Pages:
Author

Topic: Which Proof of Stake System is the Most Viable - page 5. (Read 25752 times)

full member
Activity: 207
Merit: 100
IMO, trying to grab control with 50 puppets instead of 2 is much more difficult.
I know. You said that. But I was asking of the why? Where is the additional difficulty?

Because people have to vote for the delegates.


That makes no sense. Why would this make is more difficult?

Also in what situation would anyone profit from a manipulation of 51% of the delegates? Or for that matter in what situation do you believe that anyone would profit from Ghash.io  performing a 51% attack on the bitcoin network?

I do not understand.

In order to have 51% of the delegates under your control you either have to have 51% of the stake or you have to accumulate 51% of the votes from the shareholders. If you can do that how have you manipulated the market? All actions are voluntary and people will only vote for you if you provide the best service as a delegate.

Also people that talk about theoretical attacks do not understand the practical implications of such an attack. There is no action without its cost and consequences. If you perform a 51% attack please explain how you can reasonably profit from it? I have never heard anyone making a practical argument for how a 51% attack is profitable.


sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82
IMO, trying to grab control with 50 puppets instead of 2 is much more difficult.
I know. You said that. But I was asking of the why? Where is the additional difficulty?

Because people have to vote for the delegates.


That makes no sense. Why would this make it more difficult?

Also in what situation would anyone profit from a manipulation of 51% of the delegates? Or for that matter in what situation do you believe that anyone would profit from Ghash.io  performing a 51% attack on the bitcoin network?

I do not understand.
full member
Activity: 207
Merit: 100
IMO, trying to grab control with 50 puppets instead of 2 is much more difficult.
I know. You said that. But I was asking of the why? Where is the additional difficulty?

Because people have to vote for the delegates. Also in what situation would anyone profit from a manipulation of 51% of the delegates? Or for that matter in what situation do you believe that anyone would profit from Ghash.io  performing a 51% attack on the bitcoin network?
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82
IMO, trying to grab control with 50 puppets instead of 2 is much more difficult.

I know. You said that. But I was asking of the why? Where is the additional difficulty?
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000
IMO, the cap means its very different, as I can see the same pooling problem with TF as in PoW. But it seems not many agree with this viewpoint.

So, I ask again: what is this cap good for? Where is the technical difficulty in creating a new pool, when my first pool is capped?

Yeah the cap doesn't mean much IMO, the "downvotes" are the more important part.
The important part is that as a pool operator, you can only pay dividends to all stakeholders and not just to your voters, otherwise you will get voted out. This alleviates economies of scale which lead to centralization.

Interesting. I will think about that.

I still would like to see an answer from sumantso. Smiley

Thats because you can in PoW, say, put up two pools and grab control. Here you need to set up some 50 odd delegates. Of course, the developer may decide that its popular and its needs more and then the number of delegates can be increased.

IMO, trying to grab control with 50 puppets instead of 2 is much more difficult.
hero member
Activity: 658
Merit: 503
Monero Core Team
The poll doens't take into consideration PPC-derived Novacoin's dynamic inflation control (NVCS), which paves the way for very high inflation rate for early adopters (rewarding risk-taking).
legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1000
Id say PPC but it's 100% based on the fact I am mining it soo... ya... lol.
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82
IMO, the cap means its very different, as I can see the same pooling problem with TF as in PoW. But it seems not many agree with this viewpoint.

So, I ask again: what is this cap good for? Where is the technical difficulty in creating a new pool, when my first pool is capped?

Yeah the cap doesn't mean much IMO, the "downvotes" are the more important part.
The important part is that as a pool operator, you can only pay dividends to all stakeholders and not just to your voters, otherwise you will get voted out. This alleviates economies of scale which lead to centralization.

Interesting. I will think about that.

I still would like to see an answer from sumantso. Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 1582
Merit: 253
IMO, the cap means its very different, as I can see the same pooling problem with TF as in PoW. But it seems not many agree with this viewpoint.

So, I ask again: what is this cap good for? Where is the technical difficulty in creating a new pool, when my first pool is capped?

Yeah the cap doesn't mean much IMO, the "downvotes" are the more important part.
The important part is that as a pool operator, you can only pay dividends to all stakeholders and not just to your voters, otherwise you will get voted out. This alleviates economies of scale which lead to centralization.
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82
IMO, the cap means its very different, as I can see the same pooling problem with TF as in PoW. But it seems not many agree with this viewpoint.

So, I ask again: what is this cap good for? Where is the technical difficulty in creating a new pool, when my first pool is capped?
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000
I still do not get the difference between TF and DPoS. They seem equivalent to me. Just newspeak so to say.

Very similar. DPoS lets you vote against delegates, has a cap per delegate, and and delegate order is determined once per round rather than after every block (you can't try to pick a "good" block to get you more than N blocks in a row if you don't own more than N delegates)

So, it is basically the same. Thank you.

IMO, the cap means its very different, as I can see the same pooling problem with TF as in PoW. But it seems not many agree with this viewpoint.
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000
Again, disclaimer:  I'm not an expert.

I would dare to say no, it's not an improvement over Bitcoin.  With bitcoin's poW, mining pools don't have any special powers that solo miners don't also have.  So while the hashing power is "pooled", consensus isn't really "delegated" beyond the same protocol rules that affect everyone.

If you are talking about  supernodes solving the nothing at stake problem because they can check signatures in real time, that is definitely taking a step toward trusted authorities.  In contrast, proof of work acts as it's own timestamp.



The miners contributing to the pool doesn't have any power. The pool owner decides what transactions to include.

Also, keep in mind that the miners are not the same as the actual users of the coin. Theres a overlap, but it would have been so much better if all those using it are actually the ones participating.
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000
Its like this, you can always get a single individual/group to set up up multiple pools in PoW/PoS, or multiple delegates in DPoS and grab more share than what it seems. But the hard cap means that it is more complex to get the same control.

Say, Ghash sets up another couple of pools anonymously (or maybe even does), or makes buddies with a couple of other big pools, then it already has control. In DPoS on the other hand, he/she/they have to go through a lot more trouble (some 50 delegates in case of BTSX) to get the same control.

Besides, say, a pool offers incentives, then everybody will naturally flock to it. Sure, at some they might start getting worried and not go, but as we have seen in the Ghash case, appealing to the better sense of the mining equipment owners doesn't work to well. They might not even be too worried about the long term health as they might be just looking at it as a business. In DPoS, the hard cap means such a scenario is not possible, and you have to also keep in mind that the users of the coin are the ones who are voting.

I think I see which direction you are coming from. But I do not clearly see how a hard-cap is going to solve the problem of a second pool under control of the very same real-world entity.

"A lot more trouble" Why? Are existing pools preferred before new ones?

Thats because you can in PoW, say, put up two pools and grab control. Here you need to set up some 50 odd delegates. Of course, the developer may decide that its popular and its needs more and then the number of delegates can be increased.
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82
I still do not get the difference between TF and DPoS. They seem equivalent to me. Just newspeak so to say.

Very similar. DPoS lets you vote against delegates, has a cap per delegate, and and delegate order is determined once per round rather than after every block (you can't try to pick a "good" block to get you more than N blocks in a row if you don't own more than N delegates)

So, it is basically the same. Thank you.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Again, disclaimer:  I'm not an expert.

I would dare to say no, it's not an improvement over Bitcoin.  With bitcoin's poW, mining pools don't have any special powers that solo miners don't also have.  So while the hashing power is "pooled", consensus isn't really "delegated" beyond the same protocol rules that affect everyone.

If you are talking about  supernodes solving the nothing at stake problem because they can check signatures in real time, that is definitely taking a step toward trusted authorities.  In contrast, proof of work acts as it's own timestamp.


Bolded part is what I believe to be a major misconception. What powers do delegates have that mining pools don't? I even advocated to call them "signing pools" because they play the same role. All they can do is exclude transactions.

(I'll tell you one: they have the ability to vote on "alerts"... but bitcoin's alert system is far more centralized Wink )

Took another look at bitshares , you may be right.  Not sure if it means dpos necessarily immune from n.a.s....If attacker gains several delegates or has the stake to do so.  
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82
All organization whether virtual or not face the same fundamental constraints and the delegation of power is necessary for scalability.

Well said.
newbie
Activity: 33
Merit: 0
NEM, beacuse its Proof of Importance
full member
Activity: 207
Merit: 100
Again, disclaimer:  I'm not an expert.

I would dare to say no, it's not an improvement over Bitcoin.  With bitcoin's poW, mining pools don't have any special powers that solo miners don't also have.  So while the hashing power is "pooled", consensus isn't really "delegated" beyond the same protocol rules that affect everyone.

If you are talking about  supernodes solving the nothing at stake problem because they can check signatures in real time, that is definitely taking a step toward trusted authorities.  In contrast, proof of work acts as it's own timestamp.



How does a mining pool not have power that solo miners do not? A mining pool can produce more blocks than a single miner...

I'm absolutely fascinated by your insistence that bitcoin is trustless network. There is no such thing a trustless transaction. You can create an environment that incentivizes a desired outcome. But at the end of the day all of these systems rely on people. Bitcoin is less of mathematical experiment as much as sociological one. We know that public key cryptography works, but what we do not know is whether or not individuals can trust no one while simultaneously trusting everyone. But this is the nature of economics and think it has been empirically proven that I do not have to trust an individual I transact with but rather I can trust society as a whole.

I'm not an expert either but I feel that your analysis of bitcoin and related systems lacks understanding of organizational theory. All organization whether virtual or not face the same fundamental constraints and the delegation of power is necessary for scalability.
sr. member
Activity: 1582
Merit: 253
Again, disclaimer:  I'm not an expert.

I would dare to say no, it's not an improvement over Bitcoin.  With bitcoin's poW, mining pools don't have any special powers that solo miners don't also have.  So while the hashing power is "pooled", consensus isn't really "delegated" beyond the same protocol rules that affect everyone.

If you are talking about  supernodes solving the nothing at stake problem because they can check signatures in real time, that is definitely taking a step toward trusted authorities.  In contrast, proof of work acts as it's own timestamp.


Bolded part is what I believe to be a major misconception. What powers do delegates have that mining pools don't? I even advocated to call them "signing pools" because they play the same role. All they can do is exclude transactions.

(I'll tell you one: they have the ability to vote on "alerts"... but bitcoin's alert system is far more centralized Wink )
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Again, disclaimer:  I'm not an expert.

I would dare to say no, it's not an improvement over Bitcoin.  With bitcoin's poW, mining pools don't have any special powers that solo miners don't also have.  So while the hashing power is "pooled", consensus isn't really "delegated" beyond the same protocol rules that affect everyone.

If you are talking about  supernodes solving the nothing at stake problem because they can check signatures in real time, that is definitely taking a step toward trusted authorities.  In contrast, proof of work acts as it's own timestamp.

Pages:
Jump to: