Bitcoin Forum

To make an informed decision, read about proof-of-stake in the wiki [ https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_Stake (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_Stake) ] and also read the threads on tragedy of the commons and proof of stake in the forums.

Feel free to post your own explanation for your views.

Proof-of-stake is a flawed voting mechanism for bitcoin or an alt-coin.  It would, at a minimum, require associations between the addresses within a major stake claim; breaking many types of anoniminty that existed prior to the claim of stake.

Indeed, this is already true without the proof part.

Currently, miners currently reveal ip adresses and where their coins are sent, but these can be disguised via TOR or VPN. Miners can maintain multiple mining accounts that don't appear related to one another, without any loss in mining efficiency.  This would all still hold under proof of stake. The ability to maintain apparently independent accounts without penalty is implied by constant returns to scale. There is no difference with respect to anonymity under the two systems.

It would be more constructive if you could provide a logical argument supporting your view or a link to a logical argument. Logical arguments can be shown to be true or false. Blind assertions which are not pinned on logic could potentially confuse people.

I suggest you read the tragedy of the commons threads [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=67900.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=67900.0), https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6284.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6284.0), http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3111/will-bitcoin-suffer-from-a-mining-tragedy-of-the-commons-when-mining-fees-drop-t (http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3111/will-bitcoin-suffer-from-a-mining-tragedy-of-the-commons-when-mining-fees-drop-t), https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_Commons (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_Commons). These threads contain extensive discussions of these issues and indicate why incentives to maintain the network are exceedingly weak.

And the current proof-of-work system isn't a tragedy of the commons, it's actually the reverse of same.  I was thinking along these lines early on, and made some of those same very arguments about a year ago, but I accept my error now.  A tragedy of the commons requires that a common resource be consumed by self interested players, but what is really happening is that a common resource (the security of the blockchain) is actually being aggregated.  I've made many counter arguments to my prior position on this since then, particularly centered around the incentive for major future entities in competition investing in exclusive mining agreements.  Think Wal-Mart & McDonalds agreeing to partner on a mining center that makes every effort to exclude the transactions intended for the Target & Burger King alliance.  I.E., companies in different industries have an incentive to work together, but exclude their competitors, as far as that is realistic in order to avoid transaction fees & processing delays.  This adversarial situation benefits the bitcoin consumers collectively, regardless of how each set of mining alliances should treat each other.

Brick & Morter banks would have similar reciprocal processing agreements; in order to get the other bank to process their customers' transactions without a fee & relatively fast, they would have to do the same for their customers.  Such an agreement would benefit both banking institutions, regardless of their relative size.  For example, MEGABitCoinBAnk in NYC has 100,000 customers and a 1000 GPU data center, while LittleFarmersBitcoinTrust near Cincinnati only has 10,000 customers and a 50 gpu data center.  Both banking institutions stand to benefit to some degree, so long as they are not competing in the same local markets, so the agreement happens.  MEGABitCoinBAnk is likely to make dozens of such agreements, leveraging the gpus of those dozens of local banks, even if some of them do compete with each other in the same market.

Care to elaborate?

This is not a requirement with proof-of-work, merely a convience for pool mining.


There is, but I'm not willing to argue that point.  It's secondary really, anyway.


Speak for yourself.

Anyway, I've made these kind of arguments many times over the past two years, quite literally on both sides of this issue.  What it all comes down to is that PoS doesn't offer an advantage over PoW, but attempts to solve a presumed future problem that I (no longer) agree exists.  I also do see potential problems in it's practical implementations, although those may not be insurmountable.  However, the very biggest problem with PoS is that a major entity could literally come in and buy it out and become a new central bank, as the requirement for having more than the processing power of the whole of the honest network no longer applies to a PoS miner with a large enough of a stake.  Your not going to solve a problem here.

About what exactly? http://blockchain.info/ provides data about ip's that relay blocks. In some cases it was done by a pool. In other cases by a private ip. If the relayer was a pool, then the pool in turn knows the ip adresses that was used to connect to it. The pool operates just like a vpn in this case.

He's talking about pool miners.

If coinbase transactions take 120 blocks, lets say, for their outputs to mature, then the first miner won't start being able to put in any stake for the first 120 blocks. Then, however, they can put the full number of coins minted per block in as stake on each of the next 120 blocks.

Basically each stakeholder will only be able to put 1/120th of their stake into each block if they manage to mine 120 blocks in a row.

If someone else gets a block sometime within those 120 blocks, that frees up an extra full block's worth of minted coins to use to increase your stake going forward, but it means there is someone else out there now who can put a full block's worth of coins into the next block they mine. Then 120 blocks after they manage to mine a second block, they'll have twice that amount they can put in.

I suspect it will get very hard very fast for new miners to enter the mining biz with any chance of actually making a go of it.

So it seems likely to degenerate very very fast into a "final outcome" whether that final outcome is Cunicula's (1), monopoly, or his (2), Oligopoly, or his (3), perfect competition. (Of which number three seems very unlikely to me in this scenario.)

-MarkM-

P.S. Maybe not starting PoS until many blocks in, or phasing it in slowly by having it only count fractionally, like multiplied by min(10000/blockheight,1) or something, could help some but maybe not really much. (And if not much then little point adding it to bitcoin either...)

This is true. The initial miners can reinvest mining profits and obtain a larger and larger share of mining power over time. However, this is also true under the current system. Both systems allow free entry provided that markets for mining inputs are competitive. Just like people purchase GPUs to enter mining now, they would purchase coin to enter mining. The issue you are worried about is that a competitive exchange market may fail to arise, thus limiting entry. However, the initial miners have extremely strong reasons to fund the establishment of a competitive exchange market. The currency won't have any exchange value whatsoever in the absence of such a competitive exchange market. Control over a large volume of coin that is not exchangeable is not profitable.

Maybe we can also start with initial investors, so that 100 people or more all buy in before launch.

The genesis block could have one huge multi-output coinbase transaction in it, issuing coins to the initial stakeholders...

-MarkM-

I still think though that it will be too easy to take over. Look at how large Deepbit always tended to be, from people giving up some of their profit in return for regular payments. I think something like that will happen, with more and mroe of the total nubmer of coins being tied up in that large pool as stake, until maybe only 1/121th of the total coins in existence are circulating, the other 120/121 of them being permanently tied up in maintaining an unbreakable monopoly.

It probably won't actually need 120/121 of the total coins, maybe q mere 51% of all coins will suffice, in which case it will be even easier.

But the more coins permanently tied up, the more the few in circulation should go up in price due to "rarity" maybe? unless just knowing that one pool controls the majority of the coins causes people to flock to yet another different cryprocurrency, one that is not controlled my some monopoly.

In fact the answer every time to monopoly might be simply to make another altcoin. The big players might ignore some of them as too puny to worry about of something, of they could keep quiet, growing across freenet and i2p and Tor, an underground grass roots person to person currency instead of a widely publicised scheme like bitcoin seems to prefer to be.

Just in case anyone missed it.

how can you possibly make this thread when you made the wiki page like 2 days ago? jump the gun much?

D&T did a good job debunking this here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68213.msg799136#msg799136 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68213.msg799136#msg799136)
It is also discussed in the proof of stake wiki as the "Monopoly problem"

Main Point: A dominant investment gives you absolute control over either system.  PoS requires a much larger investment to obtain control, PoW requires a smaller investment.

If you have additional questions, I am happy to answer them.

Anyone is free to contribute to the wiki. If you have some insights, then you can contribute yourself.

I like to keep track of opinions and keep putting information out there so people can make informed decisions.

A big problem is that very few people understand the issues clearly. That can only be resolved through continuing discussion and development of better online sources of information. These are complementary to one another.

yah and the issues are currently being discussed in the various other threads. didn't really need a new topic was my point.

Understand that. But it is important to know whether the primary issue is disagreement in principle or whether people just disagree becomes they prefer the status quo. Apparently, several people (not me) prefer proof-of-stake in principle, but also have a dominant preference for maintenance of the status quo. I wasn't aware that this was an important reason for opposition to proof of stake.

well I still say proof-of-transaction-activity or whatever you want to call my idea is better in every way, and no chain fork :D

There are two distinct problems:

• After crossing 50%, a miner gains over-proportionate (from practical point of view, full) control of the network. Below 50% the relationship between control and share is linear.
• Transaction fees are per transaction, but mining costs are (mostly) per block. If we eliminate the block size limit, all other things being equal, transaction fees will therefore equilibrate below the marginal cost of mining.

These are both issues that need to be investigated. Maybe there already are phenomena that will compensate for this. Maybe PoS is not an appropriate way of countering either of them. But we need to understand them.

There is a huge difference.

In a Pos only, once a miner gets more coins than any other miner it could get very difficult for other miners to compete if there is not enough coins to get or when one miner get hold of 51% of the coins, it will be impossible for other miners to even out the power.
With the Pow other miners can add (from the outside) and regain a power balance.

In a Pow, there is allways the possibility for a power battle creating a balance of power.

I´m all for moving to a 50/50...I´m against a Pos only.

But there are to many good points with a Pos system to be ignored.
 
A Pos means that the value of coins increase since they now also are the tokens that hold the right to mine more coins.
Thus the value of Bitcoins would increase with a Pos.

Your argument is correct, but I don't think it raises an important concern. However, I agree with you about not supporting pure PoS. As described in the wiki, my proposal is not practical as a pure PoS system (only as a mixed system). I prefer an 80/20 or 95/5 mix, favoring stake.

I think that there is definitely potential in PoS-based solutions. However, I don't think Bitcoin should in any way be mixed into this, that is a definite no. We're talking about a radical change and as it is now, there is no problem whatsoever with proof of work. There might be a problem in 5-10 years but that is then, not now.

The only solution is to test PoS-based models in alt chains and if proof of work proves to be problematic in the long run, then Bitcoin could try to make that change. Definitely not now though.

I like the discussion about this and we definitely need competing solutions that use PoS. For Bitcoin it's simple: if it's not broken, don't fix it. Currently proof of work is doing more than fine. Bitcoin is not about to do a massive change simply because something might cause issues in 5+ years.

If this proves to be Bitcoin's doom in the future and some other cryptocurrency does it right, then so be it. It's technological evolution.

It's also important to take into account the fact that it's completely possible that there are other solutions for the problems that might arise from proof of work as it is now. There is plenty of time to work on this and applying a proof of stake solution right now would be ridiculous.

Since my post was linked to I would like to clarify a few things.

1) A Pure PoS system is unviable IMHO.  Having 51% of coins ensures you never will lose control.  Having 51% of hashing power ensures control today but doesn't guarantee it in the future.

2) I think there is some value to a hybrid system.  It gains efficiency over a pure PoW system. 
If we imagine all methods of hashing they would be on a scale like this

negligible capital cost                                   extreme capital cost
<------------------------------------------------------>
extreme operating cost                                 negigible operating cost

moving further to the right is better for defenders.  For a given TH/s of hashing power the network is stronger because the cost of defense is lower and the cost of an attack is higher.

A hybrid system moves the network to the right.  Likely limits need to be put into place so that the work portion of proof of work is still significant.  Alternative you could have a system where each block requires both a proof of work and proof of stake signature.   The theory is interesting.  My interest in it is improving the efficiency of securing the blockchain.

3)
That being said I have no interest in forking Bitcoin.  I think any experimenting especially for something this radical needs to be done in alt-chains.  Even if a hybrid system is shown to be an improvement I doubt Bitcoin will ever be forked (or that the hybrid fork will become dominant).  A hybrid system could be viable as a replacement and/or competitor to Bitcoin is development stagnates.

 

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.

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.

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.


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+.

Exchanges would probably offer interest to deposits.  Accumulation would be limited to whatever the spread is between deposit interest and mining reward.

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.

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."

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.


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.

Pretty clever. Hope you stick around and post more. You will raise the mean IQ here substantially.

Interest? Just make sure you have a way to deposit funds without actually signing away the private key or we will see another Ted Williams shenanigan.

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).

Bump for more votes and/or commentary.

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.

That would be very interesting and nice to see!

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.

Kinda demonstrates the problem with getting PoS started, too, doesn't it?

No. 

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.

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....