Topic: Why isn't proof of stake more widely supported? (Read 4059 times)
I want to ask the same question!! PoS support the core values that Satoshi Nakamura held. Proof of Work allows the same moneyed elite to dominate the system. PoS levels the playing field for the average person. Not to mention the devastating environmental impact from PoW....
Wasn't SolidCoin a Proof-of-Stake chain, where a few trusted miners started out with 10,000,000 coins each to make sure the "benevolent stakeholders" were the only ones able to mine/sign transactions?
SolidCoin starts as a monopoly and becomes a cryptocurrency when miners are rewarded with transaction fees based on hashrate.PoS starts as a cryptocurrency and becomes a monopoly.
The only thing worse would be to code PoS rules into SolidCoin. OTOH, some people might like that.
Kinda demonstrates the problem with getting PoS started, too, doesn't it?
No.
Kinda demonstrates the problem with getting PoS started, too, doesn't it?
Wasn't SolidCoin a Proof-of-Stake chain, where a few trusted miners started out with 10,000,000 coins each to make sure the "benevolent stakeholders" were the only ones able to mine/sign transactions?
It was only in the mostt bastard form.
1) There was one stakeholder.
2) He gave himself 12M coins via a premine.
It isn't much of a "stake" if you get it for free. It isn't much of a decentralized currency if you rig the rules so that you and you only will be the only stakeholder into perpetuity.
Pretending solidcoin is a crypto-currency just devalues the term.
Wasn't SolidCoin a Proof-of-Stake chain, where a few trusted miners started out with 10,000,000 coins each to make sure the "benevolent stakeholders" were the only ones able to mine/sign transactions?
Bump for more votes and/or commentary.
Start a bounty to get this coded. It's been thoroughly discussed, let's see it in action.
Bump for more votes and/or commentary.
Start a bounty to get this coded. It's been thoroughly discussed, let's see it in action.
I thought so too, but some people in the proof-of-stake thread with more experience coding than me (remember I have none) recommend more thorough discussion and the generation of relatively complete design documents.
Given that I know nothing about the computer software development process, I'd say that I should go with their advice for the time being. A bounty might come later.
Bump for more votes and/or commentary.
I will not vote in a poll where the options are phrased with bias like
" I don't think there is any problem with bitcoin. Thus proof of stake is not necessary."
People may think there are problems with bitcoin (no such thing as a perfect solution) but proof of stake is a dangerous concept already widely in use with fiat currencies (as pointed out by Rassah before).
" I don't think there is any problem with bitcoin. Thus proof of stake is not necessary."
People may think there are problems with bitcoin (no such thing as a perfect solution) but proof of stake is a dangerous concept already widely in use with fiat currencies (as pointed out by Rassah before).
Quote
Seems to me that POS replaces a threat from a pool with threat from an exchange. Instead of the potential coming from active mining, it comes from accumulation. Realistically the largest stake would be a single massive exchange, holding massive deposits at the time the POS is checked for every transaction.
Exchanges would probably offer interest to deposits. Accumulation would be limited to whatever the spread is between deposit interest and mining reward.
Quote
Seems to me that POS replaces a threat from a pool with threat from an exchange. Instead of the potential coming from active mining, it comes from accumulation. Realistically the largest stake would be a single massive exchange, holding massive deposits at the time the POS is checked for every transaction.
Exchanges would probably offer interest to deposits. Accumulation would be limited to whatever the spread is between deposit interest and mining reward.
Pretty clever. Hope you stick around and post more. You will raise the mean IQ here substantially.
If that were anywhere close to the reality, mining would be insanely profitable right now and we'd have dozens of well heeled players trying to jump into the game. The fact that it is not so is evidence enough that your assumptions are wrong.
It would be provided the status quo held. You just have to take the leap of faith a plunk down the $7 million or so. It is quite risky to gamble that much on bitcoin. That is what is holding would-be monopolists back. We already have some rapidly growing botnet/rogue miners who may be looking to make a play like this. It may come sooner than you think.
The end result is that the total hashing power of the PoW network increases to match or exceed the value of the network, not that the cost of overtaking the network goes down.
Should i take this to mean that the market value of bitcoin mining-specific tools will likely exceed the value of all the bitcoin to be mined? I'll leave that one as an exercise for the reader.
There's already a proof-of-stake currency out there. The Federal Reserve has the most USD, thus the most stake, and is the only one able to print more USD.
EDIT: Just remembered, the other big issue is that with PoW there is no limit to the work. Competing entities can build miners until the sun explodes, or we run out of resources, and always maintain a 50/50 split. With PoS the limit is the amount of currency in circulation, and as soon as you buy out a piece owned by the other competitor, their only option is to buy that money back from you. PoS is a zero-sum competition.
Finally, why are all the options pro or neutral regarding PoS, and no options for "I don't think PoS is a good system" or at least "I think PoW is better than PoS?" Your "I don't understand how proof of stake would work?" option is a very thinly veiled passive-agressive option at best, implying that if you think it's crap, you just "don't understand."
EDIT: Just remembered, the other big issue is that with PoW there is no limit to the work. Competing entities can build miners until the sun explodes, or we run out of resources, and always maintain a 50/50 split. With PoS the limit is the amount of currency in circulation, and as soon as you buy out a piece owned by the other competitor, their only option is to buy that money back from you. PoS is a zero-sum competition.
Finally, why are all the options pro or neutral regarding PoS, and no options for "I don't think PoS is a good system" or at least "I think PoW is better than PoS?" Your "I don't understand how proof of stake would work?" option is a very thinly veiled passive-agressive option at best, implying that if you think it's crap, you just "don't understand."
Network is ~10TH/S.
At $1 per MH 10TH = $10 mil.
Using ASIC and a $2M NRE one could bring that cost down to <$0.50 per MH. So taking over entire network would be closer to ~$7M vs $26M for 51% of coins. Of course trying to buy 51% of coins would cause the price to skyrocket, while buying 51% of the network causes the price to plummet.
If that were anywhere close to the reality, mining would be insanely profitable right now and we'd have dozens of well heeled players trying to jump into the game. The fact that it is not so is evidence enough that your assumptions are wrong. Even if ASIC mining drives mining costs down to less than 50 cents per MH, the end result is that the total hashing power of the PoW network increases to match or exceed the value of the network, not that the cost of overtaking the network goes down.
Quote
Seems to me that POS replaces a threat from a pool with threat from an exchange. Instead of the potential coming from active mining, it comes from accumulation. Realistically the largest stake would be a single massive exchange, holding massive deposits at the time the POS is checked for every transaction.
Exchanges would probably offer interest to deposits. Accumulation would be limited to whatever the spread is between deposit interest and mining reward.
This is based upon what? For a PoW miner to gain majority control over the network right now would require significantly more processing power than is available to all of the top 50 unclassified supercomputers on Earth, while a PoS system based upon the current Bitcoin economy would take no more than the current Market Cap of $46 million in order to gain a solid majority stake.
What the frak do super computers have to do with it? In related news ferrari's suck. I can't get more than 2 bags of mulch in a ferrari. No possible way landscapping companies can be profitable. I mean a major project would require more ferraris than the entire annual production.
Network is ~10TH/S.
At $1 per MH 10TH = $10 mil.
Using ASIC and a $2M NRE one could bring that cost down to <$0.50 per MH. So taking over entire network would be closer to ~$7M vs $26M for 51% of coins. Of course trying to buy 51% of coins would cause the price to skyrocket, while buying 51% of the network causes the price to plummet.
BTW I don't like the idea of a pure PofS only model. Imagine a hybrid where control of network requires 51% of hashing power and stake. Cost to attacker is now more like ~$50M+.
Main Point: A dominant investment gives you absolute control over either system.
This is a false dictonomy. I did not claim that absolute control was the result, nor is it necessary. A dominant investment does grant the investor the power to undermine the network with less than 50% of the processing power.
Quote
PoS requires a much larger investment to obtain control, PoW requires a smaller investment.
This is based upon what? For a PoW miner to gain majority control over the network right now would require significantly more processing power than is available to all of the top 50 unclassified supercomputers on Earth, while a PoS system based upon the current Bitcoin economy would take no more than the current Market Cap of $46 million in order to gain a solid majority stake.
Seems to me that POS replaces a threat from a pool with threat from an exchange. Instead of the potential coming from active mining, it comes from accumulation. Realistically the largest stake would be a single massive exchange, holding massive deposits at the time the POS is checked for every transaction.
Potential threat is replaced by a different threat is all.
Potential threat is replaced by a different threat is all.
I am completely for the PoW and find the "ownership" model of finance just as reprehensible as it is in goverment. I understand we are looking to fix a problem that some people believe may exist someday. Some folks claim that the fee incentive may not be enough to keep people mining. I just don't see that as an issue that cannot be met by competition. This whole "tragedy of the commons" myth may seem problematic when it comes to finite natural resources, but there is no limit to the resourcefulness of man's technology.
Jump to: