everyone who wanted it has it already. The permabulls keep holding and they ran out of ammo since they were calling the bottom wrong too often already. No new money coming in because nobody buys into these charts. Well, too bad, too sad.
Satoshi should have known better than forcing 10% inflation on us almost a decade into adoption.
Once the panic is on it's over.
Let me guess, you have a different coin to suggest?  are you happy with 10% inflation? Do we need that? Even the dollar can hold value better. Bitcoin is not ment to be adopted. It's ment for miners to cash out on the noobs. The inflation is NOT the problem, the inflow of capital due to increased adoption can easily take care of that. The problem is still the PoW mining expense, $500M per year!! the inflow of capital has trouble keeping up with THAT. |
|
|
|
But if an attacker obtain 51% mining power in a PoW network, there's nearly nothing you could do, other than go out and out-spend the attacker by buying more hardware and spending more on electricity. I'm sure the hardware vendor and electricity companies would love to see this happen. If no one step up and out-spend the attacker, the attacker with their vast amount of hardware can PERMANENTLY disable the Bitcoin PoW network, there's nothing you could do to stop them, other than... converting Bitcoin to PoS . Do you understand that solution is easy, and attacker will spend alot of money ? If you refuse hi priority transactions then your block will become invalid and ignored by others. You have to accept bitcoin rules or hash your own empty alt-chain. The point of having a 51% attack is because you can decide which chain is valid, and what transaction to include. These are straight from the bitcoin wiki: An attacker that controls more than 50% of the network's computing power can, for the time that he is in control, exclude and modify the ordering of transactions. This allows him to: Reverse transactions that he sends while he's in control. This has the potential to double-spend transactions that previously had already been seen in the block chain. Prevent some or all transactions from gaining any confirmations Prevent some or all other miners from mining any valid blocks https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses |
|
|
|
You can replicate the protocol, but you have no way to replicate the hash power and network, which is the physical foundation of bitcoin. Altcoins do not have so strong physical foundation like bitcoin, so they are more like software which can be endlessly copied and worth nothing in turn
Actually it is this physical foundation gave bitcoin value. Imagine that someday bitcoin forked to another protocol without using sha256 hashing, then some other coin which uses sha256 hashing will utilize all these physical infrastructure and become as valuable, just like those GPUs abandoned by bitcoin miners turned to litecoin mining instead
Then why does many Proof of Stake altcoin that doesn't need any hash rate, also has value? In fact they have mostly beaten their PoW altcoin competitors. Only Bitcoin and Litecoin has more value, but they also had 3-4 years head start. I would bet Litecoin will soon be beaten, in a year or so. How do you explain these PoS networks all growing in value? |
|
|
|
a successful attack in pos is far more damaging to a coin than a successful attack in pow.
Once successfully forked you can scrap it.
That's false, and again addressed in my post #409, an attack on PoW network is far more permanent. We have also witnessed many PoW altcoin developer giving up after being 51% attacked constantly. |
|
|
|
right. Buy 20% or 30% of the coins - will be enough and can be done.
Sell them at a profit, fork that shit and get your coins back, sell them again.
Just move the thread to altcoin so it gets lost with all the other crap. Keep holding pos-coins. Good luck.
Do you think it's easier to buy 20% or 30% of Bitcoin? or use money worth about 10% of Bitcoin marketcap to buy enough hardware to attack? I never said PoS can't be attacked, just that PoW can be attacked easier. and if this is true, then why the hell is Bitcoin spending $500M per year in PoW expense, if PoS is more secure and much cheaper. |
|
|
|
i can 51% the network after having held a significant amount of the coins with a cost of zero to name just one of many problems. That shit is for the trashcan. It couldn't be more blatant how you pump your shitcoin... and on top of it in the wrong section.
Jeeez. I am done here.
I have already addressed this issue in post #409. Your first obstacle is obtaining 51%, your second obstacle is you will lose your 51% immediately after you try to attack. No one would be dumb enough to even attempt this, and this why this attack have never happened in reality in a PoS network. Though 51% attack has been repeatedly successfully done on PoW altcoins, how do you explain that? you sell your 51% before you attack of course so you have nothing to loose. And you don't need 51% of the coins. 20% will be enough since you just need 51% of the coins staking at any given moment in time. I don't get it, how do you attack with your 51% stake if you sold it before the attack? you create a chain longer than the current chain from the block where you still had the coin in your wallet. Done. That would be a chicken and egg problem, you can't create a chain longer than the current chain, if you already sold your stake. Plus, how long do you think it would take to sell 51% stake in an eco-system? I believe it would take months. Again, no one would attempt this, it's impossible to pull off. |
|
|
|
i can 51% the network after having held a significant amount of the coins with a cost of zero to name just one of many problems. That shit is for the trashcan. It couldn't be more blatant how you pump your shitcoin... and on top of it in the wrong section.
Jeeez. I am done here.
I have already addressed this issue in post #409. Your first obstacle is obtaining 51%, your second obstacle is you will lose your 51% immediately after you try to attack. No one would be dumb enough to even attempt this, and this why this attack have never happened in reality in a PoS network. Though 51% attack has been repeatedly successfully done on PoW altcoins, how do you explain that? you sell your 51% before you attack of course so you have nothing to loose. And you don't need 51% of the coins. 20% will be enough since you just need 51% of the coins staking at any given moment in time. I don't get it, how do you attack with your 51% stake if you sold it before the attack? |
|
|
|
you have to post here under the guise of wanting to discuss bitcoin because in altcoins you would be eaten alive. Go on, tell me more about how nice btsx are.
Why would I go into altcoin section if I want to discuss converting Bitcoin to PoS? you have a funny way of keep mentioning altcoins though. I'm wondering if you are actually trying to pump the altcoin section now. |
|
|
|
i can 51% the network after having held a significant amount of the coins with a cost of zero to name just one of many problems. That shit is for the trashcan. It couldn't be more blatant how you pump your shitcoin... and on top of it in the wrong section.
Jeeez. I am done here.
I have already addressed this issue in post #409. Your first obstacle is obtaining 51%, your second obstacle is you will lose your 51% immediately after you try to attack. No one would be dumb enough to even attempt this, and this why this attack have never happened in reality in a PoS network. Though 51% attack has been repeatedly successfully done on PoW altcoins, how do you explain that? |
|
|
|
since when is it allowed to pump altcoins in this section? I would have to pump some too!  Have you tried to discuss PoS without mentioning any altcoin? pos isn't ready yet. Everyone knows that. I have been holding numerous poscoins and regretted every single one of them. They are all one big clusterfuck. So this thread is just a pump-thread for a alpha- or at best beta-product. Can't replace pow at this point in time. Please try again in altcoins section to sell your pumpcoin with the security issues, loopholes and forked up chain. *shill thread What security issues or loop holes? please be specific go use those coins. 90% of poscoins are forked up with no end. Many defaulted. No hashrate, numerous exploits. Just google it or search the forum. I am not going to discuss the scam of Bitshares X in depth here. I am indeed a user of BTSX, it's working fine for me. I wasn't aware it needed any "hashrate" to function, since it's a pure PoS network. Still you haven't named ANY specific security problem or loophole, I'm still waiting. |
|
|
|
everyone can effectively come up with a 'problem' bitcoin has and offer his pumpcoin to solve that problem. So why not merge alt-section with this one?
I am serious. If this forum is managed so incoherently i am going to pump my coins now with the same excuse around here to lure in some noobs. lulz. Hilarious.
I think you have a reading comprehension problem. I'm suggesting to convert Bitcoin itself to PoS. I wasn't aware PoS was an altcoin. Your argument is laughable. |
|
|
|
since when is it allowed to pump altcoins in this section? I would have to pump some too! Have you tried to discuss PoS without mentioning any altcoin? pos isn't ready yet. Everyone knows that. I have been holding numerous poscoins and regretted every single one of them. They are all one big clusterfuck. So this thread is just a pump-thread for a alpha- or at best beta-product. Can't replace pow at this point in time. Please try again in altcoins section to sell your pumpcoin with the security issues, loopholes and forked up chain. *shill thread What security issues or loop holes? please be specific |
|
|
|
Your 1st solution doesn't work, it's trivial to change IP.
I said it would temporarily mitigate an attack while the protocol was adjusted where no IP is needed, WOT can be used. I do think PoW has no security benefit over PoS, otherwise why would I be calling for an end to PoW, and favoring PoS?
Thank you for your honesty, but it clearly shows that you don't understand how PoW is different: Is there a rebuttal from the PoS crowd to this: https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf... other than "sure, the original PoS ideas were flawed, but the latest MegaUberPoS system gets it right and nobody has figured out exactly how to break it!" I suppose all the developers that work with PoW are equally as misguided as me, right? Unless your WOT mining is already implemented, your temporary solution will buy you 1 hour at best, if the attacker was already prepared to change IP, it won't even take 1 hour, just a few seconds. Who's going to wait months for Bitcoin to implement WOT mining while the entire network is being disabled? A PoW developer is naturally entrenched in the PoW mindset, I'm not surprised at all. They will think PoW is superior, until the day Bitcoin PoW fails, and reality shows them it's not. As a stake holder in Bitcoin, I can't AFFORD to wait until that day happens, action must be taken before that day happens. |
|
|
|
since when is it allowed to pump altcoins in this section? I would have to pump some too! Have you tried to discuss PoS without mentioning any altcoin? |
|
|
|
But if an attacker obtain 51% mining power in a PoW network, there's nearly nothing you could do, other than go out and out-spend the attacker by buying more hardware and spending more on electricity. I'm sure the hardware vendor and electricity companies would love to see this happen. If no one step up and out-spend the attacker, the attacker with their vast amount of hardware can PERMANENTLY disable the Bitcoin PoW network, there's nothing you could do to stop them, other than... converting Bitcoin to PoS . This is false, I can come up with two solutions quickly without even trying: There are solutions to modify the protocol to defend against Bitcoin after a 51% attack just as their are ways to mitigate DDOS attacks. One solution would be to temporarily identify the IP ranges where the attack is coming from and block those ranges, followed up by using anonymous nameIDs associated with miners that have reputation rates where the network could purge hash values from attacking miners. Another solution is to create a PoW/PoS hybrid. It seems your judgment is clouded as you aren't critically analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of PoS vs PoW and are merely trying to market Nxt/BTSX. If this isn't the case than can you name several security flaws within Nxt/BTSX that Bitcoin doesn't have or do you claim that PoW offers no security benefits above PoS? Your 1st solution doesn't work, it's trivial to change IP. Your 2nd solution is what I already suggested at the end: "converting bitcoin to PoS". A PoW/PoS hybrid is still means converting at least part of the network to PoS. I do think PoW has no security benefit over PoS, otherwise why would I be calling for an end to PoW, and favoring PoS? I'm not marketing NxT or BTSX, actually I'm one of the biggest NxT hater there is, I have already shown you my opinion against NxT in previous threads. I own 0 NxT, and a small amount of BTSX. My Bitcoin stake is 100X more than my BTSX stake. I would not mention NxT or BTSX if I didn't have to, but it's hard to discuss PoS without mentioning these existing PoS networks. |
|
|
|
THE MOST VALUABLE ASPECT(S) OF BITCOIN CAN BE REPLICATED The most valuable aspect of Bitcoin by far is the network. Bitcoin the most powerful computer network on Earth securing it. That, you cannot replicate. But good luck trying! Nope, the PoW network is actually the biggest weakness of Bitcoin, and its insane perpetual expense may be the biggest cause for Bitcoin to fail. The most valuable aspect of Bitcoin, is its scale, which means people have faith in it. Without people's faith, all your PoW is meaningless and useless. |
|
|
|
reposting a discussion from elsewhere, which I think is also relevant to this thread's discussion. How many zero-day vulnerabilities and network nodes do you think you can find with $500 million?
With PoW nodes, they have no reason to be storing a "hot wallet". With PoS nodes, every node has a "hot wallet" in order to prove "stake".
The implication is that a determined attacker may be able to control more than 50% of the "stake" for a lot less than $500Million. As a bonus, they would be using less than 1MW of power while attacking the network (assuming thousands of machines to get good connectivity/node isolation).
Hot wallet requirement is depend on the actual implementation, Peercoin needs hot wallets, Bitshares and NxT do not. It's incorrect to say PoS needs to run hot wallets. Also I can't understand the logic of spending money = successfully hacking thousands of machines (especially if they are PoS hot wallets, which the owner probably took measures to properly secure their private computer, if these private computers are so easily hacked, then all web servers are doomed). I can think of several ways to make my hot wallet on my private computer unhackable from the outside. Usually people lose their hot wallet because they got phished, their dropbox backup got hacked, or installed some malware/keylogger. A LOT more Bitcoin hot wallets has been hacked, compared to Peercoin PoS miner hot wallet, I think so far ZERO peercoin PoS miner hotwallet has been hacked, the reality doesn't agree with your theory. Ok, let's assume in the unlikely event a hacker does obtain 51% of all currency available, then the chain can still just rollback the attacker address. If someone hacked 51% of all Bitcoin, you can be pretty sure Bitcoin is rolling back the attacker's address too, otherwise the eco-system will fail immediately. So the only way to attack a PoS network, is to buy the stake legitimately. Then as soon as you do start to attack the PoS network, the community will find out and act upon the aggression, your address will be getting blocked immediately, and lose all your stake that you spent an astronomical amount of money to buy. You can be pretty sure that any potential attacker would know this, therefore they won't even attempt this attack. This is the reason ZERO PoS network has been 51% attacked so far. It's basically a nuke in the PoS network's arsenal, it can be used, so the attacker in fear of the nuke, won't even attempt the attack, which end up making the nuke never used. But it's good to know it's there. But if an attacker obtain 51% mining power in a PoW network, there's nearly nothing you could do, other than go out and out-spend the attacker by buying more hardware and spending more on electricity. I'm sure the hardware vendor and electricity companies would love to see this happen. If no one step up and out-spend the attacker, the attacker with their vast amount of hardware can PERMANENTLY disable the Bitcoin PoW network, there's nothing you could do to stop them, other than... converting Bitcoin to PoS . |
|
|
|
Where's your rebuttal? I don't see anything disputing the fact that PoS is much more expensive to attack against. You just keep saying Bitcoin is expensive to attack, that's your opinion, I don't believe $500m is expensive for a well funded and determined attacker, such as nation government or big banks.
How many zero-day vulnerabilities and network nodes do you think you can find with $500 million? With PoW nodes, they have no reason to be storing a "hot wallet". With PoS nodes, every node has a "hot wallet" in order to prove "stake". The implication is that a determined attacker may be able to control more than 50% of the "stake" for a lot less than $500Million. As a bonus, they would be using less than 1MW of power while attacking the network (assuming thousands of machines to get good connectivity/node isolation). Yes, I will only accept bitcoins with 12 * 6 = 72 confirmation (12 hour ... "old" money) so DOUBLE SPEND will NOT be possible with only 90% of hash power. With >51% of the hash-power, an attacker can roll back transactions. With 90% of the hash-power, they can roll back 8 hours every hour (in secret until they release their fork). Hot wallet requirement is depend on the actual implementation, Peercoin needs hot wallets, Bitshares and NxT do not. It's incorrect to say PoS needs to run hot wallets. Also I can't understand the logic of spending money = successfully hacking thousands of machines (especially if they are PoS hot wallets, which the owner probably took measures to properly secure their private computer, if these private computers are so easily hacked, then all web servers are doomed). I can think of several ways to make my hot wallet on my private computer unhackable from the outside. Usually people lose their hot wallet because they got phished, their dropbox backup got hacked, or installed some malware/keylogger. A LOT more Bitcoin hot wallets has been hacked, compared to Peercoin PoS miner hot wallet, I think so far ZERO peercoin PoS miner hotwallet has been hacked, the reality doesn't agree with your theory. Ok, let's assume in the unlikely event a hacker does obtain 51% of all currency available, then the chain can still just rollback the attacker address. If someone hacked 51% of all Bitcoin, you can be pretty sure Bitcoin is rolling back the attacker's address too, otherwise the eco-system will fail immediately. So the only way to attack a PoS network, is to buy the stake legitimately. Then as soon as you do start to attack the PoS network, the community will find out and act upon the aggression, your address will be getting blocked immediately, and lose all your stake that you spent an astronomical amount of money to buy. You can be pretty sure that any potential attacker would know this, therefore they won't even attempt this attack. This is the reason ZERO PoS network has been 51% attacked so far. It's basically a nuke in the PoS network's arsenal, it can be used, so the attacker in fear of the nuke, won't even attempt the attack, which end up making the nuke never used. But it's good to know it's there. But if an attacker obtain 51% mining power in a PoW network, there's nearly nothing you could do, other than go out and out-spend the attacker by buying more hardware and spending more on electricity. I'm sure the hardware vendor and electricity companies would love to see this happen. If no one step up and out-spend the attacker, the attacker with their vast amount of hardware can PERMANENTLY disable the Bitcoin PoW network, there's nothing you could do to stop them, other than... converting Bitcoin to PoS . |
|
|
|
The cost to 51% attack Bitcoin is roughly 10% of Bitcoin marketcap, or around $500-$600 million, this is enough to buy more than enough hardware to vastly outnumber the current miners, agreed?
if you invest $600M and have 51% then your chance to double spend is low. You could do better to mine bitcoins. :-) How do you want to get 1 500 000 BTC (@ $400 each), to cover your $600M investment ? (I do not mention cost of eletricity, to keep your business running) Why does their need to be a economic incentive to attack? if it is cheap and easy enough, someone will do it and just to say "I did it" or because they don't like Bitcoin, the cost is not very big for a determined and very well funded attacker, such as nation governments and large banks. On the other hand, if Bitcoin was PoS, the cost is pretty much astronomical, and success is not guaranteed even after spending astronomical amount of resources, since not all coins are for sale for ideological reasons, they wouldn't even want to attempt it. If you even invest 10 times more ($5B) then your attack is still almost worthless. You will have 90% of hash power and still you will not able to spend 1 of my satoshi. You will be able to double spend your money .. but who will trade with you ? Are you kidding me? being able to prevent ANYONE from spending ANY Bitcoin, basically making the entire Bitcoin network useless, is worthless? They don't need to spend your money, they just want to make your Bitcoin worthless. Once it's publicly shown that Bitcoin PoW can be easily attacked, then Bitcoin is DONE, no there are no second chances, no the world will not wait for Bitcoin to implement PoS. A superior, secure, and mature PoS network will simply take over Bitcoin's position. |
|
|
|
Alright, since you're not giving up, here's the rebuttal, in shorthand:
1) 51% attack against Bitcoin is infeasible, both by prohibitively high cost for any but the largest entities, lack of economic incentive (cost of attack > profit resulting from attack, because market value would drop as an effect of the attack), and the near-impossibility to secure and put online, in complete secrecy, the specialized hardware (regardless of the USD cost of the hardware). Don't care about PoW vs. PoS in alts.
2) PoS is inferior to PoW in three key regards: New coin distribution according to work is vastly preferred over distribution according to stake. Can't argue with human nature. Consensus forming in the case of competing chains is trivial for PoW, and bordering on impossible for PoS. The economic backing of PoW in the form of energy exerted provides a useful base valuation, because it provides the network with a well-grounded "bootstrap" value.
Questions?
Where's your rebuttal? I don't see anything disputing the fact that PoS is much more expensive to attack against. You just keep saying Bitcoin is expensive to attack, that's your opinion, I don't believe $500m is expensive for a well funded and determined attacker, such as nation government or big banks. Regarding your PoS is inferior 3 points: 1. PoW is a valid distribution method if you can't figure out a fair distribution with PoS, for example Peercoin started with PoW distribution and now majority of Peercoin blocks produced by PoS, how does this make PoS inferior if PoW is temporary(for distribution phase only) and PoS is the permanent solution? 2. Consensus, I don't see how it is "impossible" for PoS to form consensus, all the PoS altcoins can form consensus just fine, and does it better than any PoW altcoin that are easily 51% attacked, there goes your "trivial PoW consensus" argument. 3. PoW cost is NOT a value or backing, since you can't trade back and forth with it. It's an ongoing EXPENSE, it does not provide any "bootstrap" value, it sucks value out of the eco-system, and enriches the hardware vendors/electric companies. The reality has shown that PoS eco-system can have large amount of value without the need of a PoW mining network. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
