Topic: [SHOCK] Core dev and Blockstream employee tells bitcoin users to use fiat! (Read 6040 times)

Probably in his mind security means 6351 arrogant nodes that don't want 2mb blocks and thus keep all bitcoin users hostages to big fees.

Plus basically who knows how many of these nodes are fake, and even if they aren't maybe they are just like 15 year old kids running a node in their basement, while holding hostage 47 billion dollars worth of economy.

Franky how do you define 'security'? How do you measure it?

Not it does not. The consensus is what matters, and if the decision can be made quicker then it's better.

Sometimes it's better to adapt quicker to problems than to stay vulnerable for long.


Bitcoin now has a serious vulnerability. The fact that it can't change quickly, is Bitcoin's doom.

Things have to be flexible, and in consensus.


Pow is neither flexible, nor in consensus. It's just like a representative democracy, and look where that got us.

Sometimes your logic is rather strange

And it often contradicts what you have been claiming before. If there is a critical vulnerability found, what system will be more secure, the one which quickly removes this vulnerability or the one which is "harder to change"? I guess this simple example shows it pretty obviously how perverted your claim is. In other words, not all changes are born equal, and if something is harder to change, it doesn't necessarily mean than its more secure. In fact, it could cut both ways (as it often happens in reality)

if you stop thinking about WHO deserves the funds and WHO deserves to decide the rules and look at the security of CODE
PoW is more resistant than PoS

why do you think PoS changes happen so easily compared to PoW changes...
if something is harder to change, it means its more secure.

You haven't responded to my question.

Pos is also secure and immutable, but it's also flexible because it outlines who is in charge. If you own 51%, you are the boss.

Whereas in Bitcoin everyone is confused, and there is no clear consensus mechanism. And we have to rely on 3rd parties (nodes) who might not even have coins to decide things for us.


POW = REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
POS = CORPORATION

Which one is better?

Both parts of PoS deserve to be discussed and criticised. But I do agree that bait and switching back and forth between both seems almost an intentional attempt at creating confusion.

No, I am arguing against what you suggested, or what I understood you suggested, that one could get a higher chance in creating a block by just spreading their small balance over x-thousand wallets and thus centralize the block generation with increasing their stake chance. The more wallets, the more often selected, the more blocks created by that one person? Nope, that doesn't happen, as many have explained here now: Except for some tiny rounding errors maybe, as deisik pointed out, it's your whole balance that you control that gets selected, not the total numbers of wallets. Two people with 1000 coins in total create exactly the same amount of blocks, no matter how many wallets or even addresses they control: The guy with 1000 coins in one wallet get's selected 1000 times and the one with 1000 wallets each holding 1 coin get selected 1000 times since each of these 1 coin wallets have a 1000 times smaller chance to create a block.

After all, no matter what you do, if you want to attack a PoS coin you need to buy up enough total balance to have the majority of all blocks created by your wallet(s).

And again, I never claimed that PoS is technically more secure than PoW. Both are quite equally secure. Just in reality it'd be easier to invest a few million to gain a significant amount of hashing power than having to invest billions - and devaluing your own investment with your attack.

In PoW the obstacle to get the privilege of creating a block is your power to solve hashes against the network and in PoS the obstacle is to actually own the coins you want to attack (which means you're attacking yourself or your own wealth).

And BTW we have not even started to talk about advanced attacks like the possibility when you dDoS the biggest pools of a PoW network to give your own pool a greater chance to solve blocks. Imagine someone started to attack pools with the mirai botnet in a run like that attack against Dyn that brought Amazon and other big providers down in October last year.
http://www.globaldots.com/mirai-botnet-vs-dyn-attack-brought-half-us-internet/

This is not what you started with. To wit, you started claiming the following:


As I can see (wtf, even the fucking dog of everyone can see that), it is you who first started talking about value, and that has apparently nothing to do with security, i.e. the direction where you now try to sidestep the question. It is not surprising either that you will be posting every time that this has "meandered off topic", though I for one don't think that it is off-topic. I'd rather say it is a legit expansion of the topic raised

For a successful forge you don't just need to 'win' the block, you will also need to predict which block is going to win in advance. How are you ever going to do that?

lol all i see is PoS defenders arguing about VALUE accrued over the year depending on stake..
facepalm

my premiss was SECURITY of the immutable data, NOT value income from who forges blocks.
i think people are missing the point.

having 1 address of 10,000 coins.. does not make the edcsa of that address any stronger than
an address of only 10 coins or only 0.001 coins.. the SECURITY is the exact friggen same.

PoS is not more secure than PoW

PoS is more about wealth distribution. not security

but this has meandered off topic anyway.

Exactly. Wallet distribution is much more important for PoS than it is for PoW. For PoW it doesn't really matter because the people with wallets don't have a say in what happens to a coin, only the miners do. At best the wallet distribution gives PoW a bit more price stability but that's about it.

What do you mean "abused".

If they control most of the coins, then they own most of the coin network. A POS is like a corporation with shareholders.

I agree that POS could should be distributed more fairly not the devs holding on to 99% of the coins.

But that is just a question of bad organization, and not a fault of POS.

Create your own POS coin that is fairly distributed, and then it will not be abused.

So looked it up:  

Imagine  Blackcoin has a lottery that is held 1350 times a day.
The price of that lottery is 1.5 BLK.
The ticket of that lottery is 1BLK
The chances of winning depend on how many other tickets participate (stake). This goes up to the full circulation of BLK (currently 76.2 Million coins, but about 20% of them seem to be actually staking this greatly enhances your winning chance).  
The ticket doesn't expire. It remains valid as long as the coin is in a wallet that stakes. Every 64 seconds a new lottery.  

Blackcoin has a 64s block time.
86400 / 64 = 1350 blocks per day.  

Someone with 200BLK will have twice the chance of receiving that stake as someone with 100BLK will. And again, both are still participating in this lottery 1350 times a day.

At the end of the year the wallet with 200BLK will have staked twice as many times as the wallet with 100BLK. EVEN when you factor in compounding. Both wallets grow at roughly 4-5% interest per year due to many wallets sitting on exchanges not staking at all.

You can chose to hold these tickets in your left hand, or in your right hand, or use them as christmas decoration it doesn't matter, they still give same amount of 'wins' each year.  


It's just airtight. More coins should be looking at this.

And what does it change?

If your stake (i.e. the weight that your voice has) amounts to the number of coins you have in your wallet, it doesn't matter into how many wallets you divide your stash. Indeed, 10 coins will "get chosen more often than a person with just 0.001" of a coin. But does it mean that a person with 1,000 wallets (totaling 10,000 coins) will get chosen more often than someone else with the same 10,000 coins in just one wallet? There may in fact be certain second level effects like rounding errors and similar stuff, but I don't think that it will have any noticeable impact on the probability distribution at large. In any case, they will be technical issues (let's call them flaws) which should be addressed at the implementation level (if they are to emerge for real)

lol
seems your not reading your own words...
your revealing the flaw while trying to debunk the same flaw.. lol

say the stake is 0.001 minimum

i have 10,000 coins

i can spread my coins over 1000 addresses
meaning each address has 10coins.

now do you think my stakes will get chosen more often than a person with just 0.001
go on be honest. how often will i win compared to a person with only 0.001

think about it 1001 possible 'forgers' 1 with 0.001 at stake and 1000 with 10 coins at stake.
so it not only by having 10 coins vs 0.001 solves the 'weight' part.
but the 1000 also gives me 99,99% of the pie by owning 1000 of 1001 'randomness chance'

anyway we have meandered off topic to th nth degree.

we really need to slap any dev with a wet fish that refuses community input about how devs are halting utility and screwing up functionality, especially if their reply is not 'here is some code'.. but instead 'go back to fiat'

BWHAHAHAH



What a classic Pump-n-Dump

there are hundreds of PoS variants.