Pages:
Author

Topic: Proof of stake mining of bicoin (Read 25670 times)

legendary
Activity: 1806
Merit: 1003
January 06, 2015, 09:21:16 AM

Bitshares has already had a Sybil attack occur earlier this year when it was uncovered that an individual named "sfinder" actually controlled the TOP 5 DELEGATES!


The truth of this matter is, that as everyone knows who was around in 2013, Bitshares was originally going to be PoW.  The Bitshares' devs only decided to switch to PoS after they saw the success of NXT.  In a flawed attempt to look original, they added "delegates" to PoS which effectively destroyed it by adding centralization and opening it up to the aforementioned Sybil attacks.

Sfinder was found and voted out successfully.  

It is almost impossible for full pay delegates to be the same person.  Unless they are superhuman and able to complete multiple jobs at the same time.  You can view the work delegates are doing.  They have to be transparent and productive or they are voted out.  It's simply not possible to all be the same person because 1 person cannot do 101 jobs.  And there are huge incentives to not do this.

Delegates are one of the great features of BitShares.  It's creating a thriving community and a whole new type of decentralised organisation.  Not to mention the unique identity verifying features being developed.   DPOS is an amazing, fascinating and powerful invention which is going to re-structure society itself.  Constructive criticism is always welcomed, but please keep it real.

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.

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.
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
January 06, 2015, 09:04:42 AM
Maybe not right now because a sudden switch will definitely jolt the market and the community. Also what would be the impact though in terms of price movement. However, having said that, I'm not a "status quo" type of person. If it can help to stabilize the price, become more decentralized, ensure far better distribution, secure the network, then why not. I don't see it happening right now but maybe when mining is finally over and transaction fee is not enough to sustain or the reward is too low.

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
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 500
January 05, 2015, 06:27:10 PM

Bitshares has already had a Sybil attack occur earlier this year when it was uncovered that an individual named "sfinder" actually controlled the TOP 5 DELEGATES!


The truth of this matter is, that as everyone knows who was around in 2013, Bitshares was originally going to be PoW.  The Bitshares' devs only decided to switch to PoS after they saw the success of NXT.  In a flawed attempt to look original, they added "delegates" to PoS which effectively destroyed it by adding centralization and opening it up to the aforementioned Sybil attacks.

Sfinder was found and voted out successfully.  

It is almost impossible for full pay delegates to be the same person.  Unless they are superhuman and able to complete multiple jobs at the same time.  You can view the work delegates are doing.  They have to be transparent and productive or they are voted out.  It's simply not possible to all be the same person because 1 person cannot do 101 jobs.  And there are huge incentives to not do this.

Delegates are one of the great features of BitShares.  It's creating a thriving community and a whole new type of decentralised organisation.  Not to mention the unique identity verifying features being developed.   DPOS is an amazing, fascinating and powerful invention which is going to re-structure society itself.  Constructive criticism is always welcomed, but please keep it real.

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.
donator
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1014
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
January 02, 2015, 09:38:17 AM
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.

Again, a wishful thinking.
Actually it's greedy thinking.
hero member
Activity: 763
Merit: 500
January 02, 2015, 07:45:06 AM
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.

Again, a wishful thinking.
donator
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1014
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
January 02, 2015, 06:24:37 AM
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.

I would argue but I noticed that you are "cbeast" who changed his nickname...
Hey! I have feelings, you know!   Grin
legendary
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1010
Newbie
January 02, 2015, 05:48:52 AM
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.

I would argue but I noticed that you are "cbeast" who changed his nickname...
donator
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1014
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
January 02, 2015, 05:16:38 AM
Nonsense. Those are two completely different issues.

Explain why they are competely different, please.
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.
legendary
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1010
Newbie
January 02, 2015, 04:35:59 AM
Nonsense. Those are two completely different issues.

Explain why they are competely different, please.
donator
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1014
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
January 02, 2015, 04:23:33 AM
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.

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

Most of miners don't care.
Nonsense. Those are two completely different issues.
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1042
White Male Libertarian Bro
January 02, 2015, 03:59:40 AM
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.

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

Most of miners don't care.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
legendary
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1010
Newbie
January 02, 2015, 03:37:10 AM
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.

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

Most of miners don't care.
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1042
White Male Libertarian Bro
January 02, 2015, 03:23:59 AM
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.


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

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.


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".
donator
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1014
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
January 01, 2015, 10:57:25 PM
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.


Bitcoin (but not PoW) relies on "social construct" too. Just recall Deepbit or GHash that could conduct a 51% attack.
Yes, the mining pool 'social contract' is hodgepodge at best. It is something that can be addressed by Bitcoin 2.0 contracts.
full member
Activity: 346
Merit: 102
January 01, 2015, 10:48:59 PM
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.


Bitcoin (but not PoW) relies on "social construct" too. Just recall Deepbit or GHash that could conduct a 51% attack.
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.
hero member
Activity: 763
Merit: 500
January 01, 2015, 09:50:26 PM
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.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
January 01, 2015, 07:23:56 PM
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.


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

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.
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1042
White Male Libertarian Bro
January 01, 2015, 04:58:30 PM
Who knows what the future hold maybe satoshi himself will come back and say ahh yes POW is fairly old so here is the new release with POS within it to generate some stakes.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-nxt-descendant-of-bitcoin-303898
legendary
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1010
Newbie
January 01, 2015, 04:56:53 PM
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.


Bitcoin (but not PoW) relies on "social construct" too. Just recall Deepbit or GHash that could conduct a 51% attack.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
January 01, 2015, 04:41:46 PM
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.
Pages:
Jump to: