Seems like the biggest problem of cryptocurrency is centralisation. Given that it's meant to be a decentralised currency, it's pretty logical. The problem is centralisation of decentralised currency.
Holding too many coins in one place is like keeping your life savings under your mattress. Keeping large amounts of coins on an exchange, well that just flies in the face of decentralised currency.
Topic: The Deathblow to Proof of Stake - page 4. (Read 7929 times)
Proof of stake is useless to people who want to use online wallets for their altcoin, since most online wallets keep the income for themselves. As do exchanges that gain POS shares in balances.
"Useless" if you think the use of crypto-currency is to increase wealth by mining/forging. In Nxt, forging is more about securing the network than it is about gaining revenue. In PoS, anyone can forge, but no-one will get rich from it.Does NXT suffer from the "nothing at stake" vulnerability?
"Nothing at Stake" is a chimera; a theoretical problem that has never been seen in the wild. Currently Nxt does not suffer from forgers forging on every chain they see. There is reason to believe it never will.Quote
Or all IPO+PoS coins for that matter, because in the beginning someone had 100% of the coins.
Are you confusing "Nothing at Stake" with "History Attack"? Nxt mitigates history attacks by not allowing block-chain re-organisations past 720 blocks. That means we don't have to worry about the founders mounting an attack with ancient coins.
In either case - PoW or PoS - the security of the network is based on a limited resource that can't be created at will. If an attacker gains control of an amount of that limited resource that is enough to undermine the security of the network it will get nasty.
In PoS the limited resource is derived from the currency units in the network itself.
In PoW the limited resource is computational power.
PoS's security suffers from big holders of currency units which have malicious intents.
PoW' security suffers from big holders of computational power which have malicious intents (imagine someone is abusing a PoW pool's computational power; even if that power is below 50% all that is needed, is to DDoS another big pool...).
Same shit, different color.
The big difference lies in the economical aspects of attacks on PoS and PoW.
For PoW attacks you need computational power. If you have killed a specific PoW network with that power, you can still use it for other PoW networks.
For PoS attacks you need currency units of the network you intend to attack. If you succeed, you diminish the value of the owned currency units - estimatively by vast amounts; there's no reuse for different networks.
In PoS the limited resource is derived from the currency units in the network itself.
In PoW the limited resource is computational power.
PoS's security suffers from big holders of currency units which have malicious intents.
PoW' security suffers from big holders of computational power which have malicious intents (imagine someone is abusing a PoW pool's computational power; even if that power is below 50% all that is needed, is to DDoS another big pool...).
Same shit, different color.
The big difference lies in the economical aspects of attacks on PoS and PoW.
For PoW attacks you need computational power. If you have killed a specific PoW network with that power, you can still use it for other PoW networks.
For PoS attacks you need currency units of the network you intend to attack. If you succeed, you diminish the value of the owned currency units - estimatively by vast amounts; there's no reuse for different networks.
A node is the same no matter the amount of coins (in Nxt at least, other PoS are shit if they have such big flaws).
Sorry my ignorance regarding NXT, but someone could just start as many nodes as he wants and have majority of them?
PoS leads to centralization
Both me and many others have said this before and it still remains true.
PoW is better for security
PoS is good if you don't care about centralization/security and you're ok with one person controlling the network.
PoW leads to centralization through massive big pools.Both me and many others have said this before and it still remains true.
PoW is better for security
PoS is good if you don't care about centralization/security and you're ok with one person controlling the network.
There are no incentive to centralize in PoS.
Both me and many others have said this before and it still remains true.
PoS is better for security
PoW is good if you don't care about centralization/security and you're ok with few people controlling the network (hardware production + professional mining + pool).
Sure, there are a few bigger pools than others but it isn't 1 person controlling the network, like PoS always eventually ends up at.
Also check out multi-algo PoW coins
there's you answer for big centralized pools.I would still rather have big centralized pools than someone having the power to control the network without owning any hashing power or even 51% of the coins (even if he had them at one point, he can sell them off and then attack the network - attacking it at no cost).
How does your PoS deal with that, fork it to an earlier stage? haha
PoS allows someone to attack a network at no cost and ruin it for everyone else while benefitting, PoW doesn't. If you cannot see that then there is nothing more to discuss, you need to open your eyes to see
In Nxt, a node add the same resilience to the network no matter the amount of coins.
This new wave of PoS shitcoin are not real PoS.
Let me requote myself if you cannot read :
Quote
PoW leads to centralization through hardware production, professional mining and massive big pool.
There are no incentive to centralize in PoS.
A node is the same no matter the amount of coins (in Nxt at least, other PoS are shit if they have such big flaws).
There are no incentive to centralize in PoS.
A node is the same no matter the amount of coins (in Nxt at least, other PoS are shit if they have such big flaws).
PoS leads to centralization
Both me and many others have said this before and it still remains true.
PoW is better for security
PoS is good if you don't care about centralization/security and you're ok with one person controlling the network.
Both me and many others have said this before and it still remains true.
PoW is better for security
PoS is good if you don't care about centralization/security and you're ok with one person controlling the network.
PoW leads to centralization through massive big pools.
There are no incentive to centralize in PoS.
Both me and many others have said this before and it still remains true.
PoS is better for security
PoW is good if you don't care about centralization/security and you're ok with few people controlling the network (hardware production + professional mining + pool).
oh you're talking about bitcoin, with the big pools?
Sure, there are a few bigger pools than others but it isn't 1 person controlling the network, like PoS always eventually ends up at.
Also check out multi-algo PoW coins
there's you answer for big centralized pools.I would still rather have big centralized pools than someone having the power to control the network without owning any hashing power or even 51% of the coins (even if he had them at one point, he can sell them off and then attack the network - attacking it at no cost).
How does your PoS deal with that, fork it to an earlier stage? haha
PoS allows someone to attack a network at no cost and ruin it for everyone else while benefitting, PoW doesn't. If you cannot see that then there is nothing more to discuss, you need to open your eyes to see
Does NXT suffer from the "nothing at stake" vulnerability? Or all IPO+PoS coins for that matter, because in the beginning someone had 100% of the coins.
PoS leads to centralization
Both me and many others have said this before and it still remains true.
PoW is better for security
PoS is good if you don't care about centralization/security and you're ok with one person controlling the network.
Both me and many others have said this before and it still remains true.
PoW is better for security
PoS is good if you don't care about centralization/security and you're ok with one person controlling the network.
PoW leads to centralization through hardware production, professional mining and massive big pool.
There are no incentive to centralize in PoS.
A node is the same no matter the amount of coins (in Nxt at least, other PoS are shit if they have such big flaws).
Both me and many others have said this before and it still remains true.
PoS is better for security
PoW is good if you don't care about centralization/security and you're ok with few people controlling the network.
PoS leads to centralization
Both me and many others have said this before and it still remains true.
PoW is better for security
PoS is good if you don't care about centralization/security and you're ok with one person controlling the network.
Both me and many others have said this before and it still remains true.
PoW is better for security
PoS is good if you don't care about centralization/security and you're ok with one person controlling the network.
Proof of stake is useless to people who want to use online wallets for their altcoin, since most online wallets keep the income for themselves. As do exchanges that gain POS shares in balances.
because in proof of stake coins, there is a master node responsible for checkpointing and alerts.
So centralized security for a "decentralized" network?
Plus one centralized exchange, staking in one central wallet.
An 'unlocked' wallet
because in proof of stake coins, there is a master node responsible for checkpointing and alerts.
I wish people wouldn't talk as if all PoS algorithms were the same. Nxt doesn't use check-points. Doing a rollback in Nxt would be about as hard as doing one in Bitcoin.Standard Proof of stake is dead. If I owned 5% of a coin and colluded with 5 other people who also held 5% we could attack the network easily.
This is equally a problem for Bitcoin. You would need to own 5% of the hashpower rather than 5% of the coin; either way it is a big investment. Thing is, if you own 25% of Nxt, and you destroy the currency, you've destroyed your own money. Where-as with PoW you can own enough hashpower to destroy a currency without owning any of that currency. Afterwards you can move onto another currency that uses the same PoW algorithm. Currencies have been destroyed this way (when they were young).Quote
You can imagine if bitcoin was PoS and this happened, you would have 1 person that controls the entire network. Instant death.
Again, the analogy with Bitcoin is one faction gaining 25% of the hashing power. And it's happened - Ghash.io has been close to 51%. It seems it's far more likely to happen in a PoW currency, even the most mature one, than in a mature PoS. Obviously, GHash.io has not meant instant death for Bitcoin.
Total bullshit from OP.
I hope people will do their own research.
I have nothing to add to this troll talk.
I hope people will do their own research.
I have nothing to add to this troll talk.
NxT and POS is the way forward.
Masternodes are also a fantastically powerful concept and are already proving a success.
lol,,, i was drinking coffee... no i have to clean my display
NxT and POS is the way forward.
Masternodes are also a fantastically powerful concept and are already proving a success.
because in proof of stake coins, there is a master node responsible for checkpointing and alerts.
So centralized security for a "decentralized" network?
NXT doesn't have centralized checkpoints.
Other PoS (Peercoin?) may have those.
A distinction has to be made here if you want to stay objective.
Yup, no stinking master nodes for us......
because in proof of stake coins, there is a master node responsible for checkpointing and alerts.
So centralized security for a "decentralized" network?
NXT doesn't have centralized checkpoints.
Other PoS (Peercoin?) may have those.
A distinction has to be made here if you want to stay objective.
PoS isn't the problem. Using PoS solely is the problem.
Agreed - I would bet most coins using plain old PoS will need to change or die off because of this.
PoS isn't the problem. Using PoS solely is the problem.
Quote
Standard Proof of stake is dead. If I owned 5% of a coin and colluded with 5 other people who also held 5% we could attack the network easily. Let alone a single exchange can stake and or kill the network with a single wallet. The vulnerabilities are too big for mainstream adoption. You can imagine if bitcoin was PoS and this happened, you would have 1 person that controls the entire network. Instant death.
If the BTC community kept 2.4 billion dollars (approx. 30%) worth of BTC on a single exchange, the network deserves death to teach them a valuable lesson.
Jump to: