Topic: Proof-of-stake can never scale without blowing up, because PoS isn't trustless - page 6. (Read 5405 times)

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

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

Still not seeing any valid points here.

 

FYI:
Until you actually get a coin working, keep the vaporware comments out of the conversation.

I will address this because it is technical claim.

It is very difficult to hard fork a PoW coin, as evident by Bitcoin's block chain debate, the fact that Bitcoin was never forked (only a bug was fixed to make it agree with the protocol as specified), and also that Ethereum had to revert to voting by stake to take a vote to try to push the miners to support a fork.

Whereas, PoS coins have been forked by an exchange (as quoted from Vericon's white paper in the OP), something that could never happen to PoW coin with any decent amount of hashrate.

That PoS coins aren't forked willy-nilly is because of an adhoc social contract that records checkpoints and thus has centralized the coin. PoW doesn't require this because the math validates the time ordering.

Besides I have another design for PoW which will make it virtually impossible to fork the coin, because the miners will number (eventually) in the millions and they are transient (all the payers are the miners).

How much more disingenuous can this troll be? Does he refuse to understand that PoS places no computational limitation on how far back in the chain an attacker can begin attacking because there is no PoW cost to doing so (which is why checkpoints and a tenuous social contract are required).

On top of that, even after I asked him to not use blue text, he increases his use of blue text just to prove he is an insolent asshole that doesn't respect calm and sincere discourse.

Does he wish to have his reputation totally trashed by continuing to be disingenuous with me? Let's see if he wants to take me on. Come on fool!

Are you an idiot?

Can PoS coins Hard Fork , Answer is Yes
Can PoW coins Hard Fork, Answer is still Yes.

Both PoS & PoW coins can use or not use Checkpoints.

And you still have not made a point.

 

FYI:
The only thing being proved here, is that you can't form a decent argument.

And you are a Giant Bullshit Artist trying to trick people into buying a shit coin , you are too lazy to even start.

See why it is not a good idea to piss me off.

 

Ok generalizethis, I give you green light to handle him by quoting from your excuses that shitcoin liars use to avoid a debate.

He is now instead of addressing the technical points, using the "then attack our PoS coin to prove it" tactic of avoiding the technical point, when in fact I quoted the Vericoin white paper in the OP where they admitted that 30% of the tokens were stoken by an exchange because PoS has the technical problems I have enumerated.

And his claim that PoS doesn't need checkpoints is making him the laughing stock of any one who knows anything about this issue. Even Vitalik admits that and he is pro-PoS. I have cited in the OP a research paper from BitFury which explains that in great detail. He is just a troll.

There is absolutely nothing to say to someone who so incredibly disingenuous. How can anyone have a rational discussion with someone who doesn't even understand nor address the technical points. And pretends that Vericoin's theft never happened. And pretends that even Vitalik and every one doesn't admits PoS requires checkpoints to deal with the Long Range attack problem.

He will go on a tirade now, because he has made an complete fool of himself for all readers to see. Nothing more for me to say to him.

I am still waiting for your reply. And now you pissed me off by trolling my thread after I asked you to please stop. So now no mercy on you. I am not going to let you wiggle away without destroying your reputation entirely.

OK , Jackass, I was going to just agree to disagree,
but you fucked that up.

 

I figured you'd run away once I had cornered you and shown you were refusing to acknowledge my prior rebuttal. I will delete this post if you reply to my prior post where you are now cornered.

Language,
My Birth Certificate confirms a father, so your bastard comment is invalid.

Hey , I was leaving til generalizethis acted like he actually wanted to converse.


 

steps away

Which part of the prior rebuttal (quoted below) did you not read and are now pretending I never wrote?

Do I need to quote the part of the OP that explains why PoS can't provide a mathematical verification of the time ordering of block events? Are you that lazy that you are incapable of finding that portion of the OP?

generalizethis, you are feeding the troll. Please let me deal with him. He will just take you on a meaningless verbiage troll fest filling up the thread with meaningless words.

Let me corner him with his own words, since he is being such a bastard by refusing to acknowledge that I already answered specifics, which he now pretends I didn't refute.

Maybe instead of claiming you won the argument , you could make one and we can get started.

 

FYI:
If you don't want to converse , just say so, but don't pretend you won an argument we did not have yet.

FYI2:
Post 1 theory , that you are certain will destroy ZEIT and we can begin. 

Because taxation is a valid threat, but I am willing to listen to a theory that makes sense,
I just have not heard one yet.

 

kiklo when you are ready to quote specific passages in my OP and have a specific debate on specific facts, then we can get specific.

Until then, you are just using vague meaningless verbiage to run away from the fact that I will destroy you in a specific debate.


He will never stay on specific points made by the OP, because he will lose the argument.

So if that's demonstrated theoretically,  you will acknowledge POS fails at decentralization? --not sure why taxation must be the method, but I'll keep from getting sidetracked from the point.

Also, the topic is POS, so let's stick to that.

At least that is a attempt at conversation.

The only way I can see a well designed PoS coin fail decentralization , is if the Government taxes it at every transaction til they gain majority ownership.
But no currency or commodity is invulnerable to this, unless the people resist.

Will coins running PoSP or extremely high interest rates centralized, sure.
But ZEIT does not use any of those specs.

So for this conversation, a PoS coin with a Staking rate of 20-40 days, and using Coin Age, with an interest rate of 5% yearly .
In your Theory , what will Centralize it outside of Government force?


 

FYI:
We do keep a Free Faucet running , so everyone will always be able to enter ZEIT at no cost.
Also due to our current low price cost of entry would only be an obstacle for the completely destitute.
Counter to your Permissionless argument.

FYI2:
At Generalizethis, what protects your PoW coin from Centralization?
Or does the Fact Monero will centralizes not concern you?

Good call.

Shelby, don't stress too much over kiklo. Let's ask him a question and see if there's hope. Kiklo, what theoretical evidence would convince you that POS fails decentralization (theoretical is purposely being used in multiple staes here)?