody has any "stakes" in minting fake blocks, apart from the ones wanting to double spend, but the PoS system can be made such that the probability that they are allowed to mint the block in which they double-spend is extremely small after a few confirmations.

My idea is that a PoS system without rewards is perfectly safe.

The way PoW is centralized in bitcoin, it would be a good thing to go to PoS.  But it won't happen, because bitcoin is "frozen in" now.  Any PoS fork of bitcoin wouldn't be called bitcoin, and as the name "bitcoin" is all it has going for it, that would be the end of it.

Another noob question. What is this POS?
As far as i undersatnd if you hold a big amount of bitcoin you'll get a staking power to manipulate the market ?
How is it exactly?

my question :
1. is it posible to change bitcoin to POS ?
2. who will do for its change?
3. who will be a decision maker to do that and after that who will make a decision about the rate percentage of POS per year?

Everything is possible in computer world. As you guessed, it would be needed to community to accept this change, to understand this change, to wage this change if its good or bad. Smarter people that develop bitcoin code everyday know better .

If it was a change that have only advatages it would be live now, but its not like that. It have disadvantages also.

fortunately we have the consensus, and without that it would only be another altcoin, that pretend to be bitcoin with crap parameters and all sort of copy paste that you can find already in the alt section

pos is definitely bad, but the decred pos iss another thing, if Bitcoin really need to go pos in the future, i would choose the decred pos with a system based on buying ticket to earn reward

PoW Miners control BTC, they will Never Share that Power with the Masses.
(Proof of Stake would make that happen, and they will block it from ever being integrated to maintain their monopoly.)

So if you can't buy a warehouse full of ASICS, you can't be part of their group. 


 

FYI:
Could BTC switch to PoS , Answer: Sure

Truth: the PoW Miners will never allow it to happen.

if bitcoin support POS, can stake in wallet and get return i think is bad
because bitcoin price always down, because can much suply use stake system