Topic: Nothing at stake in proof of stake (Read 2982 times)

I guess what I am saying, is that if there are two chains, why would you not publish the same stake to both chains? If the split happened before the modifier interval has changed (which is the only thing that would alter your utxo hashed kernel value from one chain to the other) then you should have almost identical ability to publish to both chains, assuming that difficulty is relatively similar between the two. You can publish to both chains without modifying a client either, simply all you would need to do is run two nodes, one on each chain.

Of course, the primary rule is usually based difficulty or chain length. Afaik, some coins do use "first seen" as a secondary rule to select between chains that have the same difficulty/length.  

The modifier interval is a method applied by some PoS coins in order to protect against N@S attacks. Naive PoS schemes in which the next block's hash target is derived from the previous block, are susceptible for this kind of attack. At least this is how I understand Vitalik's blog post:

I agree, checkpoints (whether centralized or decentralized) can offer a solution against this kind of attack. My post was based on the naive implementation of a PoS coin with no special protective measures against N@S.

It is usually based on difficulty. Not a first seen basis. It does I suppose have an element of first seen, in that you can only orphan so many blocks.. usually 6 or 12 at a time.

If you are within the same modifier interval, then it is actually extremely likely that you will get the same stake kernel on both chains. Why wouldn't you?


This only works if the coin has never had any checkpoints added to it. And even if it hasn't had checkpoints added, then it would have to be a coin that uses coin age, which a lot of the modern PoS clones don't do.

Really all you have to do is add a checkpoint after the coins have had a decent distribution, and then this argument #2 is pretty much void.

If a) the protocol foresees a "first seen"-rule that prefers blocks that you received first, b) everybody is abiding to this rule (not using modified clients) and c) network latency is evenly distributed among the nodes, then probably yes.

As I explained in the probabilistic approach, you don't even have to actually mine on both and send two blocks. It's even extremely unlikely that you will succeed on both. To maxime your chances it suffices to just check and see if you can mine on any of the two blocks, no matter which one you received first. Such a behaviour can distrupt consensus.

Yes, please check out the links in my previous post for further details.

Ideally, you would try to buy coins from early adopters when the coin wasn't popular already. That should make it "easier" to buy keys representing a large precentage of stake that existed at that early stage. However, as pointed out in the NeuCoin paper I cited, even if you possess a majority of historic stake it seems that you still have no realistic chances to win the battle since you'd still have to compete with 100% of the stake.

If there is a a big-enough market for short selling the coins, you could sell at a predefined price without the need of buying the stake beforehand. So, the subsequent devaluation of the coin caused by your attack wouldn't affect this price.

Another attack vector (that is even working wihtout the possibility of short selling) is to regularly buy 51% of the coin and launch lower scale attacks that remain largely uncovered and thus don't have a negative impact on the market price.

#1 Fails is Bullshit  (This was covered on the 1st page of this topic already.)
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17135430
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17136990

#2 Fails is Bullshit
Between the increased Difficulty, and hard coded checkpoints in the Software, # 2 fails.

#3 An attacker can rent or short +50% of the existing coins without taking any risk (no unrecoverable sunk costs as opposed to PoW)

LMAO ,    the mythical Short attack, which again I call Bullshit!
Anything , stocks or coins PoW or PoS can be Shorted. But you guys always act like it is so easy.
Fact is YOU HAVE TO PUT UP COLLATERAL TO BORROW AGAINST THE SHORT, and if your short attempts fails, (which there are ZERO Guarantees it will Work.) ,
You lost all of your Collateral and failed in your attempt to hurt the coin. (That is when you realize you were STUPID for thinking shorting was easy.)  
Please pick a coin and show us how easy this is to pull off, until then I am calling it BULLSHIT!


 

FYI:
You can tell you don't know much about Proof of Stake,
in your Shorting Myth you say 50% of the existing coins.
Proof of Stake using Coin Age, means you have to have 51% of coin age, not 51% of the coin supply.
You may have 60% of the coin supply, but if the other 40% has a higher coin age, the PoS coin will be able to resist your 51% attack.  
Also the second you start staking , your coin age % starts dropping, so even if you have 51% of the coinage , once you mine 2% only, you are down to 49% and that is the end of your attack. Which is why Proof of Stake is more resistant to 51% attacks than PoW.  

PoW is an Adversarial Consensus System, which is fighting each other using hash rate.

PoS is a Cooperative Consensus System, where we take turns leading the blockchain,
like a group of runners when one gets tire another leads, together we create the Strongest Chain.

I'm just 'catching up' with POS so apologies in advance.

For #1, if I mine on one fork, doesn't that fork immediately become the one that will get most likely get accepted by the network? If so why even bother with mining on both?  Unless of course my blocks are getting delayed in the network so much that there is risk another POS miner would be selected due to some timeout, then it might make sense to mine on multiple forks in the hope that one of those blocks makes it to the rest of the network in time. But with proper timeouts, this seems unlikely. Plus don't some proposals punish this multiple fork mining behavior?

For #2, when is this attack used, during initial block download? Is the idea to use this stake to try to perform a stake grinding attack in advance and send those blocks to a syncing node instead of real chain?

For #3, I can't obtain access to 50% of coins without exchanging for other tokens, fiat or goods/services can I (with the exception of #2)? Those are sunk costs that I can't recover if I cause problems with POS chain.

There exist multiple variations of N@S weaknesses of non-PoW coins:
#1 Selfish nodes have an incentive to double-mine on multiple forks
#2 Stakeholders have an incentive to sell old, unused keys as they have nothing to lose anymore
#3 An attacker can rent or short +50% of the existing coins without taking any risk (no unrecoverable sunk costs as opposed to PoW)

All three scenarios make it easier and less costly to double-spend or to disrupt the currency, so that an attacker doesn't need to have +50% of the stake in order to carry out his plot.

Double-mining itself (#1) can occur in two different forms:
- Actual double-mining where the node is creating and broadcasting separate blocks on two or more chain forks.
- Probabilistic double-mining where the node tries to mine on top of every chain fork he is aware of, but only broadcasts one single block. PoS coins often foresee a block selection rule that decides which fork to mint on if both have the same length. According to the protocol, you would only mint on top of the fork that you received first. But you have the incentive to modify your client so that you will try to mint on both to maximize your chances of finding a valid block.

Punitive schemes such as Slasher are proposed to defend against actual double-mining by requiring minters to make a depositive that is destroyed if a minter is caught double-minting later on (other minters can prove the fact by making an evidence transaction). The probabilistic mining strategy can be avoided if the next minter is decided before a fork starts. To that end, on can have a protocol in which it's not the current block n that determines the next miner, but an older block down the chain (n - k). This way you either have the opportunity to mint on both or neither fork (provided that the fork is not longer than k blocks).

NeuCoin uses a different punitive scheme in which both blocks of the double-minter are simply discarded by the other nodes.

Concerning #2, the linked paper also shows (p. 30) how difficult it is for an attacker to rewrite the history as he needs (virtual) time to catch up with the network.


It appears that N&S attacks of the types #1 and #2 can be successfully prevented by incorporating appropriate incentive/disincentive mechanisms in the protocol.
On the other hand, I'm not aware of any cryptocurrency (or white paper) that solves or at least tackles issue #3. That's why I'm currently working on my own proposal to solve (or at least mitigate) this fundamental problem.

BurstCoin's PoC is PoS or PoW. You were refuted at your other two linked above.

Your knowledge is insufficient. You are not even making the strong arguments against PoS, which I already pointed out. Arguing against checkpoints is the weakest argument you can make against PoS.

I am in favor of PoS, though I've been always saying that I'm not a coder.

PressTab already answered that one, Check the Block Explorer after you sync for the 1st time. PoS or PoW  
GetPeerinfo tells you what height the other peers are on.


New Nodes, (PressTab's Answer) ,
Lightweight clients are linked thru electrum, which has a synced block chain monitored by professionals that compare it with the Block Explorer.



WTF, dude mail me some of what you are smoking , I want some.  

Proof of Stake has been out long enough, and no one has even pulled off an actual sybil attack
I am sorry it is like freaking out that a black hole it going to open and destroy the Planet Earth in the next 24 hours.
Is it Possible, sure many things are Possible,
Is it Probable , odds are against it.

Sybil while in theory Possible, is Very Improbable , Thanks to Checkpoints , Honest Nodes, & Just Checking the block explorer to compare chains.  
You going to need a better Boogeyman to scare the Proof of Stake Community.

Personally for boogeymen , I prefer the Legend of Wooley Swamp.  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSM7voOCkU0

 

I accidentally used the wrong term. I meant DNS seed, not seed node. DNS seed points to peers, seed node is just a node that is usually connected to the network.

bitcoin uses DNS seeds nodes too... right now they have 6 of them.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/chainparams.cpp#L120

There has to be a network discovery mechanism. This is universal for any type of proof system. Or for that matter, any peer to peer software.

Edit - The old way of network discovery was for the wallet client to join an irc channel and announce that you are seeking peers. This I suppose could have been more decentralized than the current version (although the centralization becomes the irc channel), but now is looked at as more of a security risk than anything else.

is this kind of attack possible only with standard pos coin like diamond, or with new type of pos coin like decred and especially etheruem? i think etehruem work in different way right we should be safe with it?

If you have an honest node, why not just have the node control everyone's balance and sign all transactions?
The key premise of a decentralized system is that there is no hub node that can be trusted.

Coins usually have a seed node hard coded into the wallet. That seed node points new syncers to nodes. If the seed node is an honest node, which it should be because it is typically commissioned by the developers, then as you admit.... an honest node is hard to fool. If that seed node is not easily fooled, it will also only be connected to other honest nodes. This means that new syncers will be pointed towards honest nodes.

But, I will reiterate. Whether you are syncing bitcoin for the first time, or whether you are syncing the smallest PoS coin for the first time. It would be awfully stupid not to check that you are on the correct chain when you are done syncing.

Yes, the fake chain would not be able to convert honest nodes, but anyone new joining the network would have no basis for deciding which nodes are honest and which are Sybil nodes.
This includes new nodes and any lightweight client that may house a wallet.
PoS turns into a p***ing contest between the true chain and fake chains generated by attackers, and eventually degrades into a messy PoW system that defeats the purpose of PoS.
PoS is a good dream, but the best we can do in a "decentralized and protected" fashion is to shift the PoW from power-bound work to hardware-bound work systems where the mining gear must lie unused for most of the time (BurstCoin, Bitcoin Tic-Tac Coopetition mining, My cyclic PoW scheme) or to recycle the computing power using protein folding PoW (questionable security) or prime chains.

Decentralization can be increased by providing miners with an extra, non-transferable incentive that the user does not need much of (marginal utility declines with amount) such as reserved space in blocks. This may require signature based PoW.

Currently your design is just shit, but I still give you the benefit of the doubt that it will evolve into something better.  

Just because the top coin is not currenly PoS , does not mean it won't happen in the future.  

I trust my PoS coins more than any PoW coin especially BTC, considering the mining Pools can delay or refuse transactions and basically hold my PoW coins hostage at will.
Plus right at this very moment the Chinese Mining Pools have the Power to Overwrite the last 8 to 12 hours of transactions at will.
Funny how no one worries about that.  

 

Something like what Theymos proposed here should be the most robust and secure solution: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/idea-for-an-altcoin-3-way-hybrid-pow-1654457

There is a reason there is not a $12 billion mcap PoShit coin[1]. If ever there is, then you will find out that your "security" is not. Read my rebuttal of Dan linked in my prior post. I will not respond again. You use unfalsified claims, which is not science.

I am eagerly awaiting Ethereum to blow itself up with Casper "the Friendly Ghost".


I am not embracing PoShit. My design is not PoShit.


[1] And it isn't just because of security fears, but also because PoS is a political clusterfuck from the start. Network effects are destroyed by politics. Take Nxt, Steem, Bitshares as pertainent examples. Then again, Bitcoin has now reached the point of centralization and has also entered a political clusterfuck too. But PoW did at least scale before it became centralized by China + Blockstream and reached the upper limit of the volume it could do decentralized.

Here is theory for you to tangle with.

Quantum Computer creates a Virtual System , that has time emulated where 1 nanosecond emulates 1 normal second in the real world.
Inside this virtual system the time is set back to a month before btc was created.
Using the Quantum computer abilities, it creates a PoW blockchain that is longer with more difficulty in a fraction of the time.

* And the only thing that stops it from overwriting the Bitcoin PoW blockchain are those little checkpoints. * 

PoW or PoS face many of the same dangers.


 

We ignore you old friend , because you're too long winded.  

Checkpoints stop longer range history attacks and the between Difficulty # and waiting for confirmations PoS is safe to use.
And I don't want to waste time arguing with you either, so instead of writing a Book , pick a PoS coin and Prove your Exploits.
Don't talk theory , Prove it Real World , until then , I will trust the checkpoints and Difficulty #, and wait for the required confirmations.

Don't forget a year ago , you were against all forms of PoS and now you are promising your new coin will be a form of DPOS (with your fixes of course.)  

By the way your talk of Shorting a coin (like shorting a stock) , like I told you in the past, if you think Shorting is that easy,
Pick a coin and show me how you kill it by shorting it, (It is not as easy as you make out.) .


 

FYI:  Now you claim to Know , what you think I Know.