There is some but much less than before Zerocoin, evidenced by the market capitalizations.
What were the conclusions of Nothing-at-Stake?
Regardless, the problem of large stakes threatening a proof-of-stake network is not yet solved.
What were the conclusions of Nothing-at-Stake? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=897488.msg10152632#msg10152632Tl:Dr - nothing to write home about. There have been 2 more papers since these results that are in the thread. Regardless, the problem of large stakes threatening a proof-of-stake network is not yet solved. Define large. You still seem to imply you think 5% of a stake can damage a network, where are these large stakes in Nxt's POS that you fear so much? Also: Regardless, the problem of large mining pools threatening a proof-of-work network is not yet solved. |
|
|
|
NXT's initial supply went to few investors, and it remains strong despite the threat of large malicious holders. There are successful others.
Nxt's distribution was to 73, to be exact, after two months of little to no interest (this is before the terms IPO/ICO etc existed in crypto). Curious to know how you came to the conclusion for the rest? What indicates to you that they are malicious? Excuse me, that should've read "large potentially malicious holders". I meant to imply that NXT was successful despite the risks of Proof-of-Stake. The Proof-of-Stake coins don't seem to have recovered since the Zerocoin incident. Do you consider Satoshi a "large potentially malicious holder" within Bitcoin? How could he be? Proof-of-Work is not dependent upon percentage ownership of the issue like Proof-of-Stake is. He could have an equal percentage of MØ, yet the Clotho-Hydra is unaffected in the same way. Satoshi owns about ~5% of all Bitcoins that will ever be. The largest Nxt holders were given 5% (1 BTC donation of the 21 BTC collected = ~5%) . The only power either have in a POW or POS network is to dump the price. Isn't this what you meant by "potentially malicious" or are you implying that someone with 5% of the stake can control Nxt's network if they chose to? Supply & demand are at work regardless of the temporal order security implementation. More precisely, I'm talking about the large exchange thefts that sometimes gave attackers onerous proportions. The Zerocoin chargeback fork is what demolished trust in Proof-of-Stake. Those who solve that problem should have a better chance of getting out of the doghouse. Supply & demand are at work regardless of the temporal order security implementation. Not sure what this refers to and is an obvious statement but it didn't answer my question. Supply and demand have nothing to do with whether 5% of a supply can control a POS network. The highest amount stolen and dumped was about 8 million Nxt. I doubt many even notice it. There is no large stake stored anywhere to steal so I don't follow why you have any concern. What makes you believe there is no trust in Proof-of-Stake and it is in the doghouse? Very few dismiss the best implementations of POS outright anymore on BTT. If anything, trust is growing thanks to the work of groups like Consensus Research who have debunked BS such as the so called "Nothing at Stake attacks" and continue to research in further improvements to POS (for Nxt at least). Consensus Research > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=897488.0 |
|
|
|
|
Where do these hordes get their news and discuss Bitshares? Presumably there would be millions of posts in Chinese somewhere.
|
|
|
|
NXT's initial supply went to few investors, and it remains strong despite the threat of large malicious holders. There are successful others.
Nxt's distribution was to 73, to be exact, after two months of little to no interest (this is before the terms IPO/ICO etc existed in crypto). Curious to know how you came to the conclusion for the rest? What indicates to you that they are malicious? Excuse me, that should've read "large potentially malicious holders". I meant to imply that NXT was successful despite the risks of Proof-of-Stake. The Proof-of-Stake coins don't seem to have recovered since the Zerocoin incident. Do you consider Satoshi a "large potentially malicious holder" within Bitcoin? How could he be? Proof-of-Work is not dependent upon percentage ownership of the issue like Proof-of-Stake is. He could have an equal percentage of MØ, yet the Clotho-Hydra is unaffected in the same way. Satoshi owns about ~5% of all Bitcoins that will ever be. The largest Nxt holders were given 5% (1 BTC donation of the 21 BTC collected = ~5%) . The only power either have in a POW or POS network is to dump the price. Isn't this what you meant by "potentially malicious" or are you implying that someone with 5% of the stake can control Nxt's network if they chose to? |
|
|
|
NXT's initial supply went to few investors, and it remains strong despite the threat of large malicious holders. There are successful others.
Nxt's distribution was to 73, to be exact, after two months of little to no interest (this is before the terms IPO/ICO etc existed in crypto). Curious to know how you came to the conclusion for the rest? What indicates to you that they are malicious? Excuse me, that should've read "large potentially malicious holders". I meant to imply that NXT was successful despite the risks of Proof-of-Stake. The Proof-of-Stake coins don't seem to have recovered since the Zerocoin incident. Do you consider Satoshi a "large potentially malicious holder" within Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
|
There is InstantDex there too...
|
|
|
|
|
I think Nxt is already in the book.
|
|
|
|
NXT's initial supply went to few investors, and it remains strong despite the threat of large malicious holders. There are successful others.
Nxt's distribution was to 73, to be exact, after two months of little to no interest (this is before the terms IPO/ICO etc existed in crypto). Curious to know how you came to the conclusion for the rest? What indicates to you that they are malicious? |
|
|
|
Peerexplorer.com gives an estimate of the cost of Nxt's network per day on the front page, currently On a average 300 Watt, 0,15$ per kWh the energy cost would be 332.64$ a day. Remember, number of nodes aren't fixed so this is for the average number of nodes online. I don't know what the cost of other POS systems are but I think you will only be able to do general comparisons between different versions of POS.
|
|
|
|
This one has already been operational for months... http://nxtfreemarket.com/Not sure crypto is ready for decentralized ebay, everyone prefers to keep their profiles pseudonymous. Need more average joe's before it will take off. Unless you're planning on selling crack of course  Silkroad shows there can be some success there. Whoah dude coming here advertising nxt giving strong opinions on what crypto needs telling us what "everyone prefers" is a sure fire way to get ignored. For your information bazaar has been operational for quite some time also but have been upgrading and also this is a bitcoin forum where people want to spend that is right you guessed it "Bitcoin" not nxt lol Why would you ignore me, other than to bury your head in the sand? Do you believe OpenBazaar (minus drugs/kiddy porn/guns etc) will have everyone falling all over each other desperate to use it? There are options already that cater for that (nxtfreemarket is not the only other) and they lay fallow. So available evidence suggests that users still prefer to use centralized options like ebay for non-criminal sales. It isn't me 'telling' anyone anything, it is the market. Do you have evidence to the contrary of user's preference? Throw in drugs and you might have a party, it is the only proven success formula for this type of exchange. |
|
|
|
stick to the first plan 25% to dev,mobile app, nodes and 75% to stakeholders
The solution is to reduce the number of coins. Give 25% to developers, hold 5% for people who might claim later, and 1 million each for all legit users.
As I understand it, the 25% was agreed. It seems sensible to stick to this. I don't recall the 25% being a a condition when I joined, so I already feel the stakes have been diluted. But maybe my bad, I swallowed that. Having such a high percentage out of circulation for 'unconventional marketing', 'mobile app' etc sounds more like mercenary devs/marketers will be producing what is needed for bounties and dumping for payment. Which is ok and expected to an extent, but not when those devs/marketers who want to get paid for their efforts are potentially as big a group as those that are holding NEM. There will be a huge imbalance. I haven't seen any reason why the 'original' plan of 75% to stakeholders and 25% to devs/marketing/etc. can't be carried through ("we can't/won't" seems to be the current response). I can understand why 65% of the stakes not being distributed can seem like it will give NEM devs security in the future, but it is more likely that it will depress the price and make you wish you had limited this proportion to 25%. |
|
|
|
This one has already been operational for months... http://nxtfreemarket.com/Not sure crypto is ready for decentralized ebay, everyone prefers to keep their profiles pseudonymous. Need more average joe's before it will take off. Unless you're planning on selling crack of course Silkroad shows there can be some success there. |
|
|
|
So it is closed source? And somehow solves problems latency... How can some set up 300-3000 nodes (to get a somewhat realistic network topology) all over the world to test your claims? I have no doubt you can send a message across the world and it be received by another node in 100s of milliseconds. But to reconcile 300 nodes every 500ms with each of the other node in the network to get consensus/agreement between all sounds... imaginative. I'll put this in the "Sounds good but scam until proven otherwise" category for now |
|
|
|
Are the 4000 stakes being reduced inline with the number of socks taken out? Or do the devs/marketing/bounties etc. just keep more of the stakes (2433.5/4000)?
Just me being ignored then |
|
|
|
I think we are being ignored mrvegad. |
|
|
|
An Ideal Reserve Clearinghouse, which can fully confirm globally in 500ms, currently only requires a 64-bit half-core with 500MB of RAM that can run Ubuntu 14.04 or equivalent.
No other currency can provide this kind of global certainty at these speeds for such little resources.
Do you mean NXT? NXT, like all other Proof-of-Stake cryptocurrencies, consumes seconds for full confirmation with some risks still not yet solved. The Ideal Reserve consumes almost always only 500ms, mostly due to the time consumed by data circumtransmitting the globe. The Ideal Reserve is not at risk of a Clearinghouse possessing more than half of the processing power or more than half of the total issue. Have you shown a whitepaper on this or just keep spamming claims? Latency is the speed limit for confirmations in a decentralused network. If you can get all the world to agree concensus in 500ms, suggests to me you are talking about a decentralised system. |
|
|
|
Not my department  But someone will see your post |
|
|
|
|
If it works as planned, it will sell itself.
People seem to like dackcoin's instant txs, for the time being at least. Now add an exchange so you can instant tx in and out of not just one crytposphere but many.
The result, no need for centralised exchanges. The strategy is to provide something that people have been demanding since GOX and let economics take it from there.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
