So you expect people just borrowing you coins worth of millions if you promise to pay back?
With a legally binding and notarized contract, of course. 
Topic: rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 199. (Read 387493 times)
Could a PoS miner "rent" coins from a hoarder to simulate that he has the required stake, without actually having it?
Pure PoS coins don't have miners in the conventional way, perhaps you know this but I am struggling to therefore see the point of the question. Why would a "hoarder" rent his coins to someone else to stake unless they were paying more than he would make by staking his coins? To that end then, why would a "renter" rent coins from someone to make less than they would by buying some?
That's exactly one of the tricks.
Party A holds 1M coins and earns a 1% annual PoS "stake."
Party B rents those coins from party A at an equivalent of 3% annual return.
Thus, for a cost of only 0.25% * 51% = 0.000125 of the existing money supply (let's take XMR as an example - that's $525 USD right now), an attacker can mount a 51% attack for a month.
Man, with that kind of opportunity, I should go write some code...
(The other person who asked about subtle attacks: Just don't orphan everyone's blocks all the time or hold up transactions for too long. But you could easily do things like stopping all deposits into an exchange for an hour or two in order to manipulate the price, if you were so inclined...)
So you expect people just borrowing you coins worth of millions if you promise to pay back?
That's exactly one of the tricks.
Party A holds 1M coins and earns a 1% annual PoS "stake."
Party B rents those coins from party A at an equivalent of 3% annual return.
Thus, for a cost of only 0.25% * 51% = 0.000125 of the existing money supply (let's take XMR as an example - that's $525 USD right now), an attacker can mount a 51% attack for a month.
Man, with that kind of opportunity, I should go write some code...
(The other person who asked about subtle attacks: Just don't orphan everyone's blocks all the time or hold up transactions for too long. But you could easily do things like stopping all deposits into an exchange for an hour or two in order to manipulate the price, if you were so inclined...)
Ill admit I misread the question somewhat particularly after entering the conversation after the POS vs POW was in full flow. In regards to renting someones coins I was thinking more in terms of staking for coin profits rather than in regards to 51% on the network.
Continue people
Could a PoS miner "rent" coins from a hoarder to simulate that he has the required stake, without actually having it?
Pure PoS coins don't have miners in the conventional way, perhaps you know this but I am struggling to therefore see the point of the question. Why would a "hoarder" rent his coins to someone else to stake unless they were paying more than he would make by staking his coins? To that end then, why would a "renter" rent coins from someone to make less than they would by buying some?
That's exactly one of the tricks.
Party A holds 1M coins and earns a 1% annual PoS "stake."
Party B rents those coins from party A at an equivalent of 3% annual return.
Thus, for a cost of only 0.25% * 51% = 0.000125 of the existing money supply (let's take XMR as an example - that's $525 USD right now), an attacker can mount a 51% attack for a month.
Man, with that kind of opportunity, I should go write some code...
(The other person who asked about subtle attacks: Just don't orphan everyone's blocks all the time or hold up transactions for too long. But you could easily do things like stopping all deposits into an exchange for an hour or two in order to manipulate the price, if you were so inclined...)
Could a PoS miner "rent" coins from a hoarder to simulate that he has the required stake, without actually having it?
Pure PoS coins don't have miners in the conventional way, perhaps you know this but I am struggling to therefore see the point of the question. Why would a "hoarder" rent his coins to someone else to stake unless they were paying more than he would make by staking his coins? To that end then, why would a "renter" rent coins from someone to make less than they would by buying some?
Performing a 51% attack on an established PoS coin without Transparent Forging is at least 2 orders of magnitude more expensive than doing a 51% attack on Bitcoin ($50+ billion vs $500 million).
Could a PoS miner "rent" coins from a hoarder to simulate that he has the required stake, without actually having it?
Pure PoS coins don't have miners in the conventional way, perhaps you know this but I am struggling to therefore see the point of the question. Why would a "hoarder" rent his coins to someone else to stake unless they were paying more than he would make by staking his coins? To that end then, why would a "renter" rent coins from someone to make less than they would by buying some?
I would like to get your opinion on my recent thought:
all major altcoins seems to go down (LTC, PPC, NMC, ...) but for the last week, monero seems to be relatively stable.
We can not deny that there is a negative pressure on altcoins at the moment, so I assume that this pressure is also on monero.
This could mean that monero goes up a lot when altcoins revive...
all major altcoins seems to go down (LTC, PPC, NMC, ...) but for the last week, monero seems to be relatively stable.
We can not deny that there is a negative pressure on altcoins at the moment, so I assume that this pressure is also on monero.
This could mean that monero goes up a lot when altcoins revive...
You cannot do a 51% attack on PoS.
This is factually incorrect.
PoS put to rest:
A big text for nothing.The only argument is :
Quote
there will be times where two nodes disagree
and it's wrong. Or at least not even debated.Disagree what ? He talks like nodes have their own will.
There is no work (mining) in PoS. You don't compete on wasting resources, that's the goal.
The goal of a PoW-based system is to make it more expensive to amass 51% of the hash rate in order to be able to control the outcome of a fork. (After all, what is a fork but a disagreement about which transactions to include and who should get paid for the block?).
A PoS-system is aptly named, because it rewards amassing that 51%.
The PoS boosters handwave and claim that doing so would devalue the coins owned by the 51% attacker, but that really just means the attacker would need to be more subtle.
It's a deeply flawed idea in pursuit of a good, but I believe impossible, goal -- decentralized, untrusted consensus without waste.
That's the flaw of PoW : pool get to own over 51% of the network without doing any mining, just by owning a strong node.
Could a PoS miner "rent" coins from a hoarder to simulate that he has the required stake, without actually having it?
No.
What type of subtle attacks are possible?
You cannot do a 51% attack on PoS.
Could a PoS miner "rent" coins from a hoarder to simulate that he has the required stake, without actually having it?
PoS put to rest:
A big text for nothing.The only argument is :
Quote
there will be times where two nodes disagree
and it's wrong. Or at least not even debated.Disagree what ? He talks like nodes have their own will.
Forking ? As if PoW cannot fork ?
There is no work (mining) in PoS. You don't compete on wasting resources, that's the goal.
And that's the problem.
The goal of a PoW-based system is to make it more expensive to amass 51% of the hash rate in order to be able to control the outcome of a fork. (After all, what is a fork but a disagreement about which transactions to include and who should get paid for the block?).
A PoS-system is aptly named, because it rewards amassing that 51%.
The PoS boosters handwave and claim that doing so would devalue the coins owned by the 51% attacker, but that really just means the attacker would need to be more subtle.
It's a deeply flawed idea in pursuit of a good, but I believe impossible, goal -- decentralized, untrusted consensus without waste.
What type of subtle attacks are possible?
PoS put to rest:
A big text for nothing.The only argument is :
Quote
there will be times where two nodes disagree
and it's wrong. Or at least not even debated.Disagree what ? He talks like nodes have their own will.
Forking ? As if PoW cannot fork ?
There is no work (mining) in PoS. You don't compete on wasting resources, that's the goal.
And that's the problem.
The goal of a PoW-based system is to make it more expensive to amass 51% of the hash rate in order to be able to control the outcome of a fork. (After all, what is a fork but a disagreement about which transactions to include and who should get paid for the block?).
A PoS-system is aptly named, because it rewards amassing that 51%.
The PoS boosters handwave and claim that doing so would devalue the coins owned by the 51% attacker, but that really just means the attacker would need to be more subtle.
It's a deeply flawed idea in pursuit of a good, but I believe impossible, goal -- decentralized, untrusted consensus without waste.
PoS put to rest:
A big text for nothing.The only argument is :
Quote
there will be times where two nodes disagree
and it's wrong. Or at least not even debated.Disagree what ? He talks like nodes have their own will.
Forking ? As if PoW cannot fork ?
There is no work (mining) in PoS. You don't compete on wasting resources, that's the goal.
My default assumption is that any new coin is either a scam or a folly.
even if this was 100% correct, it doesn't mean there's no opportunities left for insane profits (3-10X on top of Bitcoin is possible with some alts)
Or 100x.
But don't you people feel moral restraint in investing in something that you know to be a scam?
(Luckily the obscene profits are available only in such limited investment amounts that I can more easily forgo them
)There is no need to call on someone's morals when arguing against playing with shitalts. Any system trying to be based on trust & morality is doomed to fail, that's why we're here right?
What is important to understand is that anyone taking part in shitalts p&ds are hurting themselves and their prosperity, albeit indirectly, because depriving the newcomers from their money is hurting the overall crypto adoption which is by far the most important thing that needs to happen.
Risto (and others who understand crypto economy), may I ask your opinion on this:
BLACKHALO BITHALO AND NIGHTTRADER WORLDS FIRST UNBREAKABLE SMART CONTRACTS LIVE AND RUNNING
www.BlackHalo.info www.NightTrader.org www.BitHalo.org
www.BlackHalo.info www.NightTrader.org www.BitHalo.org
Anyone? I'm actually surprised not many people seem to care, or is it that they don't understand it?
PoS put to rest:
Latter emphasis mine.
PoS coins use the number of coins held as the basis for their signalling system. Since coins have an exchange rate, they obviously do not fulfill the criteria of having no value, either practical or intellectual. Thus PoS is not an viable mechanism for honest signalling.
Latter emphasis mine.
Could you provide a practical example where this would actually matter?
PoS put to rest:
A big text for nothing.
The only argument is :
Quote
there will be times where two nodes disagree
and it's wrong. Or at least not even debated.Disagree what ? He talks like nodes have their own will.
How about Ripple ? POW is elegant but it is not required to have a distributed consensus.
PoS put to rest:
A big text for nothing.
The only argument is :
Quote
there will be times where two nodes disagree
and it's wrong. Or at least not even debated.Disagree what ? He talks like nodes have their own will.
PoS put to rest:
A big text for nothing.
The only argument is :
Quote
there will be times where two nodes disagree
and it's wrong. Or at least not even debated.Disagree what ? He talks like nodes have their own will.
Jump to: