Topic: Proof of stake mining of bicoin (Read 25626 times)

Exactly. In 2014, $500 million USD worth of value, was extracted out of Bitcoin eco-system, then wasted on paying for electricity, PoW hardware and miner/pool profits.

Imagine these $500 million were used for development, promotion and expansion of Bitcoin. While at same time making Bitcoin more secure, no difficulty swings, no hash rate centralization concerns.

i agree with your opinion...you have a big thinking of this....i think that is the real future of bitcoin, change from PoW to PoS

Nice words as usual. I didn't know about this history, interesting indeed. As the system and the community grows this issues will be more rare. I don't know how this could be an issue in such a big community as bitcoin if we decide to switch to 10k delegates DPoS or something.

And don't forget, delegates could only do what they should do.

Also think if we used that anual 1.314.000 BTC as incentive to grow the network, adoption and others instead of just dilution, proof of waste and of course securing the network.

Actually it's greedy thinking.

Again, a wishful thinking.

Hey! I have feelings, you know!   

I would argue but I noticed that you are "cbeast" who changed his nickname...

The gambling site didn't take time to verify transactions between rounds over a long period of time, typically they should up to six verifications or just use a token system.

Mining 51% would allow a bad agent to confirm verifications beyond that period, but would likely be found out. In this case it was negligence, not malice on the part of the miners. I don't know who perpetrated the attack, but it could have been anyone and it taught a valuable lesson about blockchain vigilance.

If either party had been doing their job properly, it would not have happened. They were completely unrelated events. Correlation is not causation.

Having said that, there is still work to be done regarding mining pools.

Explain why they are competely different, please.

Nonsense. Those are two completely different issues.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ghashio-and-double-spending-against-betcoin-dice-327767

Most of miners don't care.

That is true.  In Bitshares, only the delegates collect the transaction fees and not the stakeholders.

I'd like to make this point about PoS.  Proof-of-Stake was designed to wrest control of the security of the chain from the profiteers and re-establish it back where it belongs which is in the hands of the currency users.  It is the right of every currency holder to be able to secure their own investment.  This is the core ideology behind PoS and decentralization.  No one should be forced to "delegate" the security of their investment to another individual.

Bitshares' DPoS algorithm is "Proof-of-Stake" IN NAME ONLY.  It does not in any way embody the principles of the PoS movement or the original decentralization movement of Bitcoin.  It forces centralization upon its users and makes them "delegate" the security of their investment to other individuals.  Regardless, if these "delegates" are unique or not, it does not matter.  Being a currency user in a PoS system means YOU have the undeniable right to protect your own investment.

Bitshares' is NOT a "Proof-of-Stake" system.  I would say it is best described as Proof-of-Parliamentarism.  I hesitate on this description because at least with regular parliamentarism the "delegates" can be verified to be physically separate individuals regardless of their lobby induced leanings.  Needless to say, DPoS does not empower the currency holder, but instead holds them at the whims of delegates.  At best, such a system adds unnecessary centralization and strips stakeholders of their rights, but at worst, it is a breeding ground for scams, corruption, swindling and deceit.  It is morally bankrupt to portray DPoS as "decentralized", "Safer than a Swiss bank account", "Proof-of-Stake" or quite frankly "a cryptocurrency algorithm".

Yes, the mining pool 'social contract' is hodgepodge at best. It is something that can be addressed by Bitcoin 2.0 contracts.

They could not conduct a 51% attack. If they tried to conduct one the miners that would be mining on the pool would leave to another pool.

One main difference between BitshareX and Nxt is the philosophical difference. BTSX is taking the path of building policies. In the meantime, Nxt is taking the path of building a neutral platform to allow the third parties to build specific policies on the the platform.

Sort of true, but pools aren't part
of the Bitcoin protocol.  
Miners have the choice to use
a pool or not.  There are many
independent mining operations,
and some people run full nodes
and mine just because they
want to support the network.  Also
there can  be an unlimited number
of pools.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong
but in Bitshares, only the
delegates collect fees, not
the stakeholders.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-nxt-descendant-of-bitcoin-303898

Bitcoin (but not PoW) relies on "social construct" too. Just recall Deepbit or GHash that could conduct a 51% attack.

Obviously, DPoS does add a "social construct" (or whatever you want to call it) on top of the blockchain.

Whether that improves or hinders distributed consensus is the question.
I tend to think it hinders it by its very nature, because people are inherently
unreliable, and can be manipulated in various ways.