Topic: SEGWIT & LN KILLING OFF the OnChain Miners (Better start looking for new Jobs) (Read 2307 times)

Latest on Dangers posed by Segwit,
Words of a Former Segwit Supporter Who has Realized the Truth!



https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5vbofp/initially_i_liked_segwit_but_then_i_learned/




 

FYI:
Segwit => Trojan Virus for a Blockchain  

PoS clients are not designed to stake on multiple chains at the same time.


Discussions I had with some people regarding the nonsense call nothing at stake

Ok,
as of the moment no one has fixed transaction malleability in BTC,

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-bug-guide-transaction-malleability/


BTC allows transactions to SIT in the Mempool while they wait to be chosen (Pick the ones with higher fees) by the Miners,
which means someone could process a transaction with the mallability issue for BTC.

However Proof of Stake ,
Processes the Mempools transactions in the Order in which they Arrive, Meaning by the time Eve tries to retransmit the transaction,
the original transaction was already included in a block, as her transaction can not leap frog over the earlier transaction.  
in Other words Eve's transaction can not jump in front of Alice's transmission on a PoS Coin network,
because the transactions in the mempool are processed in the order they are received and not selected on a fee basis like BTC.

 

FYI:
The Exchange Operator can always just pull up a decent Block Explorer and look at the Sending and Receive Addresses and see if the coins were Sent & Received.
I guess that is why BTC has not hard forked to fix it , not a major issue if you check the addresses instead of the TX id.
Either way, PoS coins prove superior by not being greedy and not letting people jump their transactions in front of others.  

Im saying adding pow on the stack modifier computation not on the block themselves to avoid the staking on multiple chains.

The way i understand it, the problem with POS chain is that for example in blackcoin there is granulosity of 16 sec on the time nonce used to compute the proof of stake, meaning for each output you are staking on, you have 16 sec to compute the hash for it, so it leave lot of free time, and it would be very possible for an attacker to keep in permanence different valid version of the chain, and push one or the other on the network at any time. It's what make pos coin more vulnerable to transaction maleability. Even if it's not that useable in practice i think, it can still be potentially a pb. Adding some pow on the stake modifier could avoid this to be exploited too much.

Actually adding PoW to a PoS coin has the exact Opposite effect, it adds attack vectors that do not exist without PoW included.
(Reason ZEIT & Mintcoin both dropped PoW from our coins.)

Security analysis of PoW/PoS hybrids with low PoW reward
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/security-analysis-of-powpos-hybrids-with-low-pow-reward-551861

Attacks were Proved to Work by Rat4

 

FYI:
Funny thing is people see this giant # for PoW has and think it is more secure.
When the fact is ,
I can have a      PoS coin with a  difficulty   of 1
and compare to  BTC with it's     difficulty      440,779,902,287 .

The PoS coin with the difficulty # of 1 is just as secure if not more so than the PoW coin with 440,779,902,287.

Because even with that ultra high difficulty, the Chinese Miners could overwrite the last 12 hours or more whenever they felt like it. ( PoW offers False Security)
On the other Hand,
No one has been able to overwrite even 1 hour on a PoS only chain with a decent staking difficulty ,
plus when someone stakes their coins become inactive for a period of time , blocking a continuous control of the network ,
unlike a PoW ASICS which can dominate a chain indefinitely.

For me the issue of security with coins is not necessarily mostly about technical issues first.

It's what make bitcoin very successful is because it make in sort everyone participate get some reward somewhere. It's secure because 51% of users keep it so because they have an interest to do it.

With pos ok some people could buy all the coins and screw the chain, but what does he win ? nothing, he just lose all his money dry. No point in doing this.

And i think for small chain, pos can be more secure because with pow there can always be the risk someone outside the network come with some asics and over power it, with pos it need someone who has coin and is on the network. For small chain i tend to think the risk is still smaller with pos than pow.

And there is something i find really nice with pos, is the authority on the chain can be distributed very easily, maybe it's not very useful in the perspective of coins, but if something like a "proof of authority" could be useful in some scenario, with pow it would need the node to compute a big thing to prove it has the pow, and it would need to do this each time it need to give a "proof of authority", and it would be a big waste, and harder to be sure it's distributed evenly between a certain number of entities, with staking just need to check the network weight. And it make it much easier to distribute the authority on the chain, in certain case it can be interesting.

Maybe some small proof of work should be added to the stake modifier computation to incite people keeping on a single chain to make it a bit more secure.

You are one of those idiots that believ G.Maxwell Nothing at stake bullshit,
Read this forum , I destroy his lies:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/nothing-at-stake-in-proof-of-stake-1709776

PoW is a dead end, only the rich will mine.

PoS will defeat PoW, don't worry I don't care if you don't profit from it.  

 

FYI:
Your so called secured BTC, has been vulnerable to a 51% attack from the China for over a year.
It has no security!

Also BTC Core Dev refusal to fix the transactions issue , is hurting it.
Egad. 81,000 + Transactions Unconfirmed. Again. Ugh!   :  https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/egad-81000-transactions-unconfirmed-again-ugh-1799541
Transaction Fees are SPIKING !                : https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/transaction-fees-are-spiking-1801057

PoS is flawed. It has been proven to be insecure endless times due the nothing at stake problem which has never been solved.

No PoS coin will ever, ever, ever deliver the security of a network like bitcoin's. You aren't solving anything with PoS. PoS has more problems than PoW and is not as secure.

No one is going to hold value long term in PoS coins, sorry.

Spoken like a PoW miner, Completely Wrong, but hey your a PoW miner, thinking is not your strong suit. 

PoW is only fair to the Rich, that can afford a warehouse full of ASICS.

PoS is the only real game in town for the rest of the world.
PoS that incorporates Coin Age is better protected than PoW from Double spends.
Mintcoin never had any double spends because of Proof of stake to my knowledge, post a link if you have one.
(Are you talking about the security problems that was caused because they were at one time PoW & PoS, which is why they dropped the PoW.)

Mintpal & mintcoin had no affiliations.

 

pos suck even more, who buy more coins on the market win, because he can stake more quickly and dump faster, pow is more fair, you can't just go out and buy tons of gpu, as they require space maintenance, electricity ,cooling etc...and last but not last pos is more prone to be double spended, remember mintcoin and its exchange?

http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/groestlcoin/

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/anngrs-groestlcoin-1st-to-activate-segwit-building-lightning-network-525926

Groestlwho? Never heard of it

Exactly who has put that into writing, that LTC will be worth more?
Groestlcoin activated segwit, and they are being dumped at the moment.


 

Now they will have to support segwit or suffer from falling prices lol On the flipside Segwit support will make their coins worth more.

Dwgscale11 the biggest Crybaby in the forums.  



 

Kiklo the biggest shill that you've seen thus far.

 

Yes I didn't look in depth yet into it, so I might have a wrong idea I know im missing many things about it

I can understand the part with merging transactions to spare some from being mined, the case you present is case where its useful,but as the tps ratio of LN is still much higher, do you have a rough idea of how many tx can really be saved this way, and it can garantee the tx from a locked tx will be updated to the blockchain before the lock expire ? Like there will never be a flow of merged tx who would take more time than the lock to expire ?


Cause LN as no way to notify the other node or force them to extend the lock if that happen right ?

For me it's still the pb that the volume of merged tx to be synchronized back on the chain must be kept under control, otherwise it's bit like fractional reserve on the tx processing power. With the same potential issue if everyone want to get their tx back on the main chain all at once.


It's why to me it would be somehow cleaner to mark those tx with a special marker to say they are indefinitely locked  on LN, until another tx from LN make them available again.

That would mean probably slight upgrade  of the protocol because such tx would have no point in an "intra chain" view, as it would make the bitcoin just virtually disapear entierely from the chain, but that would be somehow more clear, and would solve the expire issue.

Because the only thing that I see a bit weird is that it still make the btc state in a sort of Split, they are marked as locked on the chain, meaning there is no way anyone on the network can move those coins before the lock expire, whereas they are effectively moved on the LN, without there is anyway to know it can even possibly happen from the chain.

And it seem dangerous to put a non reiterable timeout on the lock when you cant have a very good predictibility of if the state can be fully synchronized back with the blockchain in this time.


But that's mostly the concern id have with it, otherwise it seem a good idea in the principle, clearly something to be tried.

 

I think you've misunderstood the principle of the LN.  The idea of the LN is NOT to have a "buffered" list of transactions that have to go on-chain.  If that were the case, it wouldn't have any purpose.  The danger with the LN is that "by panic" it becomes such a system at a certain point.  But normally, the LN has more or less the following principle.

Consider first a toy LN with 2 nodes, Alice and Bob.  I even think that this embryonic proposal was already in Satoshi's paper.

Alice and bob want to pay one-another several times.  They could simply do that each time on-chain.  But they could also put each of them, say, 100 coins in an escrow-type of wallet (on chain).  Now, suppose that Alice wants to pay 20 coins to Bob.  She could send a *transaction signature* to Bob that would allow Bob to obtain 20 coins from Alice's wallet ; only, the idea is that Bob doesn't broadcast that transaction, but simply keeps the signature on his disk.  If later, Bob wants to pay 20 coins to Alice, he sends HER a transaction signature, which would override the signature HE obtained from Alice IF EVER he broadcasted it.  And if Alice now pays 20 coins to Bob again, she can send HIM a transaction signature that would override Bob's signature that would have overridden Alice's first signature if ever it was broadcasted.

The whole idea is that people send one-another transaction signatures that override previously obtained transaction signatures.

In other words, if at the end of the day, those 20 coins went 50 times to Bob, and 51 times to Alice, Alice and Bob have simply exchanged signatures amongst themselves, and NOTHING HAPPENED ON THE BLOCK CHAIN.   When they both want to quit, they can opt to:
1) send eachother the final signatures to release the coins to one another in the right amounts of the final balance, if they cooperate
2) DUMP THEIR WHOLE LIST OF TRANSACTIONS on the chain, which will then result in 50 transactions from Alice to Bob, and 51 transactions from Bob to Alice, ending up doing the same.

If the LN link "finishes cleanly" with mutual cooperation, then both of them could have exchanged even 1000 signatures, at the end of the day, only one or two transactions make the final balance on chain.  The idea is that there's no way to cheat, if you try to cheat, the partner dumps the whole list of transactions and obtains in any case what was the final balance.  And you're motivated NOT to do that, because you'd have to pay 1000 transaction fees, while now, you can do with only one.

The LN blows this scale up: instead of having 2 nodes exchanging coins back and forth, a node can open such 1-1 links to several partners, making up a mesh.  Suppose that Alice is connected to Bob and Claire, and Bob is connected to Joe and Jack.  If Alice wants to pay Jack, she can send the money to Bob who can send it to Jack (with a safeguard that Bob cannot keep it).  A lot of payments can hence travel across a lot of 1-1 links without a single on-chain transaction.  A node has to go "on chain" if his balance drops to 0 of course.  Each time the partners cooperate, they can just do one or two transactions to get to the final balance ; if not, they dump ALL their transactions on chain and obtain the same result but with much more transaction fees.

Note: I simplified.  The LN is somewhat more involved.  But you get the idea.

And this is one of the many reasons pow sucks. You need a system similar to POS to make it long term. But bitcoin and others will never change because centralized miners in china don't wanna kill the golden goose.