Proof-of-stake can never scale without blowing up, because PoS isn't trustless - page 5.

kiklo

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: iamnotback on July 14, 2016, 04:47:35 AM

Quote from: kiklo on July 14, 2016, 04:42:28 AM

No you lost , claiming no white paper makes no difference the actual code is for all to see, a white paper may not truly reflect what is in the code.
Saying a White paper is more important than the actual code is the sign of a fool.

Plus are you calling Presstab a liar also , his direct quote stated they don't use checkpoint servers either.

You can provide a white paper explaining your algorithm so then it is possible to go verify the source not being blind as to what is actually supposed to be done.

If you have no white paper, you are just blowing hot air claims out of your arse.

I am not having a discussion with Presstab, I don't know who he is, I don't know the context of the quote of him you provided, and I don't need to go off on a tangent of him. I can merely check the specifics of your algorithm if you provide them. Otherwise we can safely assume you are a blowhard (which is obvious by now any way).

PressTab is a Dev and an excellent programmer , on a different PoS that does not use a checkpoint server.
PM him and maybe he will point you to a whitepaper Or PM Rat4 who created a PoS 3 for advice, or use blackcoin's http://blackcoin.co/blackcoin-pos-protocol-v2-whitepaper.pdf if it means that much to you.
They use a rolling checkpoint like NXT , which they only added a few months ago , but no checkpoint server.
See you need to read up on PoS before you make broad statements like the invaild OP. Wink

FYI:
Rat4 is a Smart Guy, but I disagree with him about Coin Age , used properly IMO it can help safeguard a coin.
He went to # of confirmations with his V3 of PoS, instead of Coin Age. But he has a white paper so that should make you happy.

iamnotback

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 265

Quote from: kiklo on July 14, 2016, 04:42:28 AM

No you lost , claiming no white paper makes no difference the actual code is for all to see, a white paper may not truly reflect what is in the code.
Saying a White paper is more important than the actual code is the sign of a fool.

Plus are you calling Presstab a liar also , his direct quote stated they don't use checkpoint servers either.

You can provide a white paper explaining your algorithm so then it is possible to go verify the source not being blind as to what is actually supposed to be done.

If you have no white paper, you are just blowing hot air claims out of your arse.

I am not having a discussion with Presstab, I don't know who he is, I don't know the context of the quote of him you provided, and I don't need to go off on a tangent of him. I can merely check the specifics of your algorithm if you provide them. Otherwise we can safely assume you are a blowhard (which is obvious by now any way).

Quote from: kiklo on July 14, 2016, 04:42:28 AM

The algorithm is Scrypt for ZEIT & Mintcoin ,

Scrypt is PoW. You claimed your coin was PoS. WTF Huh

kiklo

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: iamnotback on July 14, 2016, 04:34:46 AM

Quote from: kiklo on July 14, 2016, 03:06:43 AM

Go review the code on github asshat.
Links to github are on the web site.

I asked for the white paper specification on the algorithm you have implemented. I shouldn't need to waste days of my time rummaging in your source code to reverse engineering your algorithm.

If you don't have a white paper, then well we can't really take you seriously any way.

Look my thread was no threat to your tiny coin. My subject title is about coins that scale up to be $billion market caps and will thus be attacked. You picked a fight and lost. So now please go home. You aren't forthcoming on the details of the algorithm you claim, so we can't discuss anything you refuse to provide the specifics on.

No you lost , claiming no white paper makes no difference the actual code is for all to see, a white paper may not truly reflect what is in the code.
Saying a White paper is more important than the actual code is the sign of a fool.

Plus are you calling Presstab a liar also , his direct quote stated they don't use checkpoint servers either.

You lost and you know it, what whiny little excuses besides the whitepaper are you going to use to cover that fragile ego, I just cracked. Cheesy

FYI:
The algorithm is Scrypt for ZEIT & Mintcoin ,
Scrypt is also used in HoboNickel, but HBN is PoS /PoW and uses a checkpoint server we don't.

iamnotback

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 265

Quote from: kiklo on July 14, 2016, 03:06:43 AM

Go review the code on github asshat.
Links to github are on the web site.

I asked for the white paper specification on the algorithm you have implemented. I shouldn't need to waste days of my time rummaging in your source code to reverse engineering your algorithm.

If you don't have a white paper, then well we can't really take you seriously any way.

Look my thread was no threat to your tiny coin. My subject title is about coins that scale up to be $billion market caps and will thus be attacked. You picked a fight and lost. So now please go home. You aren't forthcoming on the details of the algorithm you claim, so we can't discuss anything you refuse to provide the specifics on.

kiklo

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: iamnotback on July 14, 2016, 02:59:22 AM

Quote from: kiklo on July 14, 2016, 02:56:42 AM

Find the whitepaper yourself, you're supposed to be smarter than everyone else.

I am not bullshitting anyone, we don't use a checkpoint server , Never Have , which means your Theory is Full of Shit.

No white paper and you are afraid of peer review of specifics.

Unfalsifiable claims are bullshit.

Bullshit walks. Goodbye.

Go review the code on github asshat.
Links to github are on the web site.
Then read all of the forums from the beginning and you can see we all ran the wallets over a year without updates
and the checkpoint messages even showed up on the wallets.
It is all recorded in the ZEIT and mintcoin forums.

Whether you admit it or not, I know your theory is wrong. Cheesy

FYI:
Hyperstake does not use a checkpoint server either. Shocked

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=678849.4990;wap

Quote

Quote from: presstab on May 29, 2015, 03:44:09 AM
--
Anyone seeing the synccheckpoint is too old error? We don't use a checkpoint server so I am going to delete this shitty line of code for the next wallet release.

iamnotback

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 265

Quote from: kiklo on July 14, 2016, 02:56:42 AM

Find the whitepaper yourself, you're supposed to be smarter than everyone else.

I am not bullshitting anyone, we don't use a checkpoint server , Never Have , which means your Theory is Full of Shit.

No white paper and you are afraid of peer review of specifics.

Unfalsifiable claims are bullshit.

Bullshit walks. Goodbye.

kiklo

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: iamnotback on July 14, 2016, 02:42:43 AM

Quote from: kiklo on July 14, 2016, 02:17:39 AM

First off they are not Mandatory , ZEIT & Mint ran over a year with No Checkpoints & No Forks,
why we got plenty of coins that means plenty of accumulated difficulty to protect the chain.

That is what Ethereum said until they were attacked. Ditto Vericoin, etc.. Shitcoiners always argue an unfalsiable position, which is "we haven't been attacked yet, so we never will".

Instead I asked you for your white paper so I can analyze your design but I can't find one on your website.

ASSHAT, Ethereum is still Proof of Work, not Proof of Stake.

Quote from: http://www.zeit-coin.net/

The interest rate is 25% in the first year, 20% the second year, 15% in the third year. After that, the interest rate is consistently at 5%, until the total amount 99 billion units has been reached.

Concentrating those coins into your pocket. No wonder you are fighting hard here.

Where is the white paper? You are bullshitting until you provide one.

I want to review the specifics of your design. Your use of the term "difficulty" in the context of PoS is ill-defined.

You picked a fight with the wrong person. You will be nailed on the specifics. Of you will refuse to provide them.

Hey I had no problem with you running your little "eco hug the trees" scam over in some corner of the altcoin universe. You didn't need to pick a fight with me, but you chose to do it.

Find the whitepaper yourself, you're supposed to be smarter than everyone else.

I am not bullshitting anyone, we don't use a checkpoint server , Never Have , which means your Theory is Full of Shit. Cheesy

FYI:
If you had bother to research before shooting your Mouth off, you would see not all Proof of Stake Coins use checkpoint servers.

FYI2:
ZEIT , Mintcoin, and Pandacoin don't use checkpoint servers

iamnotback

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 265

Quote from: kiklo on July 14, 2016, 02:17:39 AM

First off they are not Mandatory , ZEIT & Mint ran over a year with No Checkpoints & No Forks,
why we got plenty of coins that means plenty of accumulated difficulty to protect the chain.

That is what Ethereum said until they were attacked. Ditto Vericoin, etc.. Shitcoiners always argue an unfalsiable position, which is "we haven't been attacked yet, so we never will".

Instead I asked you for your white paper so I can analyze your design but I can't find one on your website.

Quote from: http://www.zeit-coin.net/

The interest rate is 25% in the first year, 20% the second year, 15% in the third year. After that, the interest rate is consistently at 5%, until the total amount 99 billion units has been reached.

Concentrating those coins into your pocket. No wonder you are fighting hard here.

Where is the white paper? You are bullshitting until you provide one.

I want to review the specifics of your design. Your use of the term "difficulty" in the context of PoS is ill-defined.

You picked a fight with the wrong person. You will be nailed on the specifics. Of you will refuse to provide them.

Hey I had no problem with you running your little "eco hug the trees" scam over in some corner of the altcoin universe (I always ignore signatures). You didn't need to pick a fight with me, but you chose to do it.

kiklo

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: iamnotback on July 14, 2016, 02:13:41 AM

Quote from: kiklo on July 14, 2016, 02:07:02 AM

They are optional in PoS , just as they are optional in PoW,
that PoS uses accumulated difficulty , why you can't grasp that is beyond me.

Incorrect. Tthey are mandatory in PoS. This was already explained to you. You were asked to cite a reference. I see no reason to repeat what I already taught you.

Quote from: kiklo on July 14, 2016, 02:07:02 AM

Maybe Generalizethis should explain why Monero also uses checkpoints, since you claim they have nothing to fear.

Monero may not yet have sufficient hashrate to be sure they can protect against a longer range hashrate attack.

They may also be protecting against a break in their hash function, since it is new and quite complex.

First off they are not Mandatory , ZEIT & Mint ran over a year with No Checkpoints & No Forks,
why we got plenty of coins that means plenty of accumulated difficulty to protect the chain.
So my actual experiences prove your theory wrong.

FYI:
Neither ZEIT or Mintcoin use a checkpoint server, no need for one.
Just like BTC & Monero , we only update the checkpoints during wallet updates.
No Bloody Difference.

iamnotback

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 265

Quote from: kiklo on July 14, 2016, 02:07:02 AM

They are optional in PoS , just as they are optional in PoW,
that PoS uses accumulated difficulty , why you can't grasp that is beyond me.

Incorrect. Tthey are mandatory in PoS. This was already explained to you. You were asked to cite a reference. I see no reason to repeat what I already taught you.

Quote from: kiklo on July 14, 2016, 02:07:02 AM

Maybe Generalizethis should explain why Monero also uses checkpoints, since you claim they have nothing to fear.

Monero may not yet have sufficient hashrate to be sure they can protect against a longer range hashrate attack.

They may also be protecting against a break in their hash function, since it is new and quite complex.

Remember BCX threatened to attack them with hashrate attack back in 2014 when their hashrate was lower, so they probably left the checkpoints in even though their hashrate has I assume increased significantly.

kiklo

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: iamnotback on July 14, 2016, 02:03:52 AM

Quote from: kiklo on July 14, 2016, 01:59:59 AM

Did you miss the link where I showed BTC is using checkpoints?

I explained to you upthread that checkpoints are optional in PoW. They are not required because the longest chain is protected by the hash work done. They are not optional in PoS. How many times do I have to repeat the same statement? You are fucking hard headed. Is your skull make of concrete. Any marbles inside your head?

Bitcoin makes checkpoints when they release new versions of the software, just as a precaution against some unknown such as a hypothetical quantum computer. Afaik, there is no known attack against Bitcoin that requires checkpoints. Whereas, PoS would be attacked willy-nilly with Long Range attacks if not for the required checkpoints.

How many more times will you force me to repeat this? 10 more thread pages of your asinine idiocy?

They are optional in PoS , just as they are optional in PoW,
that PoS uses accumulated difficulty , why you can't grasp that is beyond me. Tongue

FYI:
Maybe Generalizethis should explain why Monero also uses checkpoints, since you claim they have nothing to fear.
Maybe because the Devs would all like to guarantee protection from an history attack PoW or PoS, which checkpoints do for either. Wink

It is funny BTC & Monero use checkpoints, maybe you should explain to them they don't need it and are stupid if they have it. Tongue

I mean surely all PoW Devs know you are smarter than they are , right?

iamnotback

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 265

Quote from: kiklo on July 14, 2016, 01:59:59 AM

Did you miss the link where I showed BTC is using checkpoints?

I explained to you upthread that checkpoints are optional in PoW. They are not required because the longest chain is protected by the hash work done. They are not optional in PoS. How many times do I have to repeat the same statement? You are fucking hard headed. Is your skull make of concrete. Any marbles inside your head?

Bitcoin makes checkpoints when they release new versions of the software, just as a precaution against some unknown such as a hypothetical quantum computer. Afaik, there is no known attack against Bitcoin that requires checkpoints. Whereas, PoS would be attacked willy-nilly with Long Range attacks if not for the required checkpoints.

How many more times will you force me to repeat this? 10 more thread pages of your asinine idiocy?

kiklo

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: iamnotback on July 14, 2016, 01:58:56 AM

Quote from: kiklo on July 14, 2016, 01:55:31 AM

BTC is centralized to China why would you expect anything different for any other PoW coin?

I have the solution for that.

Quote from: kiklo on July 14, 2016, 01:55:31 AM

Proof of Stake is the only chance for Decentralization, and the ramblings of a vaporware promoter won't change that.

PoS is always centralized because it always requires checkpoints and a social contract to maintain them. Because there is no objective longest chain.

Did you miss the link where I showed BTC is using checkpoints?
What are they frighten of,
Hmm probably a history rewrite by a quantum computer.

Cool

FYI: Proof of Stake
Longest Chain with the most Accumulated Difficulty,

iamnotback

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 265

Quote from: kiklo on July 14, 2016, 01:55:31 AM

BTC is centralized to China why would you expect anything different for any other PoW coin?

I have the solution for that.

Quote from: kiklo on July 14, 2016, 01:55:31 AM

Proof of Stake is the only chance for Decentralization, and the ramblings of a vaporware promoter won't change that.

PoS is always centralized because it always requires checkpoints and a social contract external to the block chain to maintain them. Because there is no objective longest chain.

kiklo

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Mr. Net on July 14, 2016, 01:51:29 AM

Very good read!
Confirms my suspicions regarding POS.

I think we will see a wave of "traditional POW" Altcoins soon, arguing in the same way.

BTC is centralized to China why would you expect anything different for any other PoW coin?

Proof of Stake is the only chance for Decentralization, and the ramblings of a vaporware promoter won't change that.

Cool

Mr. Net

hero member

Activity: 517

Merit: 502

Very good read!
Confirms my suspicions regarding POS.

I think we will see a wave of "traditional POW" Altcoins soon, arguing in the same way.

iamnotback

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 265

generalizethis, I promised you I would tie him in knots with his own words.

Quote from: kiklo on July 14, 2016, 01:38:55 AM

Longest Chain with the Most Difficulty Wins , PoW or PoW

They have the same protection, higher the difficulty and the longer the chain the more secure they are.
Saying Proof of stake does not have it shows you are not as smart as you think you are.

You seem to always ignore what was already written:

Quote from: iamnotback on July 14, 2016, 01:27:28 AM

There is no work proven with PoS, thus no way to objectively measure the length of the chain relative to any other. The amount of computational work to produce a block is not recorded in a PoS block chain.

Quote from: iamnotback on July 13, 2016, 04:37:41 PM

...PoS wastes the resources on gaming strategies (some of which might even be as computationally expensive as PoW)...

The quote from the OP above explains there are some strategies for cheating in PoS that are a computational race, and as smooth had explained to me last year (which I also linked to in the OP):

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on January 08, 2016, 03:11:59 PM

smooth also added the very clever point that in the case Proof-of-Stake devolves to a computation contest for computing Nothing-at-Stake game theory, then this is perhaps a Proof-of-Work system in disguise (and I add but it might still also have some of the bad traits of Proof-of-Stake as well)

So the slamdunk is that in the case of cheating strategy where PoS devolves to a computational contest, then it is PoW but doesn't gain the benefits of PoW because the work is not recorded in the block chain, thus it can't be verified and thus as I wrote:

Quote from: iamnotback on July 14, 2016, 01:27:28 AM

The only protection are checkpoints, adhoc social contract, and thus centralization.

How many times does someone have to repeat the same information for you to absorb it in your retarded skull?

Sigh. You are showing everyone what an obstinate and insolent idiot you are. Please continue trolling until you have no more reputation whatsoever.

Quote from: kiklo on July 14, 2016, 01:38:55 AM

FYI:
Bitcoin uses checkpoints
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/what-are-checkpoints-in-bitcoin-code-194078
Checkpoints are optional for either PoS or PoW, you trying to make out like it is a big deal is ridiculous.

They are not optional for PoS. This was already explained to you numerous times.

Quote from: kiklo on July 14, 2016, 01:38:55 AM

FYI2: Proof of Stake Chain Length grows with each Block and its Accumulated Difficulty
cumulative difficulty value is stored as a parameter in each block, and each subsequent block derives its new difficulty from the previous blocks value. In case of ambiguity, the network achieves consensus by selecting the block or chain fragment with the highest cumulative difficulty.

I am not aware of any PoS coin that records the difficulty of computing the cheating strategies for gaming nothing-at-stake. If you want to cite reference that proves PoS does that, then fine. But the only thing that will change is that possibly those coins are PoW coins and not PoS coins. I'll have to look at the details of anything you will cite as a reference.

kiklo

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: iamnotback on July 14, 2016, 01:27:28 AM

Quote from: kiklo on July 14, 2016, 01:14:34 AM

Longest Chain with the Most Difficulty Wins, PoS or PoW

PoS doesn't have a longest chain dufus. That has been the entire point that has been made to you over and over again. There is no work proven with PoS, thus no way to measure the length of the chain relative to any other. There is no computational limit that prevent making a new chain from as far back as the genesis block. The only protection are checkpoints, adhoc social contract, and thus centralization.

How many times does someone have to repeat the same information for you to absorb it in your retarded skull?

Ok,
I get it you are just stupid.

Longest Chain with the Most Difficulty Wins , PoS or PoW

They have the same protection, higher the difficulty and the longer the chain the more secure they are.
Saying Proof of stake does not have it shows you are not as smart as you think you are.

Cool

FYI:
Bitcoin uses checkpoints
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/what-are-checkpoints-in-bitcoin-code-194078
Checkpoints are optional for either PoS or PoW, you trying to make out like it is a big deal is ridiculous.

FYI2: Proof of Stake Chain Length grows with each Block and its Accumulated Difficulty
cumulative difficulty value is stored as a parameter in each block, and each subsequent block derives its new difficulty from the previous blocks value. In case of ambiguity, the network achieves consensus by selecting the block or chain fragment with the highest cumulative difficulty.

iamnotback

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 265

Quote from: kiklo on July 14, 2016, 01:14:34 AM

Longest Chain with the Most Difficulty Wins, PoS or PoW

PoS doesn't have a longest chain dufus. That has been the entire point that has been made to you over and over again. There is no work proven with PoS, thus no way to objectively measure the length of the chain relative to any other. The amount of computational work to produce a block is not recorded in a PoS block chain. There is no computational limit that prevent making a new chain from as far back as the genesis block. The only protection are checkpoints, adhoc social contract, and thus centralization.

How many times does someone have to repeat the same information for you to absorb it in your retarded skull?

kiklo

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: iamnotback on July 14, 2016, 01:04:38 AM

Quote from: kiklo on July 14, 2016, 01:02:21 AM

It is no more difficult to fork a PoW than a PoS, all depends on if the users upgrade or not.

Incorrect disingenuous fool who is on a trolling tirade and destroying his reputation for everyone to see:

Quote from: iamnotback on July 13, 2016, 04:37:41 PM

I don't agree with smooth's claim that the mining nodes can't fork the block chain without the support of the users who transact; because users need to be on the longest chain else double-spends on the competing forks will force payees to recognize only the longest chain.

Longest Chain with the Most Difficulty Wins, PoS or PoW
You're just sprouting misinformation saying anything else.
If the Majority of the Users don't update, then there will be no fork either PoS or PoW.

Cool

FYI:
My Rep will hold up better than yours.

Topic: Proof-of-stake can never scale without blowing up, because PoS isn't trustless - page 5. (Read 5405 times)