Topic: The Lunacy of BTU Supporters - page 3. (Read 3472 times)

Stop spreading misinformation about Chinese mining centralization. Mining is spread over the whole world, estimated 100.000 small miners included. If you look at Antpool pool servers, half of the hashrate going from China, the other half from USA. If you mean centralization of ASIC production, then we should replace all computers as well because all computer component production is centralized as well. The only attack on Bitcoin is the one comming from the ones who argue to change Bitcoin PoW.

Dumbass that link was the short version, go play with your Legos.
Sorry you have proven yourself too stupid too comprehend.   


 

See that is the other issue why only 2 forks, every fork gives additions forks.
Each fork would hold the opportunity for another fork.
Like so
Fork
2
4
8
16
32
64
128
256
512
1024
2048
4096
8192
16384
32768

That is only 15 blocks, and you guys think that won't draw more resources.  

Fact of the matter it is alot easier to just place all of my coins in 1 block and stake the one block , it proof of hash will stop any coins from overwriting it.
proofhash< coinage * target

 

I'm not reading through all that shit, if you can't quote the relevant parts here don't bring it up. Please provide proof to your arguments, go look it up is a bullshit answer.

well if you want to turn this into a NaS thread, i'll play along until I get bored.

here's a snippet of your argument:


This is like saying having 2 raffle tickets negates each other since you can only win once.  (You still have twice as many
chances to win as the guy with one raffle ticket.)

IOW, when you attempt to stake on multiple forks, you're not negating your own staking power, you're simply giving yourself
more opportunities to be on the winning chain.   

You never Debated me,  there is nothing to solve.
Here are my responses again,
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17135430
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17136990

In theory a black hole might appear in your living room, I doubt that keeps you from using your living room.  



 


FYI:
The fact is if someone pissed off the combined 67% of Chinese Mining Pools,
they could 51% attack the BTC chain all day, and that is not theory, but the reality we live in.

I debated many people a few years ago about PoS and NaS. 

NaS never been solved, sorry.  In practical terms might be hard to execute but theoretically a risk.

This topic has been brought up every day and from the information that I gathered and read, both parties are not ready to make any compromise and they just wanted to drag this issue to who knows when. With the way that they are acting right now, they are not providing any solution at all. They are just making things worse. I also can't believe that BTU are trying to make BTC centralized while badmouthing the core dev team.

Dino, 
You really don't know what you are talking about.
If I hold a block with a very large amount of coins and let it reach an extremely high coin age, I can pretty much stake that block whenever I feel like it.
Because the staking process is not Random, like you think it is. (But by Doing so I lose compound interest.)

Multistakers are not going to have the advantages you think they are,
They are going to tie up more Memory & CPU & more bandwidth trying to game the system, for exactly the same reward if they had just used a standard client.
The Nothing at Stake Lie, is really quite pathetic.

If someone tried a double spend if a person waits the required confirmations, they will know their transaction was not included, so that is a non issue.
This holds true for PoS or PoW
Longest chain with the most difficulty wins , just wait the recommend # of confirmations and all zero confirmation attacks fail.


 

But that is entirely wrong !
The "bad guy" can most of the time not stake directly (it is not his turn to stake).  So this "third block only on the second chain by the bad buy" can come maybe only 500 blocks later, when both chains have been accumulating identical blocks for all this time.

I don't see why you think it is impossible.  Each staker will empty the (identical) mem pool in his block he is staking.  And especially when there is multistaking, all transactions will end up in both chains, and hence add identical amounts of coin-lost-days in both prongs.  Yes, sometimes one will be in advance to the other, but within an error margin that multistakers are not going to waste, because somewhere else on the network, a stronger chain may be propagating that they didn't receive yet.

If you look at the example, you used.
The coinage was strong enough that the blocks were included in both forks at the ~ same time, if the users say ZOE, had only staked on one chain,
she would have determined the longest chain. Not been waiting for someone else to come along and determine it.
PoS staking is not random , at least not ZEIT, it is determined by the mathematical calculations of a coin age.
Age of a Block is in flux , the more it ages the Stronger it becomes.
So you can have a block with 10 coins that is 20 days old, has a coin age of 200
and another block with 190 coins that is only 1 day old, with a coin age of 190
The Block with only 10 coins will stake before the block of 190 coins, because it have a higher coin age.
Whenever a block stakes , it resets the time to 0 and starts over.




Your block was strong enough to stake on both forks, you would get the exact same reward if you only stake on only one fork, because you actually made one fork stronger than the other. Because 1 fork will be canceled out.



Minting reward based on % automatically compensates you for any difference in time.
Meaning if you take longer to stake, your stake amount will be a little higher.
(This is only not true for fixed rate rewards.)




What I am saying to you is PoS coins do have growing hardware requirements over time.
This gets ignored, but many coins over 3 years old require 2 gig or more of ram just for the client running only 1 mempool, and they use CPU % for every block they are trying to stake. So if you multiply the number of forks you multiply the mempools and Blocks and maybe even the blockchain data you have to keep active, this may be a multiple of the # of forks you are running. So 2 forks double your requirements and 3 forks could triple. Unknown as no one has written one yet how much memory or cpu consolidation is possible if any.
Example: One guy was trying to run just 3 Different PoS coins in 1 app, all a few years old, the memory requirements were such a problem, he never even released it.
So just because a $10,000 asics is not needed, does not mean more resources will not be required.




Staking is not a Random Act, it is based on a Mathematical Formula for CoinAge.
Number of coins and Age of coins in the block matter more than anything else.


I already answered that type of scenario ,
Here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17136990





Dino, PoS coins have a blockspeed that adjusts the difficulty to maintain only 1 block at a certain time interval.
I suggest you watch some of the PoS coin Block Explorers, if you want personal confirmation.
Achieving the same coinage with the exact same amount of coins is pretty impossible , because the odds of staking 2 blocks with the same amount of coins at the exact same time is immense.
And if they do , odds are 1 will orphan, (the younger one).

 

I honestly don't understand what this means.  There are different PoS mechanisms, but I was thinking of just any mechanism where "randomly" someone can stake, and nobody else, and that the probability of it to be you, is proportional to your stake ; I don't want to go into details of how this is done (there are different ways).  The idea was simply that at this point in chain and time, it was Joe's turn to stake.  And then Jack's turn to stake.  And then....


But you don't care about that "power to decide".  You only care about reaping in the reward.  We were thinking about otherwise "honest" stakers, that do not want to double spend or anything.  Just reap in staking rewards (minting).  You mint wherever you can, because that's why you are staking in the first place.  Not to impose any decision you don't care about.


This very very small "proof of work" doesn't compensate the possible loss of a minting reward if ever your chain doesn't win because of propagation delays in the network, or because of an orphaning 5000 blocks from now.


So your PoS is in fact PoW ?



If nobody is multistaking then 1) you cannot know and 2) then the consensus is just imposed by randomness (which is good), but you are not protected against multistaking.  That's the point.  As long as people only run official "random selection" staking algorithms, indeed, PoS will find a consensus.  But it is vulnerable to multistaking and having no possibility to come to consensus.  It's most probably because PoS is only used on rather small chains with not much at stake, that nobody has been implementing multi stake algorithms.


Of course, that is exactly the divergence of consensus that is the "nothing at stake" problem.  If, however, people are so gentle as to adhere all to a random selection algorithm and not multistake, then by definition, this divergence cannot happen.  That is similar to saying that if nobody is attempting a 51% attack on a PoW system, then the chain is secure with PoW.


Huh ?  But what if you have 2 identical blocks, where only one single transaction is different:
Block A: Mary has spend 10 coins that are 517 blocks old to Joe
Block B: Mary has spend the same 10 coins that are 571 blocks old to, Janice.

Block A and block B are identical except for this double spend.  (this is the ONLY case where consensus is necessary).

Now, Alice receives block A at 12:00:02 and mints block C on top of it.  However, it only gets to Joe at 12:01:00, but gets it at Jake at 12:00:30.
Alice receives block B at 12:00:08.

Bob receives block A at 12:00:09, but received block B at 12:00:05, and mints an IDENTICAL BLOCK D = C on top of it.  Bob gets it at Jake at 12:00:45 and at Joe at 12:00:45.

So now Jake receives Alice's chain before Bob's and Joe receives Bob's chain before Alice's.

So Jake will build block E identical to block F on top of Alice's chain
Joe will build block F identical on top of Bob's chain.

Everybody is honest here.  But at the end of the day, after I don't know how many identical blocks containing identical transactions, there will be a difference, orphaning one of both.  As long as all stakers include all the transactions in the common mem pool, their blocks are identical according to your criterium, and the double spend by Mary is not resolved by consensus on both prongs.


If the transactions are identical, yes.  And you stake for sake of the minting, not because you want to decide something.

There is more than one nothing at stake lie, which proves you did not even bother to read the 2 links, I placed.



If your block was strong enough to stake on both forks, it would have been included in the longest chain, not waiting for someone with barely any coins to determine it.
It is just stupid because IT NEGATES YOUR STAKING POWER TO DETERMINE THE LONGEST CHAIN!
And running a Multistaking wallet will increase the memory & CPU requirements and energy needed.
Exactly how much , no one can answer , because no one has written one to my knowledge, because it is a waste of time.
Smarter move is to increase the # of coins as that directly translates into your ability to be included.

 


I suggest you pick a PoS coin at least 3 years old and attempt to write a Multistaking wallet,
so you can learn 1st hand you are wasting your time.
Also when you are done , you can post the differences in hardware resources used verses a single wallet version.
Multistaker will require more resources, depending on the ram & cpu requirements.
But what you will find out at the end of the month is the single chain client makes just as much money as the multistaker while requiring less resources.
Also is your Multistaker going to be able to run on 2 forks or 4 forks or 8 forks at the same time.
Looking forward to watching you attempt it. 


  

The Block is Chosen by the CoinAGE not the amount of coins.
[Coin-age] = [amount of coins] x [days in stake]   

The Nothing at Stake Lie Completely Ignores this FACT!
Just because two users have the same amount of coins per block, does not mean the CoinAge will Match.
The CoinAge Factor is excluded because it destroys the LIE.

   

 

Yes, of course.  What's wrong with it ?


The behaviour of a piece of software will of course not stop anyone from using another piece of software if that is more advantageous to him.  Otherwise, there wouldn't be any consensus problem at all: "just use the right software" is not a trustless decentralized consensus mechanism.  

The reason why everybody HAS to stake on every chain it can, is that as long as both chains are in competition, you don't know which one will win, so the optimal strategy is to stake on both, to win with 100% certainty.  With PoW, this costs money, you can't, and you are betting on one or the other one (or dividing your influence).  But with PoS, you stake everywhere you can stake, of course.
 

Why would he forego his staking reward if ever it is the other chain that wins ?  If he receives both chains, why prefer one over the other ?  
  

What is 10 seconds more for Joe can be 10 seconds less for Jack, because of network propagation delays.  Even if they are "honest". Joe has to take into account that his preferred chain may lose against Jack's if it is propagated faster.

You see, it is not a matter of honesty.  It is a matter of not being able to reach consensus, because there are two equally valid histories, and you are now saying that their priority depends on the speed at which they propagate.  But that is not the same for all paths through a P2P network.  So the chain that is "winning" for you, is maybe losing for another part of the network *and there is locally no way to know who will win*.

Joe: 50  Jack: 10  Alice: 10
Jake: 50 coins ; Zoe 50 coins

Jack [10] block A  wins 1 coin  
Joe  [50] block C  wins 5 coin
Jake [50] block E  wins 5 coin
Zoe  [50] block G wins 5 coins

Alice [10] block B  wins 1 coin.
Joe   [50]  block D  wins 5 coin
Jake [50]  block F  wins 5 coin
Zoe  [50]  block H wins 5 coins


Ok, I now know which example you believe.
You believe this one : https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17135430

1. You are assuming that almost every user is mining on multiple chains at the exact same time , so that there is an endless chain conflict.
    1st reason that is a lie:  Standard PoS wallets don't Multi-stake, you would have to code one yourself from scratch.
 
2.  Just to play devil's advocate, let's say this Multistake PoS Wallet does exist  
     By playing both sides of a chain, all you do is Negate your Staking Power!
     Lets say one Honest Guy [1] stakes Block I on Alice's chain , he determines the longest chain and it is him and him alone that determines the chain path.
     (This example assumes the impossible that Alice & Jack's Blocks were the exact same coin age & coin amount per block.)
        
3.  It is apparent the people that spread this nothing at stake myth, don't use PoS coins.
     Because if you did you would recognize , that even if the exact same amounts were in each block,
     The amounts are not the only factor , Time /Coin Age is a Factor, meaning if Jack's Block of coins was 10 seconds older than Alice, then Jack's Chain would have
     the higher CoinAge/Weight and be the chosen chain.  
     Matching Amounts are easy to have , Matching Coin Age , matching down to the microsecond , let's just say that is Damn Impossible on a Consistent Basis,
     you have an easier time wining the lottery every week.
     So whichever honest user has the oldest created block will be the winner and that chain of blocks chosen.  


Questions or does that explain another one of G.Maxwell's Lies.  

     

Well in that line of thought choosing core over BTU is also the kind of choice I have to make. Right now it is very clear that BU will be separated to bitcoin and will be creating their own version of bitcoin which is XBU or BTU. The safest thing to do is to stick to the original form of bitcoin and that is with the core developers. Possibly by the coming months we can already witness the separation between BTC and BTU.

Read the LN WhitePaper, You have to be able to understand it or you will be forever lost in this discussion.

Here is a link to a short reference on it.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18260156


FYI:
BTC core could have fixed the unconfirmed transaction problem by just increasing blocksize or a faster blockspeed.
Their failure to lead and Blockstream instead trying a hostile takeover over the entire network itself has caused the BTC internal conflict.
(Which BTU is Winning , because they are actually trying to fix BTC without a corrupt takeover of the network itself, that is why the majority of miners are supporting it.)

I think you misunderstood the problem of nothing at stake.  It is not a matter of good guy and bad guy.  It is a matter of not reaching agreement on the past (no consensus).

I take your example again:

Joe: 50  Jack: 10  Alice: 10
Jake: 50 coins ; Zoe 50 coins


Jack makes block A and wins 1 coin.

Alice makes block B and also wins 1 coin.

Joe now makes block C (on top of A) and wins 5 coins in that chain ;
Joe also makes block D (on top of B) and wins 5 coins on that chain ;

Jake now makes block E (on top of C) and wins 5 coins on that chain ;
Jake also makes block F (on top of D) and wins 5 coins on that chain ;

Zoe now makes a block G (on top of E) and wins 5 coins ;
Zoe now makes a block H (on top of F) and wins 5 coins ;


....
 

What is now the good chain ?  A C E G or B D F H ?

There's no way to solve the riddle, until, 5000 blocks later, someone liking Jack and hating Alice, (Maybe Jack himself) doesn't add a block on chain 2.

Would love to read one for the Blockstream supporters LOL.  Anyway it is obvious that once we support one faction , we believe on its rule and more likely think that it is better and even accept facts give to us.  I think same applies to Blockstream supporters too.  I see no difference between the two LOL.  This is like pot calling the kettle black.

Then we have a disagreement,

Here
PoS nothing at stake is just another lie made up by G.Maxwell to fool the stupid. (He is very good at tricking the below 115 IQs.)
I cover why it is a lie and a non issue for PoS coins
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17135430
and
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17136990

The above were 2 examples of how Gmaxwell Lie was supposed to work and I refuted it in both cases and went into detail why both were wrong.

So you have to explain to me why my analysis was incorrect or show another 3rd example of how the so called nothing at stake works.
Until then , sorry it is just Bullshit,
So after looking at my two links are you thinking it is one of those or do you have a 3rd scenario for me to lay waste to. 

 

FYI:
One irritating thing all of you that believe the noting at stake lie, all reference a different way it works , there is no cohesion in your example.
No cohesion is a standard sign of a falsehood or a false belief.