The Deathblow to Proof of Stake - page 6.

Propulsion

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

The Buck Stops Here.

Quote from: counter on July 14, 2014, 03:29:02 PM

I'm onf the thinking that there was a problem that someone found and exploited it within Mintpal. That doesn't mean the whole use of PoS is flawed beyond repair by any means. Seems to me just by reading this thread it is clear that what ever happened here need to be addressed and made sure such things don't happen again. Arguing which system is better doesn't do much good at this time it only makes finding the best solutions harder.

You're missing the original point of this thread.

Proof of Stake is inherently flawed because in the event of a hack the attacker not only gains the coins, but he/she also gains the network.

solid12345

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1000

Nothing is talked about WHY so many coins sit on so many exchanges even after Mt. Gox

Most traders are paralyzed in fear that whales will dump a coin anytime they are too afraid to stake their coins thinking the time will come when the market starts tanking and they will be caught holding the bag.

Personally I think the best solution is a coin that has POS but also has an on-going POW too.

counter

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 500

Time is on our side, yes it is!

I'm onf the thinking that there was a problem that someone found and exploited it within Mintpal. That doesn't mean the whole use of PoS is flawed beyond repair by any means. Seems to me just by reading this thread it is clear that what ever happened here need to be addressed and made sure such things don't happen again. Arguing which system is better doesn't do much good at this time it only makes finding the best solutions harder.

atoni

full member

Activity: 168

Merit: 100

Quote from: atoni on July 14, 2014, 03:13:22 PM

Quote from: profitofthegods on July 14, 2014, 02:14:14 PM

That is worrying. The only thing I'd disagree with the OP on though is that if Vericoin had been a lot bigger it wouldn't have been a bigger problem, it wouldn't have been a problem at all because there is no way you could ever have 30% of a widely distributed coin held on a single exchange. That only happened because VRC is new, not owned by a lot of people, and not traded at a lot of different places.

I don't think its realistic to fear this happening to a large PoS coin like NXT as someone else mentioned above.

Nxt is actually the most vulnerable, because BCNEXT and his alts control over 50% of network, if he held passwords in same place like Klee its very likely that we see 51% on nexters very soon.

You can read on Salsazs blog how many nexters have been released to people to trade and how many is held by founder, a pocket change. Name of blog is pretty good too, it tells you how creator got rich lol

http://nxtcoin.blogspot.com/2014/06/how-nxt-changed-our-lives-james.html

atoni

full member

Activity: 168

Merit: 100

Quote from: profitofthegods on July 14, 2014, 02:14:14 PM

That is worrying. The only thing I'd disagree with the OP on though is that if Vericoin had been a lot bigger it wouldn't have been a bigger problem, it wouldn't have been a problem at all because there is no way you could ever have 30% of a widely distributed coin held on a single exchange. That only happened because VRC is new, not owned by a lot of people, and not traded at a lot of different places.

I don't think its realistic to fear this happening to a large PoS coin like NXT as someone else mentioned above.

Nxt is actually the most vulnerable, because BCNEXT and his alts control over 50% of network, if he held passwords in same place like Klee its very likely that we see 51% on nexters very soon.

Propulsion

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

The Buck Stops Here.

Quote from: Nullu on July 14, 2014, 03:03:29 PM

Quote from: AlexGR on July 14, 2014, 03:00:44 PM

Quote from: Nullu on July 14, 2014, 02:57:29 PM

If this had been any other coin, would we be blaming the coin? The coin wasn't hacked. The exchange was. Yes, POS has differing consequences when coins are stolen, but this is an unintended consequence of POS. It's not a fault of the coin's design.

The "unintended consequence of POS" is its flaw, as was evidenced in this case. It's not about coins per se. It's about the proof-of-(insterherewhatever) model is used.

So by that logic, because someone can steal bitcoins, and because the currency is anonymous in that the new owner can't be traced, this is a flaw too. This doesn't mean PoW or PoS are broken concepts, in much the same way Fiat isn't perfect either.

I agree that this has caused severe problems, but the blame does not lie directly with the coin itself.

The issue is how the coins are created. With POS or proof of stake, when you have a large number of coins, you can effectively control the network. The attacker gained control with the attack.

It's a flaw in POS that will create larger issues in the future if any POS coin becomes mainstream in the event of a large hack like yesterday.

Proof of work is not susceptible of losing control of the network if coins are stolen. Preventing the nuclear option of rolling back to save the network.

ebliever

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1036

Quote from: Nullu on July 14, 2014, 02:57:29 PM

Quote from: Propulsion on July 14, 2014, 02:29:09 PM

Quote from: Nullu on July 14, 2014, 02:25:33 PM

This isn't about the failure of POS. It's about the failure of Mintpal.

POS was the reason the rollback was necessary. The attacker gained network control along with the stolen coins.

If it was POW, it wouldn't of been needed to rollback because the attacker wouldn't control the network.

No. the reason the rollback is apparently necessary is because Mintpal had a security flaw in their exchange and way too many coins that should have been in cold storage.

If this had been any other coin, would we be blaming the coin? The coin wasn't hacked. The exchange was. Yes, POS has differing consequences when coins are stolen, but this is an unintended consequence of POS. It's not a fault of the coin's design.

I think we need to distinguish between the FLAW and the VULNERABILITY.

The coin was not flawed. The flaw was with Mintpal security. That's disappointing and alarming in itself (are my other coins there safe?). But that's not a fault of vericoin. It's very curious why VRC was targeted and not BTC or another major coin. Hopefully we'll learn more as the investigation progresses.

The vulnerability is common to all POS coins, as the OP indicates. Vericoin is not at fault for this either, apart from the general decision to go with POS. This is troubling, because if POS has an intractable vulnerability then it implies we are going to be shifting back to PoW, with all the energy usage that entails. Hopefully the vulnerability will turn out to have a robust solution without going back to PoW.

Either way, Vericoin itself is not really at fault in this whole mess. Mintpal, and of course the thieves/hackers themselves, bear the most scrutiny. The Vericoin team is just making the best of a bad situation and deserve plaudits for helping fix (or 99% fix at least) a problem not of their making.

Nullu

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Quote from: AlexGR on July 14, 2014, 03:00:44 PM

Quote from: Nullu on July 14, 2014, 02:57:29 PM

If this had been any other coin, would we be blaming the coin? The coin wasn't hacked. The exchange was. Yes, POS has differing consequences when coins are stolen, but this is an unintended consequence of POS. It's not a fault of the coin's design.

The "unintended consequence of POS" is its flaw, as was evidenced in this case. It's not about coins per se. It's about the proof-of-(insterherewhatever) model is used.

So by that logic, because someone can steal bitcoins, and because the currency is anonymous in that the new owner can't be traced, this is a flaw too. This doesn't mean PoW or PoS are broken concepts, in much the same way Fiat isn't perfect either.

I agree that this has caused severe problems, but the blame does not lie directly with the coin itself.

AlexGR

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1049

Quote from: Nullu on July 14, 2014, 02:57:29 PM

If this had been any other coin, would we be blaming the coin? The coin wasn't hacked. The exchange was. Yes, POS has differing consequences when coins are stolen, but this is an unintended consequence of POS. It's not a fault of the coin's design.

The "unintended consequence of POS" is its flaw, as was evidenced in this case. It's not about coins per se. It's about the proof-of-(insterherewhatever) model is used.

Nullu

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Quote from: Propulsion on July 14, 2014, 02:29:09 PM

Quote from: Nullu on July 14, 2014, 02:25:33 PM

This isn't about the failure of POS. It's about the failure of Mintpal.

POS was the reason the rollback was necessary. The attacker gained network control along with the stolen coins.

If it was POW, it wouldn't of been needed to rollback because the attacker wouldn't control the network.

No. the reason the rollback is apparently necessary is because Mintpal had a security flaw in their exchange and way too many coins that should have been in cold storage.

If this had been any other coin, would we be blaming the coin? The coin wasn't hacked. The exchange was. Yes, POS has differing consequences when coins are stolen, but this is an unintended consequence of POS. It's not a fault of the coin's design.

Propulsion

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

The Buck Stops Here.

Quote from: Nullu on July 14, 2014, 02:25:33 PM

This isn't about the failure of POS. It's about the failure of Mintpal.

POS was the reason the rollback was necessary. The attacker gained network control along with the stolen coins.

If it was POW, it wouldn't of been needed to rollback because the attacker wouldn't control the network.

Nullu

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

This isn't about the failure of POS. It's about the failure of Mintpal.

darkota

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 500

Propulsion

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

The Buck Stops Here.

Quote from: profitofthegods on July 14, 2014, 02:14:14 PM

That is worrying. The only thing I'd disagree with the OP on though is that if Vericoin had been a lot bigger it wouldn't have been a bigger problem, it wouldn't have been a problem at all because there is no way you could ever have 30% of a widely distributed coin held on a single exchange. That only happened because VRC is new, not owned by a lot of people, and not traded at a lot of different places.

I don't think its realistic to fear this happening to a large PoS coin like NXT as someone else mentioned above.

It would not of been possible at all to create a rollback if the currency had a wider adoption.

There would be too many merchants and private individuals affected. Every single transaction after a single point in time would effectively vanish.

KryptoFoo

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

30% of VRC's float in a single hot wallet? I know mintpal said they were not staking it but I find that hard to believe. It's either extreme incompetence in foregoing cold storage or deception and greed in staking their customer's coin.

profitofthegods

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

That is worrying. The only thing I'd disagree with the OP on though is that if Vericoin had been a lot bigger it wouldn't have been a bigger problem, it wouldn't have been a problem at all because there is no way you could ever have 30% of a widely distributed coin held on a single exchange. That only happened because VRC is new, not owned by a lot of people, and not traded at a lot of different places.

I don't think its realistic to fear this happening to a large PoS coin like NXT as someone else mentioned above.

Propulsion

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

The Buck Stops Here.

Quote from: ebliever on July 14, 2014, 02:02:07 PM

Quote from: Propulsion on July 14, 2014, 12:06:25 PM

The unprecedented solution
A rollback is terrible. Every single cryptocurrency relies on the public blockchain ledger. It is the holy grail of the entire currency. Once something is written to it and not orphaned, it's set in stone. When the team decided to initiate the rollback, they decided to use the nuclear option. They broke the entire foundation of crypto and set a new norm where it will be ok to undo transactions if the are large enough. Instead of the developers only being developers, they've now taken the option to also be the federal reserve and the police.

I'd like to understand this better, because it has been bothering me for a while. Can devs really just unilaterally decide to roll back a blockchain in PoS? Aren't there other players involved who have to go along with the idea? Lately I've seen many examples of coin devs announcing forks and changes to their coin attributes, and I've had a hard time figuring out just how much power a dev has by themself, and how much has to be a concensus decision with other parts involved - and whom are they? Miners, exchanges, holders of wallets, etc?

I can't believe devs have some secret key by which they can just single-handedly alter a coin contrary to everyone else's wishes. That would destroy all faith in such coins IMHO. So please help me understand this.

This is the first time a rollback has ever been performed due to outside circumstances like an exchange failing to implement proper security. In essence, it's a bailout for the exchange. A rollback is the nuclear option, (never been done before) it might cause fallout for every single cryptocurrency in existence.

ebliever

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1036

Quote from: Propulsion on July 14, 2014, 12:06:25 PM

The unprecedented solution
A rollback is terrible. Every single cryptocurrency relies on the public blockchain ledger. It is the holy grail of the entire currency. Once something is written to it and not orphaned, it's set in stone. When the team decided to initiate the rollback, they decided to use the nuclear option. They broke the entire foundation of crypto and set a new norm where it will be ok to undo transactions if the are large enough. Instead of the developers only being developers, they've now taken the option to also be the federal reserve and the police.

I'd like to understand this better, because it has been bothering me for a while. Can devs really just unilaterally decide to roll back a blockchain in PoS? Aren't there other players involved who have to go along with the idea? Lately I've seen many examples of coin devs announcing forks and changes to their coin attributes, and I've had a hard time figuring out just how much power a dev has by themself, and how much has to be a concensus decision with other parts involved - and whom are they? Miners, exchanges, holders of wallets, etc?

I can't believe devs have some secret key by which they can just single-handedly alter a coin contrary to everyone else's wishes. That would destroy all faith in such coins IMHO. So please help me understand this.

AlexGR

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1049

Quote from: Wulfcastle on July 14, 2014, 12:23:24 PM

Quote from: mrvegad on July 14, 2014, 12:14:30 PM

Another thread about the dangers of POS, what is this? about the 5th or 6th thread? All i see so far is talk, if POS is so bad then why doesn't someone attack NXT? Time to nut up or shut up.

PoS is not the problem here, ignorance and incompetence is. This is all a result of MintPal leaving 30% of all VRC in existence in one of their hot wallets when they are supposedly making use of cold storage methods.

If the design is not fault-tolerant of other's ignorance, incompetence or stupidity, then its dependencies for being useful are too large.

Propulsion

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

The Buck Stops Here.

Quote from: Wulfcastle on July 14, 2014, 12:23:24 PM

Quote from: mrvegad on July 14, 2014, 12:14:30 PM

Another thread about the dangers of POS, what is this? about the 5th or 6th thread? All i see so far is talk, if POS is so bad then why doesn't someone attack NXT? Time to nut up or shut up.

PoS is not the problem here, ignorance and incompetence is. This is all a result of MintPal leaving 30% of all VRC in existence in one of their hot wallets when they are supposedly making use of cold storage methods. It's also ignorance by the part of the VRC community for leaving that number of coins in one exchange, but it's not their fault this happened.

The key point is that PoS is not at fault here. The direct equivalent of this happening in PoW would be 30% of the network hash rate leaving their pools and mining at GHash.io, thus pushing the hash-rate over 51%. Let's not forget that GHash.io was on the brink of having 50% of the network hash-rate around 2 weeks ago so no one can say PoW is full-proof from attacks either.

A rollback wouldn't of been necessary if the attacker never gained hashing power which they did with the attack. In a proof of work system, a rollback wouldn't of been needed.

Topic: The Deathblow to Proof of Stake - page 6. (Read 7929 times)