Author

Topic: Proof of Stake technical dicussion (Read 332 times)

member
Activity: 200
Merit: 73
Flag Day ☺
January 26, 2020, 01:13:48 AM
#14
The Nothing at Stake Myth is Literally a Nothing to Gain.

It's not a "myth", but a theory. Refute

Write a Multistaking client or Ask Gmax to write one for you, as he made up the nonsense to fool people like you to start with.
After he writes one.  You show me the damage it can do.  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
But to be honest, I'll be laughing at you and him, because I already know it is a waste of time.


How does POS consider the strongest chain? Most stake?
What stops a group of attackers to collude with most of the "stake", and create healthy looking chains they control?

In PoS , the strongest chain is the one with the most coins and the highest difficulty.
In PoW, the strongest chain is the one with the most hashrate.

In PoS, collusion to dominate a PoS chain would need to be close to 90% to maintain the same dominance that
In PoW, collusion to dominate a PoW chain only needs 51%.

Answer to your question is nothing stops a group from colluding in PoS or PoW to exert dominance on a chain.
The only thing blocking them is the required % required to pull it off,
And PoS requires 39% more to pull off a collusion than PoW.
Also to actually profit a PoS user has to sell his coin, which drops his ability to continue any collusion.
PoW miners can sell every useless coin their asics create, and never decrease their % control by even a tiny fraction.
PoS coins have value to their respective networks by securing it,
PoW coins only have value for greater fools that buy useless tokens that they themselves (aka slaves) can not mine or secure,
without their masters know as miners.


No, I was asking, what about a competing POS coin attacking another POS coin?

You're confusing PoW where a Miner can mine multiple coins on different networks,
ie: BTC, BCH, BSV can all be mined by ASICS running SHA256

In PoS, coins can only stake on their own network, their is no crossover in staking coins.
Each staking coin network is isolated from ASIC nonsense and other coins networks.
So if you buy zeitcoin, you can only stake zeitcoin.

In PoS , the value is in the coin,
In PoW, the value is in the ASIC.
(Which allows the PoW miners to play all of the coins holders against each other that their ASICS Dominate.)
BTC holders talk junk about BCH & BSV holders.
BCH holders talk junk about BTC & BSV holders,
BSV holders talk junk about BTC & BCH holders.

But the very same miners are playing all of the holders for fools.
Which is why none of these networks have died yet.


Is Satoshi, God?

No, he is one of the CIA analyst on Team satoshi.
(Not even Japanese.) Tongue



With most of them having trusted-3rd-party checkpoints. Why? What do they fear?

Provide a list.
Then contact that specific coin developer and ask them why.

ZEITCoin Like Bitcoin has used hard coded checkpoint in source code over the years during major updates.
But their are no checkpoint servers like you claim that are running constantly , only the strength of the staking is securing ZEIT.

FYI:
Funny enough ZEITCOIN does not even bother with rolling checkpoints ,
but one of your ASICS coins, BCH does use a 10 block rolling checkpoint.  Cheesy
https://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoin-cash-abcs-rolling-10-block-checkpoints/

So does that make all PoW coins like Bitcoin insecure, since BCH uses rolling checkpoints.
* Note rolling checkpoints are determined by the network and not a 3rd party. *
legendary
Activity: 2730
Merit: 1288
January 26, 2020, 11:56:43 AM
#11
Monero
1.  No blockchain can be public and forever hidden,
anything they store publicly will eventually be broken
https://cointelegraph.com/news/monero-transactions-history-can-be-revealed-and-exposed-research

So anyone that uses them should be prepared for it all to be public within 3 years from the date of using it.


3.  Bitmain was selling an ASIC capable of mining Monero,
Monero changed the algorithm to disable the ASIC ability to mine monero.
But the fact is , a Monero ASIC was created and bitmain can modify it's original asic to support the changes, the only difference is now they are smart enough not to publicly acknowledge it, they will just keep it quiet and out mine everyone in monero with just a few asics.
PoW is always a winner take all dead end.

* Note: Monero being a failure is not a supply issue because of endless supply generation, but a failure it still will be. *

I used Monero 3 years ago and my transactions are not revealed yet although protocol was way less private built as today. How many more years I will have to wait that my 3 years old transactions will be revealed on your opinion?

No one ever was selling ASIC miner for Monero before they realize mining alghorythm will be changed in few weeks time. This is the only reason why ASIC miners are bad thing. You never know is there is someone secretly mining with more advanced ASIC miner then everyone else. 

Monero solved this problem with RandomX. You can buy best ASIC miner in your local computer store. It is called Ryzen.  True Satoshi Nakamoto & Nicolas van Saberhagen vision.
sr. member
Activity: 686
Merit: 320
January 25, 2020, 01:59:21 AM
#10
My "perfect" coin would be a hybrid that minimizes the flaws inherent in both methods in order to produce something far more decentralized and fair for everyone. It would ensure that the inherent flaws that will always exist are so reduced and/or counteracted by the other that they are in effect rendered null and void. It's a dream but maybe one day someone will come along and chase the dream and not money like everyone does these days.
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 1165
www.Crypto.Games: Multiple coins, multiple games
January 25, 2020, 01:51:54 AM
#9
Of course, proof of stake has issues as well, that is why the current proof of stake ones are trying to figure that out, or even ethereum for example who is working towards being proof of stake wants to as well, however that doesn't mean they are bad or shouldn't exist.

Proof of work has troubles as well, proof of stake just has different versions, maybe nothing at stake could be a problem, maybe it will be solved, however in the end all proof of xxx has some troubles if you are good enough hacker to find the loop hole. Trashing proof of stake for one loop hole which may not even exist in some of the coins is not constructive at all.
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1823
January 24, 2020, 03:24:42 AM
#8
Proof Of Stake isn't suitable for a "cryptocurrency". To avoid endless quoting and repeating, here is a great summary by Andrew Poelstra about why it is not.

Interesting enough the main lie repeated in said article is one made by GMaxwell.

The Nothing at Stake Myth is Literally a Nothing to Gain.


Stop it.


Nope, it is truthful, ask someone to explain to you what they think they would gain from it.
And I 'll explain why it wastes their time.


It's not a "myth", but a theory. Refute, but no mudslinging/name-calling. We're to learn and find answers.

Quote

The Facts are you need a Multistaking Client to even attempt a N@S,
no one has written one, because people that looked at making one realized it would create a PoW style system which actually gains the user nothing but wasting computer resources.


OK, let's be constructive. Explain that, or post links about that.

PoS coins are designed to run on a single chain and follow the stronger chain, which is the one with the most coins and the oldest age.


How does POS consider the strongest chain? Most stake? What stops a group of attackers to collude with most of the "stake", and create healthy looking chains they control?

Quote

It is like this, say you are calculating a reality, which requires a % of CPU and Memory, now calculate paralleled realities for each fork that you are trying to dominate with your staking resources out to say 100 future blocks with each of those having parallel forks.
With every new parallel fork calculation your CPU & Memory requirements increase exponentially, evolving into another wasteful version of proof of work.


OK, then we're in agreement that POW-style incentives + the game theory works?
Actually explaining that endless calculations that have very little meaning or use are just a waste of resources.

You're trying to imagine Game Theory will protect bitcoin ,
and it would if bitcoin was the only network the miners could mine.
But since the Miners have access to mining multiple networks, they will be true to their greedy nature and play them against each other,
untiil they decide for certain which one gives them personally the most profit.
Which due to the decreased rewards and ever growing reliance on transactions fees,
the transaction fees profit will lead the miners away from bitcoin as LN will dominate it's fees.


Your theory. OK.

Quote

The Majority of PoS coins Destroy the Transactions fees, so dominating a PoS chain won't earn you anything extra.
Your rewards are all you get, and that is fixed by the code and time, even if multistaking was not insanely stupid waste of resources their is literally nothing to gain from it.


What about another POS coin killing the competition?

PoW will destroy itself, due to miner greed and energy waste,
it was a failed design the moment ASICS were introduced and the poor blocked from mining.


No, I was asking, what about a competing POS coin attacking another POS coin?

Quote

So let's end this stupid myth,
Gmax why don't you write a Multistaking PoS client and destroy all PoS coins,
Surely that will raise the price of all PoW coins for all PoW holders.
Unless of course you like to admit you were wrong.   Kiss


It's not a myth, it's a theory that SHOULD be explored in my opinion.

Funny , how the guy who came up with the so called theory , has done absolutely nothing to make it happen in ~6 years.
I mean he could kill ethereum overnight , if he can release a multistaking client for it.
But yet he sits on his hands, maybe you should ask GMAX directly why he does not write one to totally end the PoS/PoW debates.
* Because it won't do anything but waste his time.*


I will say it again, it's a theory that should be explored, and discussion open-ended. Why are you mad? It's not a personal attack vs. you.

Quote

FYI:
If one really studies the PoW verses PoS debates.
One thing they learn is PoW has to end rewards and switch to a Transaction fee based economic model.
*Which causes all kinds of problems for miner profitability , due to the winner take all design in PoW.*


There's no written rule, Dogecoin has infinite supply. Unpopular opinion, but I believe Bitcoin could hard fork, and change supply rules IF there was consensus.

It is Satoshi's rule for bitcoin, and he wrote it directly in the code.
And if you want to see the results of endless rewards and why it is a failure,
look at mooncoin or newyorkcoin, both PoW coins.


Is Satoshi, God?

Mooncoin and NYcoin failed because of other reasons. Look at the names of those coins. Roll Eyes

Quote
In PoS, Ultra Low Inflation Rewards can continue forever and by burning all transaction fees to keep supply in check.
This also allows a low fixed transaction fee model in PoS which is impossible in a PoW model that needs ever increasing fees to offset the loss in their winner take all ever increasing energy wasting design.


I believe the pro-POS have also never proven convincingly that long range/nothing at stake attacks are impossible too. It's an open debate.


You can open debate anything, but PoS has been here since 2013.


With most of them having trusted-3rd-party checkpoints. Why? What do they fear?

Quote

Nothing at Stake has been a Nothing to Gain , which is why in 7 years their have been no N@S attacks whatsoever on any PoS coin.


In theory a competing POS coin will gain if they attack another POS coin.

Quote

Long Range History attacks can happen to a weak PoW or a weak PoS coin,
any coin with any strength will easily block long range attacks.

FYI:
N@S nonsense myth and Long Range History attacks are two different attacks


It's a merely theory, until something happens. Cool
legendary
Activity: 3108
Merit: 2177
Playgram - The Telegram Casino
January 22, 2020, 09:21:08 AM
#7
You're trying to imagine Game Theory will protect bitcoin ,
and it would if bitcoin was the only network the miners could mine.
But since the Miners have access to mining multiple networks, they will be true to their greedy nature and play them against each other,
untiil they decide for certain which one gives them personally the most profit.
Which due to the decreased rewards and ever growing reliance on transactions fees,
the transaction fees profit will lead the miners away from bitcoin as LN will dominate it's fees.

There's very little to no competition for Bitcoin's hashpower which probably won't change for two reasons:

1) Transaction-fees-only from a highly valued cryptocurrency is still more profitable (ie. able to pay for more hashpower) than transaction-fees-with-block-subsidy from a cryptocurrency that has very little value. LN is unlikely to "steal" fees from miners as there's still transactions to be made and mining fees to be paid -- just shared across a much larger user base, decreasing the cost for the individual. That's if LN succeeds. If it fails its impact on mining fees will be -- obviously -- nil.

2) The largest cryptocurrencies sharing their hashing algorithms with Bitcoin are (currently) Bitcoin hard forks that follow the same emission rate, so they have no advantage in terms of transaction-fees-with-block-subsidy vs transaction-fees-only. All other SHA256 coins are way out in the water, the introduction of new SHA256 coins (apart from the stray Bitcoin hard fork) is unlikely to happen.


That being said, what's your opinion on Ethereum's Casper?
legendary
Activity: 990
Merit: 1108
January 21, 2020, 06:12:43 PM
#6
And if you want to see the results of endless rewards and why it is a failure,
look at mooncoin or newyorkcoin, both PoW coins.

Mooncoin claims to have an eventual emission of

INT(0.29531*INT(19697202017/(INT(nHeight/100000)*100000)))

which becomes 0 at height 19697300000, so it's not not endless rewards.

Anyway, your argument would be better served by looking at less obscure coins with uncapped emission, such as Monero. Please explain how Monero is a failure.
mda
member
Activity: 144
Merit: 13
January 21, 2020, 05:06:14 PM
#5
Proof of Stake and Lightning Network require private keys to be online, so both are security disasters. No wonder they are getting support and funding from certain headquarters.
legendary
Activity: 990
Merit: 1108
January 21, 2020, 04:40:29 AM
#4

One thing they learn is PoW has to end rewards and switch to a Transaction fee based economic model.
*Which causes all kinds of problems for miner profitability , due to the winner take all design in PoW.*

There's no written rule, Dogecoin has infinite supply. Unpopular opinion, but I believe Bitcoin could hard fork, and change supply rules IF there was consensus.


Dogecoin and Monero have tail emissions, i.e. after an initial period of decreasing rewards, at some time they switch to constant rewards.

Grin is the first example of a coin with a never changing reward, from launch and forever at 1 Grin per second.
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1823
January 21, 2020, 01:45:05 AM
#3
Proof Of Stake isn't suitable for a "cryptocurrency". To avoid endless quoting and repeating, here is a great summary by Andrew Poelstra about why it is not.

Interesting enough the main lie repeated in said article is one made by GMaxwell.

The Nothing at Stake Myth is Literally a Nothing to Gain.


Stop it.

Quote

The Facts are you need a Multistaking Client to even attempt a N@S,
no one has written one, because people that looked at making one realized it would create a PoW style system which actually gains the user nothing but wasting computer resources.


OK, let's be constructive. Explain that, or post links about that.

Quote

Fact is , if you have enough coins to shortly control the chain, then you are earning coins,
you gain nothing by trying to control the chain as your coins go dormant immediately after staking.


As the stupid one in the forum, I request for a ELI5.

Quote

It is like this, say you are calculating a reality, which requires a % of CPU and Memory, now calculate paralleled realities for each fork that you are trying to dominate with your staking resources out to say 100 future blocks with each of those having parallel forks.
With every new parallel fork calculation your CPU & Memory requirements increase exponentially, evolving into another wasteful version of proof of work.


OK, then we're in agreement that POW-style incentives + the game theory works?

Quote

The Majority of PoS coins Destroy the Transactions fees, so dominating a PoS chain won't earn you anything extra.
Your rewards are all you get, and that is fixed by the code and time, even if multistaking was not insanely stupid waste of resources their is literally nothing to gain from it.


What about another POS coin killing the competition?

Quote

So let's end this stupid myth,
Gmax why don't you write a Multistaking PoS client and destroy all PoS coins,
Surely that will raise the price of all PoW coins for all PoW holders.
Unless of course you like to admit you were wrong.   Kiss


It's not a myth, it's a theory that SHOULD be explored in my opinion.

Quote

FYI:
If one really studies the PoW verses PoS debates.
One thing they learn is PoW has to end rewards and switch to a Transaction fee based economic model.
*Which causes all kinds of problems for miner profitability , due to the winner take all design in PoW.*


There's no written rule, Dogecoin has infinite supply. Unpopular opinion, but I believe Bitcoin could hard fork, and change supply rules IF there was consensus.

Quote

In PoS, Ultra Low Inflation Rewards can continue forever and by burning all transaction fees to keep supply in check.
This also allows a low fixed transaction fee model in PoS which is impossible in a PoW model that needs ever increasing fees to offset the loss in their winner take all ever increasing energy wasting design.


I believe the pro-POS have also never proven convincingly that long range/nothing at stake attacks are impossible too. It's an open debate.
sr. member
Activity: 279
Merit: 435
January 17, 2020, 04:47:41 AM
#2
Proof Of Stake isn't suitable for a "cryptocurrency". To avoid endless quoting and repeating, here is a great summary by Andrew Poelstra about why it is not.
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1823
January 17, 2020, 01:11:39 AM
#1
Long-range/nothing-at-stake attacks are known vulnerabilities in Proof of Stake, and the known solution is to rely on third-party checkpoints.

Someone sent me a PM that told me, "no, not necessarily, because long-range attacks are blocked by coin age".

I will quote the message, but removing the name of the coin, and keep it strictly technical. I'm not a very technical person, I need your help. In fact, I'm the stupid one in the forum.

His/her message,

Quote

Long Range attacks against ---'s design of PoS are blocked by the coin age.

Unlike bitcoin where miners hold the same % control of mining.

In ---'s PoS everytime you stake your % Drops for a specified length of time.

Sustained Long Range History attacks are blocked by the dormancy feature.

Collusion in Proof of Stake would mean actually giving your coins to a 3rd party , as such they could just sell your coins for fiat and leave you holding nothing.

If --- Stakers did ever collude , they destroyed all of the money they used to buy zeitcoins.
There are no other networks for them to jump too, that preserved their initial investment.


Jump to: