The Feds Are Terrified Of Cryptocurrencies... But They're Powerless To Stop Them

Lieldoryn

sr. member

Activity: 630

Merit: 272

Quote from: Clement Kaliyar on August 10, 2017, 05:43:16 PM

Quote from: Shamie1002 on August 05, 2017, 03:54:25 AM

I think they are not really afraid. They have the legal power and I know that they can do what they want. Bitcoin is a big money and I am sure that they are just waiting for the right time to attack. We should all be ready for any situations.

What do you think you will do if the government bans certain digital currencies,i am sure no one will use them because of the fear of going to the prison and getting tortured Cheesy

The amount of money raised for these ICO are a worrying factor for most of the countries as they will find a way to monitor every investor in the future in the name to counter terrorism. Grin

It will be difficult to do. Governments can influence the exchange of bitcoins for cash, but if you have the exchange of bitcoins for goods in the Internet simply put trade, but in terms of a rights exchange, the government can't do anything.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: jaysabi on August 10, 2017, 05:38:33 PM

Quote from: deisik on August 10, 2017, 03:43:10 AM

No, I don't have any PoS coins

But if I'm not mistaken clams were specifically intended as a sort of substitute for bitcoins in gambling since online gambling is prohibited in Canada (Just-Dice and its owner dooglus seem to be from Canada). I don't know how well it worked out since I'm not much into gambling anyway (at least, not after the PrimeDice times). That said, I still hope that Litecoin (which I'm slowly moving my cryptowealth to) will switch to this model eventually

Clams pre-seeded everyone who had a btc, doge, or litecoin address as of a certain date I believe with a certain amount of clams. It kind of went nowhere for awhile until it became the official token of JD. I don't know if it was always intended that way or if he just capitalized on a new coin that he liked the distribution method of. Doog is from Canada, but it's unclear to me how he expected Clams to be legal where bitcoin wasn't on his dice site. I claimed all the clams I was entitled to and followed it for awhile. I eventually sold out of it because it's just another alt with no utility outside of JD in my opinion.

Interesting though, why do you want Litecoin to switch to PoS?

Well, I thought the answer to this question should be rather straightforward

But you likely already know it yourself. In short, I don't think that Bitcoin can last on like it did before given the controversies between Bitcoin developers and miners (which seem only to aggravate with time passing by). It should be pretty evident as well that these misfortunes are a logical and inevitable outcome of the PoW model where economic interests of miners are not quite in line with interests of Bitcoin users (i.e. those who make up the so called economic majority). This is different with the PoS model, so I basically don't want Litecoin to finish like Bitcoin is likely going to end up (i.e. dying destitute under the bridge abandoned by virtually everyone)

hardforkcoin

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

I strongly believe that behind the scenes the government is watching all crypto and implementing the KYC(Know Your Customer) ruler/regulations as much as they can so they can keep track of us easier.

Places like Coinbase and others that make you verify who you are before they allow you to buy into crypto. Those are the places that will be used for the government to take over the crypto world. They will blackmail people I am sure. Probably have Coinbase selling all of everyones data right now to figure out who you are.

Clement Kaliyar

hero member

Activity: 1302

Merit: 532

Quote from: Shamie1002 on August 05, 2017, 03:54:25 AM

I think they are not really afraid. They have the legal power and I know that they can do what they want. Bitcoin is a big money and I am sure that they are just waiting for the right time to attack. We should all be ready for any situations.

What do you think you will do if the government bans certain digital currencies,i am sure no one will use them because of the fear of going to the prison and getting tortured Cheesy

The amount of money raised for these ICO are a worrying factor for most of the countries as they will find a way to monitor every investor in the future in the name to counter terrorism. Grin

jaysabi

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1115

★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!

Quote from: deisik on August 10, 2017, 03:43:10 AM

Quote from: jaysabi on August 09, 2017, 04:22:23 PM

Quote from: deisik on August 08, 2017, 03:34:50 PM

Quote from: jaysabi on August 04, 2017, 05:47:07 PM

Quote from: deisik on August 03, 2017, 11:47:35 AM

But that distinction can in fact make a tremendous difference

In other words, it may be quite feasible and doable to disrupt the PoW network provided enough resources are put into mining, and you are sort of guaranteed to succeed at bringing the network down. At the same time, the mission of accumulating enough coins in the PoS model may be virtually impossible since as soon as you start buying up, the price is set to spike exponentially. And whatever the price might be, you still might not be able to make it simply because some holders won't sell at any price. And then you are stuck

But again, this operates on the notion that the only way to disrupt a PoS system is to seize control of it, rather than disrupting it's ability to propagate a network by attacking or taking offline the computers that make it up, does it not? Even under PoW, you don't have to seize control of it to render it unusable, you just have to destabilize it to the point that blocks can be corrupted. (I say "just" knowing this would be a technical feat.) But I would think that you could hamper the system the same way by disrupting the network activity in PoS. Theoretically, what happens if a wallet with 51% of a PoS coinbase is not connected to the network? I would think they don't get to solve any blocks, otherwise the network would grind to a halt. If 51% of the coinbase in PoS is not connected to the network, doesn't that degrade network security the same way as taking out a large portion of the mining power making up PoW? My guess would be yes, but I don't know, which is why I'm asking.

Strictly speaking, I don't know

Since there are many varieties of the PoS model out there, and some of them can surely address that point in a coherent way. Personally, I'm inclined to think that if 51% of all nodes just plug off from the network without doing anything nasty behind the scenes, nothing particularly dangerous is going to happen. Regarding your other point (that of crushing part of the network), indeed if you shut down the whole Internet (or some part thereof) or just divide it into independent segments, this won't bode well for any coin, but this is certainly beyond the scope of issues addressed by these models. It is like saying that you could severely damage a coin by starting an all-out nuclear holocaust but this certainly won't be a blow aimed against this coin specifically (which is sort of assumed)

Do you own any PoS personally? I dabbled in Clams for awhile but found I didn't particularly like it as a currency. The fast blocks are a nice thing to have, but the inflation rate I didn't find particularly beneficial. Although I suppose that over time, the inflation rate becomes more and more insignificant as a proportion of the overall coinbase, but that also requires a more robust use-case than Clam had at the time I stopped following it. Perhaps it's still the case, but at the time its main utility was as a gambling token for Just-Dice.

No, I don't have any PoS coins

But if I'm not mistakes clams were specifically intended as a sort of substitute for bitcoins in gambling since online gambling is prohibited in Canada (Just-Dice and its owner dooglus seem to be from Canada). I don't know how well it worked out since I'm not much into gambling anyway (at least, not after the PrimeDice times). That said, I still hope that Litecoin (which I'm slowly moving my cryptowealth to) will switch to this model eventually

Clams pre-seeded everyone who had a btc, doge, or litecoin address as of a certain date I believe with a certain amount of clams. It kind of went nowhere for awhile until it became the official token of JD. I don't know if it was always intended that way or if he just capitalized on a new coin that he liked the distribution method of. Doog is from Canada, but it's unclear to me how he expected Clams to be legal where bitcoin wasn't on his dice site. I claimed all the clams I was entitled to and followed it for awhile. I eventually sold out of it because it's just another alt with no utility outside of JD in my opinion.

Interesting though, why do you want Litecoin to switch to PoS?

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: jaysabi on August 09, 2017, 04:22:23 PM

Quote from: deisik on August 08, 2017, 03:34:50 PM

Quote from: jaysabi on August 04, 2017, 05:47:07 PM

Quote from: deisik on August 03, 2017, 11:47:35 AM

But that distinction can in fact make a tremendous difference

In other words, it may be quite feasible and doable to disrupt the PoW network provided enough resources are put into mining, and you are sort of guaranteed to succeed at bringing the network down. At the same time, the mission of accumulating enough coins in the PoS model may be virtually impossible since as soon as you start buying up, the price is set to spike exponentially. And whatever the price might be, you still might not be able to make it simply because some holders won't sell at any price. And then you are stuck

But again, this operates on the notion that the only way to disrupt a PoS system is to seize control of it, rather than disrupting it's ability to propagate a network by attacking or taking offline the computers that make it up, does it not? Even under PoW, you don't have to seize control of it to render it unusable, you just have to destabilize it to the point that blocks can be corrupted. (I say "just" knowing this would be a technical feat.) But I would think that you could hamper the system the same way by disrupting the network activity in PoS. Theoretically, what happens if a wallet with 51% of a PoS coinbase is not connected to the network? I would think they don't get to solve any blocks, otherwise the network would grind to a halt. If 51% of the coinbase in PoS is not connected to the network, doesn't that degrade network security the same way as taking out a large portion of the mining power making up PoW? My guess would be yes, but I don't know, which is why I'm asking.

Strictly speaking, I don't know

Since there are many varieties of the PoS model out there, and some of them can surely address that point in a coherent way. Personally, I'm inclined to think that if 51% of all nodes just plug off from the network without doing anything nasty behind the scenes, nothing particularly dangerous is going to happen. Regarding your other point (that of crushing part of the network), indeed if you shut down the whole Internet (or some part thereof) or just divide it into independent segments, this won't bode well for any coin, but this is certainly beyond the scope of issues addressed by these models. It is like saying that you could severely damage a coin by starting an all-out nuclear holocaust but this certainly won't be a blow aimed against this coin specifically (which is sort of assumed)

Do you own any PoS personally? I dabbled in Clams for awhile but found I didn't particularly like it as a currency. The fast blocks are a nice thing to have, but the inflation rate I didn't find particularly beneficial. Although I suppose that over time, the inflation rate becomes more and more insignificant as a proportion of the overall coinbase, but that also requires a more robust use-case than Clam had at the time I stopped following it. Perhaps it's still the case, but at the time its main utility was as a gambling token for Just-Dice.

No, I don't have any PoS coins

But if I'm not mistaken clams were specifically intended as a sort of substitute for bitcoins in gambling since online gambling is prohibited in Canada (Just-Dice and its owner dooglus seem to be from Canada). I don't know how well it worked out since I'm not much into gambling anyway (at least, not after the PrimeDice times). That said, I still hope that Litecoin (which I'm slowly moving my cryptowealth to) will switch to this model eventually

audaciousbeing

hero member

Activity: 1330

Merit: 569

Even though government by default always want to be in control if everything to the point of what we are thinking, I am not sure they are terrified about bitcoin because over here, its what you know and understands that can terrify you bhf it seems the enforcement agencies to know or what to talk about bitcoin which therefore .sans, how will they be scared of what they don't know?

jaysabi

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1115

★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!

Quote from: deisik on August 08, 2017, 03:34:50 PM

Quote from: jaysabi on August 04, 2017, 05:47:07 PM

Quote from: deisik on August 03, 2017, 11:47:35 AM

But that distinction can in fact make a tremendous difference

In other words, it may be quite feasible and doable to disrupt the PoW network provided enough resources are put into mining, and you are sort of guaranteed to succeed at bringing the network down. At the same time, the mission of accumulating enough coins in the PoS model may be virtually impossible since as soon as you start buying up, the price is set to spike exponentially. And whatever the price might be, you still might not be able to make it simply because some holders won't sell at any price. And then you are stuck

But again, this operates on the notion that the only way to disrupt a PoS system is to seize control of it, rather than disrupting it's ability to propagate a network by attacking or taking offline the computers that make it up, does it not? Even under PoW, you don't have to seize control of it to render it unusable, you just have to destabilize it to the point that blocks can be corrupted. (I say "just" knowing this would be a technical feat.) But I would think that you could hamper the system the same way by disrupting the network activity in PoS. Theoretically, what happens if a wallet with 51% of a PoS coinbase is not connected to the network? I would think they don't get to solve any blocks, otherwise the network would grind to a halt. If 51% of the coinbase in PoS is not connected to the network, doesn't that degrade network security the same way as taking out a large portion of the mining power making up PoW? My guess would be yes, but I don't know, which is why I'm asking.

Strictly speaking, I don't know

Since there are many varieties of the PoS model out there, and some of them can surely address that point in a coherent way. Personally, I'm inclined to think that if 51% of all nodes just plug off from the network without doing anything nasty behind the scenes, nothing particularly dangerous is going to happen. Regarding your other point (that of crushing part of the network), indeed if you shut down the whole Internet (or some part thereof) or just divide it into independent segments, this won't bode well for any coin, but this is certainly beyond the scope of issues addressed by these models. It is like saying that you could severely damage a coin by starting an all-out nuclear holocaust but this certainly won't be a blow aimed against this coin specifically (which is sort of assumed)

Do you own any PoS personally? I dabbled in Clams for awhile but found I didn't particularly like it as a currency. The fast blocks are a nice thing to have, but the inflation rate I didn't find particularly beneficial. Although I suppose that over time, the inflation rate becomes more and more insignificant as a proportion of the overall coinbase, but that also requires a more robust use-case than Clam had at the time I stopped following it. Perhaps it's still the case, but at the time its main utility was as a gambling token for Just-Dice.

jaysabi

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1115

★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!

Quote from: Shamie1002 on August 05, 2017, 03:54:25 AM

I think they are not really afraid. They have the legal power and I know that they can do what they want. Bitcoin is a big money and I am sure that they are just waiting for the right time to attack. We should all be ready for any situations.

The SEC has acted quite slowly in response to crypto. They are not looking for the right time to "attack" or do any such nonsense. They are on the record (and their actions reinforce this) that they are taking a deliberate and measured approach to cryptocurrency so as not to needlessly squash innovation with regulatory overreach. They're in a tough position though, as their mandate is to protect individual investors and devise rules to enforce existing securities laws, so they (rightly) are continuing to study developments in this space.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: jaysabi on August 04, 2017, 05:47:07 PM

Quote from: deisik on August 03, 2017, 11:47:35 AM

But that distinction can in fact make a tremendous difference

In other words, it may be quite feasible and doable to disrupt the PoW network provided enough resources are put into mining, and you are sort of guaranteed to succeed at bringing the network down. At the same time, the mission of accumulating enough coins in the PoS model may be virtually impossible since as soon as you start buying up, the price is set to spike exponentially. And whatever the price might be, you still might not be able to make it simply because some holders won't sell at any price. And then you are stuck

But again, this operates on the notion that the only way to disrupt a PoS system is to seize control of it, rather than disrupting it's ability to propagate a network by attacking or taking offline the computers that make it up, does it not? Even under PoW, you don't have to seize control of it to render it unusable, you just have to destabilize it to the point that blocks can be corrupted. (I say "just" knowing this would be a technical feat.) But I would think that you could hamper the system the same way by disrupting the network activity in PoS. Theoretically, what happens if a wallet with 51% of a PoS coinbase is not connected to the network? I would think they don't get to solve any blocks, otherwise the network would grind to a halt. If 51% of the coinbase in PoS is not connected to the network, doesn't that degrade network security the same way as taking out a large portion of the mining power making up PoW? My guess would be yes, but I don't know, which is why I'm asking.

Strictly speaking, I don't know

Since there are many varieties of the PoS model out there, and some of them can surely address that point in a coherent way. Personally, I'm inclined to think that if 51% of all nodes just plug off from the network without doing anything nasty behind the scenes, nothing particularly dangerous is going to happen. Regarding your other point (that of crushing part of the network), indeed if you shut down the whole Internet (or some part thereof) or just divide it into independent segments, this won't bode well for any coin, but this is certainly beyond the scope of issues addressed by these models. It is like saying that you could severely damage a coin by starting an all-out nuclear holocaust but this certainly won't be a blow aimed against this coin specifically (which is sort of assumed)

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: NUKE911 on August 05, 2017, 03:58:19 AM

The feds just visited the dash developers recently but the y refused to talk to them claiming they had no more information than any user did.
I heard they are going to try and make vpn's illegal in russia. They also say there going to try and make tor illegal in the usa

The law was signed by Putin a few days ago

But as it always happens in such cases, people haven't been told the whole truth about the matter. And the half truths are sometimes (in fact, oftentimes if not always) worse than outright lies. In this case specifically, VPN's haven't been outright banned in Russia, that's bullshit. The law basically requires the providers of such services (VPN's, proxies, anonymizers, etc) to block access to banned resources. And it is only after they decline or refuse to block the access to such resources they are to be banned as well

That is, individual providers only, not all such services in their entirety

gentlemand

legendary

Activity: 2590

Merit: 3015

Welt Am Draht

Quote from: aTriz on August 05, 2017, 04:28:04 AM

Why would they be afraid? They have the legal power and technology to prevent anyone from using Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency for the matter.

Other than turning off the internet they really don't. They do however have absolute control over the fiat aspect of things and that's more than enough to keep a lid on it if they really wanted to. There'll always be people who route around that, but the majority they want to turn away from it would do so.

pentaboginja

newbie

Activity: 2

Merit: 0

Quote from: NUKE911 on August 05, 2017, 03:58:19 AM

The feds just visited the dash developers recently but the y refused to talk to them claiming they had no more information than any user did.
I heard they are going to try and make vpn's illegal in russia. They also say there going to try and make tor illegal in the usa.

Yea, I heard that too (Russia part) but VPN-s are rooted deeply into businesses all around the world, and many of them big, powerful companies, so I'm not so sure a bank or retailer that has thousand of VPN connections to remote offices will be pleased about that. Evem state owned companes use VPN-s a lot, it's so common now days that it would be tectonic shift if it was baned.

aTriz

hero member

Activity: 1232

Merit: 683

Tontogether | Save Smart & Win Big

Quote from: tyz on July 31, 2017, 12:28:47 PM

The federal government is no match for innovation. This is something lawmakers have always known, and it is the reason state and federal regulations exist. But innovation, by its very nature, will always find a way around those regulations, resulting in the implementation of more regulations for creative minds to learn to evade — which they will. This results in the over-regulation we see in America today.

Nothing scares the government more than something it can’t control, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) revealed this week that it is terrified of cryptocurrencies — as well it should be. See, all those lawmakers and bureaucrats sitting around regulating everything depend on taxpayer money to pay their salaries so they can keep writing regulations. Since cryptocurrencies allow people to keep all of their money, this is a big problem for the lawmakers. Soon, people may even start to realize they can buy, sell, and trade freely without any government intervention. The horror.

Zerohedge

Why would they be afraid? They have the legal power and technology to prevent anyone from using Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency for the matter. They shouldn't be afraid of crypto currencies, the American government has already embraced them and legalized them for use in America. Instead of being afraid of Bitcoin, they should be working on how to use the blockchain to catch criminals who use Bitcoin, for example:

Say they have information on a transaction that is exactly 2.5 Bitcoin. They should look at the blockchain for any amount of transactions that add up to that number, and then they would have caught a criminal.

NUKE911

newbie

Activity: 1

Merit: 0

The feds just visited the dash developers recently but the y refused to talk to them claiming they had no more information than any user did.
I heard they are going to try and make vpn's illegal in russia. They also say there going to try and make tor illegal in the usa.

Shamie1002

full member

Activity: 406

Merit: 102

I think they are not really afraid. They have the legal power and I know that they can do what they want. Bitcoin is a big money and I am sure that they are just waiting for the right time to attack. We should all be ready for any situations.

jaysabi

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1115

★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!

Quote from: deisik on August 03, 2017, 11:47:35 AM

Quote from: jaysabi on August 03, 2017, 09:52:36 AM

Quote from: deisik on August 03, 2017, 04:21:07 AM

Quote from: jaysabi on August 02, 2017, 04:33:46 PM

Quote from: deisik on August 02, 2017, 02:31:51 PM

I disagree with even this minor point of view

Not for the sake of disagreement obviously, but because you are missing an ever important distinction here (which conceptually distinguishes between the PoW model and the PoS model). This important distinction lies in the fact that with the PoS approach to securing network, you have to literally own the network before you can successfully attack it (i.e. get hold of the majority of coins), but in that very case you essentially become the owner of the whole shebang itself. This is totally different with the PoW model since in the latter case you just need enough hashing power to ruin such a coin

Perhaps I'm not as familiar with how PoS coins work then. How does ownership over coins factor into control over the network? Are there miners solving the blocks in the same manner as PoW? (If so, could you not just disrupt the miners solving the blocks to interfere with the system? Not to take it over, mind you, but to disrupt it and make it unusable.)

You may want to read the Wikipedia article on the PoS model

There are no miners in the sense mining works in Bitcoin. As per article (emphasis added), "in PoS-based cryptocurrencies the creator of the next block is chosen in a deterministic (pseudo-random) way, and the chance that an account is chosen depends on its wealth". In other words, your voting rights (which roughly corresponds to hashing power in Bitcoin) are directly proportional to the amount of coins you have (i.e. your stake). So if you want to take down or otherwise damage the coin, you have to outright accumulate more coins than anyone else (in general case, 50% plus 1 coin). But that would amount to acquiring the controlling stake in a company or firm, i.e. you essentially become an owner of it. After that, you can do with the company whatever you might want to do, but this is kinda natural course of events

I guess I'm just trying to understand how cryptography figures into it then. In PoW, everyone is "mining" to solve a cryptographic puzzle, and the person who does it gets the reward of new coins. But there are still computers hashing an algorithm in PoS, even if that's not how the blocks rewards are chosen. But in any event, it seems like targeting the computers decentralizing the network (miners in PoW and hashers or whatever they're called in PoS) would have the same effect in both systems. It would be a horribly inefficient way to try to disrupt the system, but it should have the same effect on both. This operates differently from the notion that the only way to disrupt the currency is to seize control of it (by owning majority in PoS or the majority of the hashing power in PoW).

But that distinction can in fact make a tremendous difference

In other words, it may be quite feasible and doable to disrupt the PoW network provided enough resources are put into mining, and you are sort of guaranteed to succeed at bringing the network down. At the same time, the mission of accumulating enough coins in the PoS model may be virtually impossible since as soon as you start buying up, the price is set to spike exponentially. And whatever the price might be, you still might not be able to make it simply because some holders won't sell at any price. And then you are stuck

But again, this operates on the notion that the only way to disrupt a PoS system is to seize control of it, rather than disrupting it's ability to propagate a network by attacking or taking offline the computers that make it up, does it not? Even under PoW, you don't have to seize control of it to render it unusable, you just have to destabilize it to the point that blocks can be corrupted. (I say "just" knowing this would be a technical feat.) But I would think that you could hamper the system the same way by disrupting the network activity in PoS. Theoretically, what happens if a wallet with 51% of a PoS coinbase is not connected to the network? I would think they don't get to solve any blocks, otherwise the network would grind to a halt. If 51% of the coinbase in PoS is not connected to the network, doesn't that degrade network security the same way as taking out a large portion of the mining power making up PoW? My guess would be yes, but I don't know, which is why I'm asking.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: jaysabi on August 03, 2017, 09:52:36 AM

Quote from: deisik on August 03, 2017, 04:21:07 AM

Quote from: jaysabi on August 02, 2017, 04:33:46 PM

Quote from: deisik on August 02, 2017, 02:31:51 PM

I disagree with even this minor point of view

Not for the sake of disagreement obviously, but because you are missing an ever important distinction here (which conceptually distinguishes between the PoW model and the PoS model). This important distinction lies in the fact that with the PoS approach to securing network, you have to literally own the network before you can successfully attack it (i.e. get hold of the majority of coins), but in that very case you essentially become the owner of the whole shebang itself. This is totally different with the PoW model since in the latter case you just need enough hashing power to ruin such a coin

Perhaps I'm not as familiar with how PoS coins work then. How does ownership over coins factor into control over the network? Are there miners solving the blocks in the same manner as PoW? (If so, could you not just disrupt the miners solving the blocks to interfere with the system? Not to take it over, mind you, but to disrupt it and make it unusable.)

You may want to read the Wikipedia article on the PoS model

There are no miners in the sense mining works in Bitcoin. As per article (emphasis added), "in PoS-based cryptocurrencies the creator of the next block is chosen in a deterministic (pseudo-random) way, and the chance that an account is chosen depends on its wealth". In other words, your voting rights (which roughly corresponds to hashing power in Bitcoin) are directly proportional to the amount of coins you have (i.e. your stake). So if you want to take down or otherwise damage the coin, you have to outright accumulate more coins than anyone else (in general case, 50% plus 1 coin). But that would amount to acquiring the controlling stake in a company or firm, i.e. you essentially become an owner of it. After that, you can do with the company whatever you might want to do, but this is kinda natural course of events

I guess I'm just trying to understand how cryptography figures into it then. In PoW, everyone is "mining" to solve a cryptographic puzzle, and the person who does it gets the reward of new coins. But there are still computers hashing an algorithm in PoS, even if that's not how the blocks rewards are chosen. But in any event, it seems like targeting the computers decentralizing the network (miners in PoW and hashers or whatever they're called in PoS) would have the same effect in both systems. It would be a horribly inefficient way to try to disrupt the system, but it should have the same effect on both. This operates differently from the notion that the only way to disrupt the currency is to seize control of it (by owning majority in PoS or the majority of the hashing power in PoW).

But that distinction can in fact make a tremendous difference

In other words, it may be quite feasible and doable to disrupt the PoW network provided enough resources are put into mining, and you are sort of guaranteed to succeed at bringing the network down. At the same time, the mission of accumulating enough coins in the PoS model may be virtually impossible since as soon as you start buying up, the price is set to spike exponentially. And whatever the price might be, you still might not be able to make it simply because some holders won't sell at any price. And then you are stuck

jaysabi

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1115

★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!

Quote from: deisik on August 03, 2017, 04:21:07 AM

Quote from: jaysabi on August 02, 2017, 04:33:46 PM

Quote from: deisik on August 02, 2017, 02:31:51 PM

I disagree with even this minor point of view

Not for the sake of disagreement obviously, but because you are missing an ever important distinction here (which conceptually distinguishes between the PoW model and the PoS model). This important distinction lies in the fact that with the PoS approach to securing network, you have to literally own the network before you can successfully attack it (i.e. get hold of the majority of coins), but in that very case you essentially become the owner of the whole shebang itself. This is totally different with the PoW model since in the latter case you just need enough hashing power to ruin such a coin

Perhaps I'm not as familiar with how PoS coins work then. How does ownership over coins factor into control over the network? Are there miners solving the blocks in the same manner as PoW? (If so, could you not just disrupt the miners solving the blocks to interfere with the system? Not to take it over, mind you, but to disrupt it and make it unusable.)

You may want to read the Wikipedia article on the PoS model

There are no miners in the sense mining works in Bitcoin. As per article (emphasis added), "in PoS-based cryptocurrencies the creator of the next block is chosen in a deterministic (pseudo-random) way, and the chance that an account is chosen depends on its wealth". In other words, your voting rights (which roughly corresponds to hashing power in Bitcoin) are directly proportional to the amount of coins you have (i.e. your stake). So if you want to take down or otherwise damage the coin, you have to outright accumulate more coins than anyone else (in general case, 50% plus 1 coin). But that would amount to acquiring the controlling stake in a company or firm, i.e. you essentially become an owner of it. After that, you can do with the company whatever you might want to do, but this is kinda natural course of events

I guess I'm just trying to understand how cryptography figures into it then. In PoW, everyone is "mining" to solve a cryptographic puzzle, and the person who does it gets the reward of new coins. But there are still computers hashing an algorithm in PoS, even if that's not how the blocks rewards are chosen. But in any event, it seems like targeting the computers decentralizing the network (miners in PoW and hashers or whatever they're called in PoS) would have the same effect in both systems. It would be a horribly inefficient way to try to disrupt the system, but it should have the same effect on both. This operates differently from the notion that the only way to disrupt the currency is to seize control of it (by owning majority in PoS or the majority of the hashing power in PoW).

hatshepsut93

legendary

Activity: 3024

Merit: 2148

Quote from: deisik on August 02, 2017, 01:11:01 PM

And how are you going to fight with the miners in practice?

Okay, you remove a huge mining farm, and that wouldn't be difficult obviously, but in less than no time ten smaller mining operations will immediately spring up in different quarters of the world to fill the void. If you take down these, a few hundred even smaller miners will soon emerge, so you will be essentially fighting with windmills uselessly and fruitlessly wasting your resources. That would be a perfect example of an immortal hydra

Sprouting cut parts faster than you chop them off

It's not about shutting down every miner in the world, it's about preventing growth of cryptocurrencies. In free environment, like we have now, hashrate follows the price, so 51% attacks can't be profitable for private parties, and also very expensive for governments. But when mining is banned globally and hashrate drops to very low levels and can't grow freely, it becomes a natural limit to the price, because disproportionally high price would make malicious mining profitable. Also, in this scenario governments could use seized mining equipment to further disrupt cryptocurrencies with 51% attacks. Successful attacks further drop the price and cause miners to quit.
But for this to work, all governments in the world need to treat cryptocurrencies as a terrorism, to make sure that some countries won't become safe havens.

Topic: The Feds Are Terrified Of Cryptocurrencies... But They're Powerless To Stop Them (Read 1658 times)