Topic: Why Bitcoin Could be Beat. (Read 5210 times)

I think time is the only problem when will happen or never?

I think POS will kill POW oneday

+1
I'd like to hear that explanation too.

That is wrong. An attacker will never need to cover losses. He can attack just because.

Could you explain that?

You are just showing a template of nothing.
Everybody can buy it for just $18: https://wrapbootstrap.com/theme/smartadmin-responsive-webapp-WB0573SK0

___________________________

Nxt is alive and kicking!

http://nxtra.org/nxt-client/

I don't know much about Bitcoin though I read the whitepaper. I only used it to buy Nxt.  

Edit: Hardcoded well-known nodes lead to centralization. This is just another one of the cases where Nxt is more decentralizing than Bitcoin.

Yes, the same is used in Bitcoin, isn't it? In Nxt u do it manually, in Bitcoin this is hardcoded.

Seems it cannot be avoided. There is always a chance for the new guy to be cheated. He need to choose the trust-worth well known nodes.

Exactly.

Doesn't which blockchain he sees first depend on which well-known nodes he chooses? He could choose the bad guy's node.

No. The new guy will stick to the 1st blockchain he sees.

Then both the branches will report the other in its blockchain. The new guy is still confused.   

If anyone sees a contradicting block mined by someone then he will "report" it by including block headers into the blockchain.

Are you saying that after TF is fully implemented, the new guy can tell who is the bad guy from the blockchains? How?

Apart from not needing to help global warming by consuming vast amounts of electricity to secure the blockchain (since by merged mining you can in effect re-use that same electricity that is already being expended anyway), the main argument for Proof of Stake had been that Proof of Work miners invest in hardware that can attack or defend any chain that uses that type of hashing as its proof of work, thus have no "stake" in any particular coin that they could choose to mine, whereas Proof of Stake miners do need a stake in the specific chain they wish to attack or defend.

All that really amounts to though is that in order to trash a Proof of Stake coin they need some way of shorting, or betting against, the chain, that can handle a short or wager large enough to cover the losses their stake in the coin will suffer when they do trash the coin.

So in a sense Proof of Stake coins depend upon the unavailability of means of wagering or shorting whereas Proof of Work coins depend upon unavailability of more-profitable chains to mine combined with inability of committed mining operations to muster enough hashing power to defend the chain. (They need enough committed hashing power, in other words. Because uncommitted hashing power will run off to any more profitable activity instead of continuing to secure the chain.)

Maybe though it can also be argued that "shorting" - in the sense of borrowing something - can also be used against proof of work chains: you simply borrow something to buy hashing power with instead of borrowing the coin itself or betting against it. Though you could also bet against it once you are confident you have enough hash power for an effective attack against it.

WIth Proof of Stake though you can get two bangs for your bucks: in addition to any crashing or falling of the coin's value due to your attack, you also can dump your stake too if the chain is still processing transactions after the attack and exchanges are still exchanging the coin after the attack, which could suppress the exchange-rate even more if your stake was a significant amount compared to the depth-at-each-price curve at the exchanges.

-MarkM-

Yep, POS is definitely far worse than POW, and completely against the spirit of crypto.

Hard to answer, Transparent Forging is not implemented yet. Without TF Ix's attacks would be successful.

I don't really think of that as "the" network being forked. A fork exists, known to a scamsite that convinced someone to download a fake nodes-list and to the person or persons who downloaded that list and ran using it. That hardly seems a case of "the" network being forked, more just a case of one or more suckers falling for a fake network. Once the real network actually hears about it, would it in fact fork, or would it tell the suckers they are wrong and correct them?

Ripple's consensus supposedly would basically tell them they are wrong, ignore them, and I guess it would be up to them whether to trust the scamsite and their fellow scammed-people or all the nodes they just heard about on the other network they just heard about, wouldn't it?

-MarkM-

seems like an almost identical question to me.  come-from-beyond is just thin skinned.