There's an option to not see signatures.
Thanks, but I would rather see the scams so I can warn the user who was duped into the signature campaign and other newbies who may fall for it as well.
It is a public service.
Topic: Proof of stake mining of bicoin - page 10. (Read 25676 times)
Thanks, but I would rather see the scams so I can warn the user who was duped into the signature campaign and other newbies who may fall for it as well.
It is a public service.
There's an option to not see signatures.
Thanks, but I would rather see the scams so I can warn the user who was duped into the signature campaign and other newbies who may fall for it as well.
It is a public service.
hmmm.... well it could be, but it seems sustainable...
I'll make a decision in the next few days whether
I should remove it.
I'll make a decision in the next few days whether
I should remove it.
Sustainable?
There is no business model , service or product... it is a simple playing hot potato pyramid scheme.
That business model is a pyramid scheme in its purest sense:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme
Worst still there is a high incentive for the creator of the site to treat it as pyramid-ponzi hybrid where they run off with the funds when they have a critical thresh-hold of deposits. Anonymous creator no accountability, another easy theft.
hmmm.... well it could be, but it seems sustainable...
I'll make a decision in the next few days whether
I should remove it.
I'll make a decision in the next few days whether
I should remove it.
Sustainable?
There is no business model , service or product... it is a simple playing hot potato pyramid scheme.
That business model is a pyramid scheme in its purest sense:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme
Worst still there is a high incentive for the creator of the site to treat it as pyramid-ponzi hybrid where they run off with the funds when they have a critical thresh-hold of deposits. Anonymous creator no accountability, another easy theft.
may have been started by this guy who is a scammer-
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/btcmaze-150446
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
The solution to the Hunger Games is getting a boyfriend that is willing to die for your love. I mean seriously, what kind of attack is this? 51% attacks in PoS will normally be anonymous double spends. They will not tell you that they have 51%.
Correct. This also doesn't factor in other possibilities like large stakeholder defection or sabotage and hackers compromising large stakeholders computers or accounts . In the end the same psychological reasons that keep a mining pool operator from attacking bitcoin is the same reason why a PoS whale is unlikley to attack his own network. The point is with security you have to research and protect against edge cases and unlikely scenarios.
Its not about attacking the network necessarily...You can dominate the network and get massive fees.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Sorry to derail the thread but you realize that's a pyramid scheme in your sig, jonald_fyookball?
Call me naive but I don't think pyramid schemes are great ways to introduce people to Bitcoin.
Call me naive but I don't think pyramid schemes are great ways to introduce people to Bitcoin.
hmmm.... well it could be, but it seems sustainable...
I'll make a decision in the next few days whether
I should remove it.
The solution to the Hunger Games is getting a boyfriend that is willing to die for your love. I mean seriously, what kind of attack is this? 51% attacks in PoS will normally be anonymous double spends. They will not tell you that they have 51%.
Correct. This also doesn't factor in other possibilities like large stakeholder defection or sabotage and hackers compromising large stakeholders computers or accounts . In the end the same psychological reasons that keep a mining pool operator from attacking bitcoin is the same reason why a PoS whale is unlikley to attack his own network. The point is with security you have to research and protect against edge cases and unlikely scenarios.
Bter was hacked. Forgers in Nxt were given the choice: accept the hack or forge a forked client that didn't recognise the hackers stake, cutting them out. They had 720 blocks to decide before the rolling checkpoint prevented reorgs. Forgers chose to accept the hack.
Replace 'bter hack' with 'hunger games scenario' and only masochists would have remained forging with the original version.
Replace 'bter hack' with 'hunger games scenario' and only masochists would have remained forging with the original version.
Well, it is true that consensus to a forked version is more likely during extreme circumstances,
but my point still remains: What do you fork to? Unless you fork to something other than PoS,
the hunger games scenario can happen again and again.
And as long as the majority are not masochists, it will never last. You fork to 'the same minus the stuff the majority don't want'
I don't follow what you're saying.
If the hunger games argument is that proof of stake causes centralization of power,
how do you "minus that out" while still keeping proof of stake?
The '1%' have 51% of the stake. The 99% with 49% of the stake decide they don't like being ruled and fork the client. Their 49% becomes 100% in the forked platform. The 1% are left with nothing of value.
Sorry to derail the thread but you realize that's a pyramid scheme in your sig, jonald_fyookball?
Call me naive but I don't think pyramid schemes are great ways to introduce people to Bitcoin.
Call me naive but I don't think pyramid schemes are great ways to introduce people to Bitcoin.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Bter was hacked. Forgers in Nxt were given the choice: accept the hack or forge a forked client that didn't recognise the hackers stake, cutting them out. They had 720 blocks to decide before the rolling checkpoint prevented reorgs. Forgers chose to accept the hack.
Replace 'bter hack' with 'hunger games scenario' and only masochists would have remained forging with the original version.
Replace 'bter hack' with 'hunger games scenario' and only masochists would have remained forging with the original version.
Well, it is true that consensus to a forked version is more likely during extreme circumstances,
but my point still remains: What do you fork to? Unless you fork to something other than PoS,
the hunger games scenario can happen again and again.
And as long as the majority are not masochists, it will never last. You fork to 'the same minus the stuff the majority don't want'
I don't follow what you're saying.
If the hunger games argument is that proof of stake causes centralization of power,
how do you "minus that out" while still keeping proof of stake?
The '1%' have 51% of the stake. The 99% with 49% of the stake decide they don't like being ruled and fork the client. Their 49% becomes 100% in the forked platform. The 1% are left with nothing of value.
That's insane. First of all, good luck getting the 99% to agree on forking when they are getting paid by the 1%.
Even if you did, in a year you'd have a new 1%. What, are you gonna fork it every year? In a decade you
have 10 different forks, all which will have compatibility issues. Not to mention that who is going to participate
in a coin where there's planned forks like that? Sorry, but I don't think this idea can work.
I'll catch up later. Gotta go paint a donkey.
Bter was hacked. Forgers in Nxt were given the choice: accept the hack or forge a forked client that didn't recognise the hackers stake, cutting them out. They had 720 blocks to decide before the rolling checkpoint prevented reorgs. Forgers chose to accept the hack.
Replace 'bter hack' with 'hunger games scenario' and only masochists would have remained forging with the original version.
Replace 'bter hack' with 'hunger games scenario' and only masochists would have remained forging with the original version.
Well, it is true that consensus to a forked version is more likely during extreme circumstances,
but my point still remains: What do you fork to? Unless you fork to something other than PoS,
the hunger games scenario can happen again and again.
And as long as the majority are not masochists, it will never last. You fork to 'the same minus the stuff the majority don't want'
I don't follow what you're saying.
If the hunger games argument is that proof of stake causes centralization of power,
how do you "minus that out" while still keeping proof of stake?
The '1%' have 51% of the stake. The 99% with 49% of the stake decide they don't like being ruled and fork the client. Their 49% becomes 100% in the forked platform. The 1% are left with nothing of value.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Bter was hacked. Forgers in Nxt were given the choice: accept the hack or forge a forked client that didn't recognise the hackers stake, cutting them out. They had 720 blocks to decide before the rolling checkpoint prevented reorgs. Forgers chose to accept the hack.
Replace 'bter hack' with 'hunger games scenario' and only masochists would have remained forging with the original version.
Replace 'bter hack' with 'hunger games scenario' and only masochists would have remained forging with the original version.
Well, it is true that consensus to a forked version is more likely during extreme circumstances,
but my point still remains: What do you fork to? Unless you fork to something other than PoS,
the hunger games scenario can happen again and again.
And as long as the majority are not masochists, it will never last. You fork to 'the same minus the stuff the majority don't want'
I don't follow what you're saying.
If the hunger games argument is that proof of stake causes centralization of power,
how do you "minus that out" while still keeping proof of stake?
Bter was hacked. Forgers in Nxt were given the choice: accept the hack or forge a forked client that didn't recognise the hackers stake, cutting them out. They had 720 blocks to decide before the rolling checkpoint prevented reorgs. Forgers chose to accept the hack.
Replace 'bter hack' with 'hunger games scenario' and only masochists would have remained forging with the original version.
Replace 'bter hack' with 'hunger games scenario' and only masochists would have remained forging with the original version.
Well, it is true that consensus to a forked version is more likely during extreme circumstances,
but my point still remains: What do you fork to? Unless you fork to something other than PoS,
the hunger games scenario can happen again and again.
And as long as the majority are not masochists, hunger games will never last. It would probably never occur, a different path would be taken at a less severe stage. You fork to 'the same minus the stuff the majority don't want'
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Bter was hacked. Forgers in Nxt were given the choice: accept the hack or forge a forked client that didn't recognise the hackers stake, cutting them out. They had 720 blocks to decide before the rolling checkpoint prevented reorgs. Forgers chose to accept the hack.
Replace 'bter hack' with 'hunger games scenario' and only masochists would have remained forging with the original version.
Replace 'bter hack' with 'hunger games scenario' and only masochists would have remained forging with the original version.
Well, it is true that consensus to a forked version is more likely during extreme circumstances,
but my point still remains: What do you fork to? Unless you fork to something other than PoS,
the hunger games scenario can happen again and again.
Bter was hacked. Forgers in Nxt were given the choice: accept the hack or forge a forked client that didn't recognise the hackers stake, cutting them out. They had 720 blocks to decide before the rolling checkpoint prevented reorgs. Forgers chose to accept the hack.
Replace 'bter hack' with 'hunger games scenario' and only masochists would have remained forging with the original version.
Far from being a bad system, it is an example of decentralised decsion making.
Replace 'bter hack' with 'hunger games scenario' and only masochists would have remained forging with the original version.
Far from being a bad system, it is an example of decentralised decsion making.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Ok, I'll put you down for the day after 28th Feb. Far too early if you ask me...
I never new POS was unforkable too. That's why I like these threads with all the smart guys in, it is eye opening.
PoS already exists. Buy all you want. Nobody cares but you.I never new POS was unforkable too. That's why I like these threads with all the smart guys in, it is eye opening.
I don't follow. The 'Hunger Games' argument is only possible because POS is unforkable, right? How does me buying anything relate to this?
Ur post seems off topic. Don't worry, I won't report you
Uh...no. Anything open source is forkable.
The 'Hunger Games' argument is about permanent centralization of authority.
Yes, we could always fork, but why go down the path of centralization
based on stakes at all?
If you can fork it, how would it ever become centralised?
Anyone can fork a code repository...But getting everyone
to agree to use any one particular fork is hard. Therefore,
forking is not a good solution in general. And what would they
fork to? If you know that a problem exists, it is better to solve
it up front and just have everyone use the updated code from
the beginning.
What you are saying is in effect: "Can't we just start with
a bad system, and then switch to a better system later?"
If you can fork it, how would it ever become centralised? Would the majority prefer the hunger games over other alternatives?
Whether or not one stack is centralized has nothing to do with its forked child.
Ok, I'll put you down for the day after 28th Feb. Far too early if you ask me...
I never new POS was unforkable too. That's why I like these threads with all the smart guys in, it is eye opening.
PoS already exists. Buy all you want. Nobody cares but you.I never new POS was unforkable too. That's why I like these threads with all the smart guys in, it is eye opening.
I don't follow. The 'Hunger Games' argument is only possible because POS is unforkable, right? How does me buying anything relate to this?
Ur post seems off topic. Don't worry, I won't report you
Uh...no. Anything open source is forkable.
The 'Hunger Games' argument is about permanent centralization of authority.
Yes, we could always fork, but why go down the path of centralization
based on stakes at all?
If you can fork it, how would it ever become centralised? Would the majority prefer the hunger games over other alternatives?
Yes, guilty. Sorry, maybe I should put something in my sig
Nothing to be ashamed of
Very nice of you to say. A true gent.
I only really like these threads to watch people get into a fluster talking to CfB and see it descend into passive aggressive quips dripping with disdain
and watching the little bits of cement and the odd brick fall from ivory towers 
Jump to: