Topic: What is your opinion on PoS coins? (Read 1103 times)

But every time the coins are sold the number of wallets doing the staking increases. The more wallets staking, the safer the network.

There is no incentive to run a full node in BTC because you have a cost but no reward. But there is plenty of reward for PoS holders.

As far as I can tell, the only PoS coin that has gone wrong is Clams - so much is held by JustDice, who stake them, that the difficulty has gone through the roof and it's pointless any one else staking. But those types of flaws are easy to solve with some velocity in the coin, or limiting the ageing required to stake.

Because the security flaws of PoS are not more serious than these in PoW coins but the truth must be kept secret. Check this FUD attempt at PoS. I like how user nexern weighed in there with very simple but undeniable logic
it's all about probabilities. N@S attack probability and odds of success? Cutting power lines to the three chinese mining-warehouses probability and odds of success? A sober analysis concludes the potential flaw of PoS is at least not more serious than the vulnerabilities of PoW mining centralization. Own both PoW and PoS, don't be an irrational supremacist.

Guys,

So far nobody mentioned some major (security) flaw in PoS coins. If you create enough demand on a PoS coin, nobody will care about people with larger wallets. Let's face it - most of the people are with weak hands. Example: There is a cryptocurrency with 20M in supply, 1-2% yearly interest and a guy who invested 5-10 BTC to buy 25-50% of the entire currency @ the price of ~50-100 satoshi. If that currency becomes viral, then the price may be 1k satoshi or even 100k. Do you think this guy will hold all of his coins? He will most likely sell them, when he sees x5 - x10 profit. Then you have another guy who bought the coins of the first guy, but the price is now 500-1000 satoshi and he invested 25-50 BTC. The currency becomes even more viral and the price is now 5k satoshi. Second guy sells half of his coins with profit and holds the rest. After some time, price is now 10-15k satoshi. Second guy is out and there is a 3rd guy (whale), but with less % of the currency. I think you guys get my idea. Most of the people are here for the fiat money they can earn and they don't care about the technology and about how cryptocurrencies may be used in the real world. If you manage to make a cryptocurrency viral (were 10s and even 100s of thousands people are using it), then you will not worry about N@S problems and such, because at this point, there will be not 100-500 wallets, but 10s of thousands. You still can buy bigger % of the currency, but at this point you will need millions of $ for that. That's something, which only serious investor can do and serious investors are not f*cking with their investments.

If you are premining a coin , you getting the coins for nothing anyway , PoW or PoS makes no difference.

 


FYI:
Ethereum is PoW right, did not the guy just premine it and then sell it.  
Ripple too.

Ethereum Premine 12M ETH (17% of current supply) :  https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ethereum-ico-premine-an-additional-premine-of-12m-eth-or-17-of-current-supply-1147063

Ripple Premine was 100% :
When the Ripple network was created, 100 billion XRP was created.
Only 100 billion XRPs can ever exist
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ripple-a-pre-mine-does-it-matter-146964


FYI2:
Simple fix only buy coins with no premine.  

FYI3:
PoS is currently the best way to be in crypto, less costs to operate, price can stay the same and you still make money by only selling your stakes, optional: whether you run it 24x7 to get compounded interest or just a day or 2 out of the month to earn a quick stake, your Choice.  

There is no way for you to know that.  


Decentralization is certainly a desirable property

No it is a requirement you also have script kiddies, that will DDOS you and kill your investment.
I think you are missing the point the coin which you invested Fiat in dies due to outside forces because it is centarlized and you will lose all of your time and money invested in it.

 

PoS really have a disadvantage as it will give a lot of coins to the one who has the most % in the weight of the network.
Who knows maybe the developer of the coin is also using PoS as he as many premine coins.

Decentralization is certainly a desireable property. You just don't have the same risk of a government shutdown that you did 7 years ago, so it is not as important as it used to be.

 

LMFAO!!! , you're killing me with that one.

It matters if you don't want all of the Fiat you invested to go up in smoke.   

Good One!!!!


 

Well, when the first cryptocoin was setup, it had to be decentralized, because it could have easily been shut down if not.

Now . . . why bother to shut down a crypto currency, because all the users easily switch to another. As long as 1 decentralized currency remains, it's not so important for others to be decentrailzed too.

Really, what logic supports your statement?


 

FYI:
decentralization is not as important as it used to be
It is : if Single Point of Failure is a Concern , which with any system you want running 24x7, it is most definitely a Concern!

PoS is not as decentralized as PoW, but decentralization is not as important as it used to be.

The Fact they consider the Coin has Value is one reason to hold it.
No different than LTC miners not selling every single litecoin, waiting for a better price.

Here is the difference,
when the Proof of Stake guy sells his stake, he decreases his future ability to make more coins, so he will not keep getting richer, in fact if he keeps all of his coins forever and never sells, he raised the price for everyone else but never got anything in return.
Most of the time , Fast Cars & even Faster Women, will get the guy to give up PoS mining (Harvest) capacity.  

But the LTC miner can give up every single coin and it does not affect his ASICs ability to make more.
If the LTC Price stayed the same, the PoW miner would be richer, but PoW or PoS both are controlled by the economic laws of supply and demand.
So massive supply decreases demand and lowers the price until demand catches back up.
But we also know PoW ASICS output decrease every 2 weeks, but the ASICS upgrade costs and electricity costs , will always make PoW a losing proposition within a year.

   

Sorry this just sounds like a bunch of confusion.

PoW, requires you to mine the next block , and that gives it permission to place an entry in the ledger.
PoS requires your block outstake competing blocks , and that gives it permission to place an entry in the ledger.

So that permissioned ledger and not a real decentralized currency, sorry does not ring true with me at least.

Fact as a Proof of Stake User with a well designed System, I do not need to join a Pool to earn coins.
So once it becomes more widely used, there will be more individual PoS wallets staking than PoW.
Reason being PoW BTC requires the majority of users to Joins Pools, so those miners can not be counted as individual miner , but must be counted per pool.
Are there even 50 BTC pools out there now, which some will drop at the next halfing, so PoW will be nothing but Centralized.

Where as with PoS coin every single user counts, so our numbers will be higher and we will be more Decentralized than PoW.  

 

FYI:
BTC will fail when the electricity costs are more than the coin profit can generate.
Which for individuals this happened years ago.

FYI2:
Proof of stake , you earn more coins by running a node.
Longer it runs the more compound interest you can earn.
Plus it runs as an Minimized App on my PC,
while I am using the PC for other things and the electricity cost are not even noticeable, since I would have the PC on anyway.  

Proof of Work , BTC Nodes are declining because not enough financial incentive to keep running them?
http://bravenewcoin.com/news/the-decline-in-bitcoins-full-nodes/

I hear this every now and again, and it is like this if there are no coins staking the difficulty # is in the toilet.
(low difficulty is like 0.0002, any coin that low is weak and vulnerable to what you mentioned.)
Target= Difficulty for the below formula
hashProofOfStake <= [Coin-age] x [Target]      
[Coin-age] = [amount of coins] x [days in stake]      

But if you have a larger amount of coin staking , you have a higher difficulty and are completely resistant to such an attack.
By the way BTC will only have 21 million coins total, some of the Proof of Stake already have Billions of coins so there will always be some staking.  

Plus , this will cost nothing , is not true you risk damaging the reputation of the Coin and therefore losing your investment of the coins purchased to pull off the attack.
Most Proof of stake coins have good difficulty with a lot of coins, the more coins staking the more secure the network can be.

Also to compare to PoW , this would be like buying an asic gaining 51% of BTC mining , just to make the ASIC worthless, because no one would trust BTC anymore.
(Not Bright to say the least)

 

Because of the Nothing at Stake problem. (If you don't know it, you should google this forum, the NXT forum and terms like "N@S").

Basically, the Nothing at Stake problem says that "it costs nothing to attack a PoS currency". That means, that you can attack the chain minting at more than one chain at once. Your goal would be to mint several blocks in a row with an old "private whale key" and double-spend.

My point is that the Nothing at stake problem is a real risk for young cryptocurrencies (although, to my knowledge, nobody has performed it successfully until now), but in a currency with many users and a well distributed coin supply it won't work, as it would be almost impossible to get the stake necessary to perform a N@S attack - even if you try to lend the coins and do a short shell.

If Bitcoin was a PoS currency and you would like to perform a N@S attack, you would have to try to get coins for hundreds of millions of dollars to have a real chance. But take some of the 10.000- or 100.000-usd-market-cap-altcoins - with these coins it's perfectly possible to perform such an attack.

Is this the answer?

Well that's fine but actually bigger and more valuable cryptoes are already lost that "external entropy of mining" as the whole mining process is dominated by a couple big fish. But the possibility for such entropy is still there indeed.

What is your point exactly? Cryptocurrencies losing their "freedom" (being centralized)?

OK... and which floor price do you mean? The US price, the Chinese price, or the the price when some blokes stealing or obtaining electricity by other means for free ?

Why PoS is busted: