Topic: Proof of stake mining of bicoin - page 9. (Read 25676 times)

Right. And unlike PoW, PoS is much easier to hide that you have a large percentage of the total stake. It is very easy to create multiple nodes with a PoS coin that are geographically disbursed via the use of VPS, while you will need to broadcast a newly found block with a PoS coin via a node that is connected to your miner and if the node is too geographically far from your miner then you will have more orphaned blocks

I agree they both benefit , but protocols in which many people, businesses , and systems are dependent upon benefit far more from the network effect and are thus much more difficult to supplant than simply switching  to a different website.

I.E... Even if the community wants to and needs to move off an old protocol we still cannot after over 30 years -- IPv4

Sites and applications are just as likely to benefit from being first with large userbase as a protocol.  LOL.

51% mechanism is what allows to challenge the status quo, thus enabling competition for power.
Just sitting on your money in PoW does't give you control over the system, just engaging in the competition for control doesn't bring you money as mining is normally a break-even game. Thus money and control become orthogonal, which results in a dynamic system without asymptotes. In PoS you get both in a nice single package, which saturates fairly quickly.

Hybrid systems are more tricky beasts, thus they need to be studied closely. I'm concerned that saturation in PoS aspect of the hybrid will at some point begin to negatively influence the competition on PoW side.

The scenario is rather simple. A few with majority vote have power to freeze accounts at will, as only they decide which transactions get into the blockchain and which don't. It means they can write laws now and have instruments in their hands to enforce it. Your account can be permanently or temporary frozen if you disobey an arbitrary law that the few in power came up with (hunger games situation).

PoS is not suitable for global money system, no need to switch from PoW.

This may shock you, but no that isn't everyone's motivation for being here. Quite a few people that frequent this forum are already rich. Some are here for the technology and the possibilities that it opens.

12 pages of mostly bullshit and everyone ignores the important thing

with pos only miners lose out and the rest of us get rich as every new penny that gets invested into btc goes to hype up the value of our coins instead of trying and to keep pace with inflation caused by mining, isn't getting rich why we're all here?

Proof of stake mining of bitcoin

=====

Hasn't this been done ( several times over ) already ??
Though I suppose you could fork BTC at block X with whatever POS scheme that floats your boat
OR .. Just buy/support PeerCoin ( PPC ) the original POS BTC clone ..


Triff ..

BitcoinDark is an interesting proof-of-stake coin that I am just getting into.

Its most groundbreaking feature, in my opinion, is the teleport feature.

This feature will allow you to teleport BTC between addresses without leaving any connection between the addresses.

This will eliminate the need for using centralized mixers to conceal BTC movements.


https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/btcd-is-no-more-684090

No, nothing wrong with that at all. I personally care more about the emerging technology than I do becoming the next bzillionaire.

Sometimes in this crazy world of cryptocurrency it is hard to see the forest for the trees.

Do people here really care about technology? What I see here is that people (the establishment) are full of wishful thinking and just tried to protect their investment. There is nothing wrong with that.

But you can not stop other people to explore new opportunities by new technologies. We all want to be rich, don't we? You will be rich until you have large amount of coins and convert your coins into the hard cash or the coin you bet on becomes to a real thing like Facebook or Google.

Wish yourself lucky enough to bet on the right one.

I'm so bored I'm going through old threads.

You are conflating companies/sites/applications with protocols, with the latter benefiting greatly from being first to market with a large userbase.

While you are talking the price is declining. Shut up and do anything.

This thread clearly shows how bored people are these days, trying to generate value by talking 

First to Market is Usually Not Best in Market

There is a very common misconception in the innovation world that being first to market translate to being best in market. However there seems to be a much more decisive factor to being best in market and that is best-fit-implementation.

Similar to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution the best fit survive. Here are some out of many examples of very successful companies/products that were far from being the first to market:

Microsoft — DOS (Disk Operating Systems) IBM had DOS for its then-small System/360 mainframes as far back as 1964 Microsoft did not invent it but provided better implementation (some would argue that J)

Facebook- was not the first social network

Google- was not the first search engine

iPhone — was not the first Smartphone (remember Blackberry?) Actually the first Smartphone (that also had touch screen!) was by BellSouth under the name Simon Personal Communicator (1994).

Chrome — was not the first Internet Browser (Remember Netscape?)

Point being that rather than focusing only on being first to market we should place more weight on understanding/ figuring out the best implementation that provides the fittest product/value to user’s need. Proof of Stake is the best implementation imo.

BlackCoin started off as POW for about one week then switched to full POS after all coins were mined.

You just don't get it do you?  Bitcoin is becoming more centralized as time goes on.  Mining is becoming increasingly corporatized.  The users of Bitcoin are separated from the security of the chain.  This is against everything Satoshi wanted in a currency.  The goal of Bitcoin was to place the monetary power back in the hands of the people.  Bitcoin has evolved into the monster it was meant to replace.

You can criticize NXT's initial distribution and claim it is "centralized" because initially the currency was held by 73 individuals, but at the end of the day PoW vs PoS argument comes down to trust.

Do you trust external agents not to overpower BTC's hashpower?  Only a fool would believe that a government doesn't have the resources to control Bitcoin.  The bitcoin hashpower held by individual people (not corporations or pools), who are legitimately concerned with securing the chain and not merely profits, will never be enough to prevent an attack on BTC.  The BTC chain might not be destroyed by these "attackers" but altered or restricted.  What if a government decided to freeze certain accounts?  They could easily coerce the corporate and pool miners to enact these changes.  The individual miners and currency users would be helpless to stop it.

Do you trust that the original NXT stakeholders are actually individuals committed to decentralization and continuing the legacy of bitcoin?  Seeing that the NXT IPO drew very little attention, I figure that the original stakeholders are actual individuals and not corporations, bankers, private equity or governments.  That means the chain was originally secured by individuals who were drawn to the movement by the original ideals of Bitcoin.  Since the start of NXT, the holders have obviously changed.  A good portion of the original stakeholders have sold out.  Who did they sell to?  Do you think they sold to the corporations, bankers, PE and governments?  I'm sure some did, but does this allow for these entities to attack the chain?  If together and working in concert these groups acquired over 500 million NXT, then yes.  If not though, the chain is secured by decentralized individuals.  The more individuals that join NXT the stronger and more resistant to attack it becomes.  Soon it becomes extremely difficult to purchase enough stake to attack without driving up the price to a ridiculous amount and it becomes equally difficult to coerce enough individuals.  When NXT forms its economic cluster, the stake requirements to attack will rise to 90%.  This makes acquiring the required stake to launch an attack practically impossible especially if you consider that some stakeholders will just never sell.

So, do you trust external agents to not to overpower BTC's hashpower or do you trust that NXT's stakeholders are actually legitimate individuals?

But we have each other, with or without the authoritarians who rule this realm.