 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
........
I do not think the first two statements are true and I'm pretty sure - as I pointed out - that the last statement holds true for POS aswell.
Temporarily offline peers and new peers will be able to tell which chain is the better chain only with blockchain data in POS. I'm not sure how exactly those scores are calculated (and it probably varies between implementations) but i'm positive that it's of absolutely no relevance from which peer it comes from. If a peer were to fetch "bad" data then it wouldn't have to verify with some "famous" node. Any none evil node would be enough.
If you're talking about the initial sync mostly happening from well known peers...well...you're gonna need well known peers in any p2p network or how are you planning on letting peers find each other ?
Guess I have to say things are not that optimistic in PoS. I might give you an example of attacking an ill formed PoS design for illustration purpose in the near future. One question you might think right now is: Why PeerCoin needs to broadcast checkpoint regularly? Why NXT have that kind of restriction while Bitcoin does not? |
|
|
|
Care to explain how a hard coded rewrite limit (you stated 720 for NXT) sacrifices decentralization ? What has one todo with the other ? I'm assuming you're refering to this New users who encounter multiple histories are no longer able to
distinguish them on their own; they need to ask existing participants in the network (which may
include friends and family, large corporate entities with reputations to maintain, public websites,
etc.) which history they know to be the true one. This is not a distributed consensus! It is a different
sort of consensus, which may be formed amongst always-online peers in a decentralized way, but
10
depends on trust for new users and temporarily offline ones. It is correspondingly vulnurable to
legal pressure, attacks on “trusted” entities, and network attacks.
? This makes no sense to me. I'm no expert but if having to trust existing peers is a bad thing then were are new peers supposed to get the chain from if not from existing peers ? Also I'm not even sure the assumption behind this criticism is accurate. I believe there are ways for nodes to calculate which chain is "better" (in BTC it's simply the longer chain afaik). There are score systems for that in place. I believe both NXT and NEM have something like that so every peer can determine on it's own which "history" is better. Hi, a nice question indeed! The real problem is, without a careful design, anyone with very few coins could fake a better chain (a chain has a better score) that switches long ago, with very little effort. In PoW, this is impossible; but in PoS, this is possible. We have some discussion on this topic in section 4.1.2, 4.1.3, and 4.4.4. Hope they help. If some bad guys control a lot of peers, new peers and temporarily offline peers will not be able to distinguish solely by block chain data. They have to continuously confirm with some "famous" nodes, and those nodes together become the "center" of the network. The beauty of Bitcoin (or PoW) and LibreFortune is, peers can make sure which is the real main chain solely by block chain data. They do not trust peers, they download data from other peers, validate by themselves, and then make their own decision, whenever they are new peers, or temporarily offline ones. |
|
|
|
Instead of contributing to an existing project, which fits those requirements, OP would rather just create some new coin and give himself a hefty 50% premine - we see this like almost everyday on Bitcointalk.  BTW the white paper does not go into any detail why this thing would be more decentralized than other PoS algos. All I am seeing is a vague proposition for a new style of distribution but that does not mean it would be more decentralized than prominent PoS and PoS variant projects. Because the change is too fundamental. Btw, I have updated the post to reflect your discussions. |
|
|
|
doesnt NXT have a POS algo that already works? why not fork nxt to adopt everything they have in their system and modify it with your algo?
i feel every coin is trying to do similar things while we see that the one major coin has much of these "wants" tackled. why waste time making your own from scratch when you can just fork nxt and you'll have almost everything u wanted and call it your own coin. then maybe focus on working on more innovative stuff than reinventing the wheel. my 2 cents.
Guess we'll have to write some more to compare with existing PoS algorithms. But for now, please have a look at the "Infeasibility of Private-Chain Attack" section of our white paper, there's a discussion that why PoS must NOT compare with infinite long branches. About decentralization: PeerCoin has a centralized checkpoint broadcasting mechanism( ref); Nxt has a hard coded chain switch limitation (720, ref) to prevent private chain attack which sacrifices decentralization. Here's a great article about this matter(section 4.3, “Long-Range” versus “Short-Range” Attacks). |
|
|
|
|
I agree with that the utility and demand is critical to the value of a crypto-currency. That is why LibreFortune regards both designing a reliable PoS protocol and building an open app platform as its core missions.
As for a price floor, even in PoW, a miner mined coins at 100$/coin does not mean he won't sell it at a price below 100$/coin, although he's unwilling to. Actually for PoS, the reluctance to sell (due to high relative mining rewards and virtually no mining cost) is more worrisome. And that is why we adopt a three-year multi-stage distribution plan.
In a PoS system with fair mining, by mining a miner gains more coins, but the percentage of all coins owned by the miner doesn't increase. But stop mining will cause forfeiting mining rewards. Thus PoS mining reward can be seen as an incentive to NOT stop mining.
|
|
|
|
Greetings! In the past 18 month, we've been struggled to design a pure PoS algorithm which is truly secure, and fully decentralized. Many of you may know, that most PoS algorithms out there are not secure, or not fully decentralized. It's really not an easy task to fulfill these two requirements at the same time. But we found a beautiful solution at last. We write an white paper about the algorithm, and we also make it into a new coin. We deeply believe that PoS is a very good direction, and we hope there will be more people knowing about our algorithm(LF-PoS), and more discussions about it. This thread can be used for algorithm discussion. We'll be on the forum every two days or so. Thank you very much for your time! ======================================== About security: Please have a look at the "Infeasibility of Private-Chain Attack" section of our white paper, there's a discussion that why PoS must NOT compare with infinite long branches. There're a lot more things to talk about security, we'll update this post later. About decentralization: - PeerCoin has a centralized checkpoint broadcasting mechanism(ref);
- Nxt has a hard coded chain switch limitation (720, ref) to prevent private chain attack which sacrifices decentralization. Here's a great article talks about this matter(section 4.3, “Long-Range” versus “Short-Range” Attacks).
|
|
|
|
LibreFortune: an App Ecosystem Based on a Modern Reification of Proof-of-Stake Project LibreFortune ( white paper) originates from a critical thinking on the following two questions: does Proof-of-Stake work, and what should we build with it. Does Proof-of-Stake work? It is strange to ask this question today, given that many pure PoS designs have already been proposed out there. However, existing PoS designs either have security defects, or remedy security defects at the sacrifice of decentralization. After a year of careful designing and refinement, we have found a way to achieve security, fairness and decentralization at the same time, although, it takes a radical redesign from the very basic idea of Proof-of-Stake. What do we build with it?Given a solid blockchain with a very low operating cost, people can do a lot. Our choice is to build an app platform based on this, which can greatly simplify the development of decentralized apps. (See our whitepaper for workflows of example decentralized apps, and see the FAQ for a comparison with Ethereum). Key Contributions- We propose an original blockchain technology with critical innovations in the PoS block generation protocol and the main chain protocol. The well-designed protocols successfully eliminate incentives for off-main chain mining, as well as chances of early setup in mining, achieving a clean probability model of the mining process. It is the first pure PoS protocol that realizes resistance against long-range attack without compromising the decentralized consensus model.
- We propose a mode-based transaction system with a powerful and intuitive transaction control. This allows designing and implementing advanced transaction contracts in a straightforward way.
- Based on the solid blockchain and transaction system, we built a platform which directly provides pragmatic high-level APIs/Events for the apps to query/subscribe/publish blockchain data/events. Existing apps can easily migrate to the platform and start to leverage LibreFortune's infrastructures and powerful payment system.
An advanced PoS blockchain protocol, a powerful transaction system, and barrier-free accessibility --- together they make LibreFortune very promising to quickly evolve into an active app ecosystem, which will bring concrete and rich demands to the system. Progress of DevelopmentCore Components: - Decentralized, fair and secure pure PoS protocol. [Done];
- Transaction system. [Done]
- Networking. [Done]
- Rpc server. [Done]
- Wallet. [Done]
- Blockchain explorer. [Done]
- Desktop Qt UI. [Done]
- App platform. [ In Progress. ETA: In December]
Future Enhancements: ResourcesHome page: www.librefortune.orgWhite Paper: www.librefortune.org/res/librefortune-whitepaper.pdfDiscussion: www.reddit.com/r/LibreFortuneBinaries: TBD Q/A(Frequently asked question will be added to this list.) Why not distribute all genesis coins at once?Please read the “Initial Distribution” section of the white paper. Is this project open source?Yes. LibreFortune's canonical client, which is written in C++11, will be open source gradually after the binary is released. What is the difference between LibreFortune's app platform and Ethereum's smart contract system?In Ethereum, apps run on EVM (Ethereum virtual machine) and app executions cost ether (coin of Ethereum). In LibreFortune, apps run independently and communicate with LibreFortune via high-level APIs and event callbacks. Thus LibreFortune virtually imposes no constraint on the apps (type, size, run time, etc.). Video games, social apps, shopping apps, etc. can all be placed on LibreFortune's platform. In Ethereum, app executions may cause blockchain state transition. For the consensus of the network, every node has to perform every triggered app execution, even the user running the node has nothing to do with the app, and has no idea what the app is doing. In LibreFortune, app execution cannot change blockchain directly, and users are free to choose which apps to install and run, just like normal apps. Ethereum's strength is in allowing apps to change the ledger directly during execution. This enables some simple app like gambling to run in a fully decentralized way. In LibreFortune, apps cannot change the ledger directly. Thus an app that needs to change the ledger (e.g. lottery) has to issue a new asset to achieve a similar effect by redistributing this new asset, or just keeps its client-server pattern. On the other hand, LibreFortune provide better support for apps which do not need to change the ledger (e.g. distributed DNS server), and apps only need to make transactions through the platform's APIs (e.g. in-app purchase apps) . |
|
|
|
In my opinion, NEM has had the best POS distribution so far. They set up an asset a year before final distribution. The asset could be bought and traded by everyone. And everyone had the chance to get into the coin for one year ago.
Thank you. We'll look into it. |
|
|
|
Most people do not have the skills or even the inclination to code an exploit, so the initial coding of an attack routine is a bit of a bottleneck admittedly.
Way back when PPCoin came out though didn't someone demonstrate?
You run into all kinds of bullshit claims of purported solutions but so far bullshit is all they are, as far as I know there are no proper scholarly whitepapers, peer-reviewed journal publications nor the like yet on any actually real solution. Just propaganda spam from bag-holders / stakeholders / scammers / partisans and the like.
Thev "New York City has not been destroyed by any nuclear bombs therefore New York City is actually less vulnerable to atomic bombs than e.g. Hiroshima" is a particularly bullshit type of argument that one sees all too often.
-MarkM-
Agreed. An attack does not happen yet doesn't mean it won't happen in the next few years. Secure should be math proved. |
|
|
|
Pure proof of stake is not secure, because somewhere in the workings of it there has to be some kind of random or pseudorandom number generator used to decide which staking client wins the/a stake on any particular block.
Someone with more computer power can explore multiple possible futures, generating billions trillions quadrilions etc such random or pseudorandom numbers, massively increasing their chance of having their stake, of whatever size, "get lucky".
This is pretty much a pure nature of the problem kind of problem, not only has it not been solved it probably is not solvable.
That is why proof of stake coins that make even a token, propaganda-style pretence of being in any way even slightly secure (such as ppcoin for example) have a proof of work element in them, they are not pure proof of stake and admit that it is because pure proof of stake cannot be secure that they are a hybrid, having proof of work as well as proof of stake.
Worrying about how to initially distribute coins you know a-priori are never going to be able to be secure is basically a waste of time, a mere thought-experiment about an inherently useless and pointless "product".
You might just as well work on how to distribute sewage to as many individuals as possible, or how to drop a brick on the head of as many people as possible etc.
-MarkM-
PoS can be secure. In fact, we have one solution. It's clean as PoW, with proof. Aside from that, I really want to know what is a "good" solution to distribute the coins in everybody's opinion. |
|
|
|
Tl;dr
Check out Clamcoin for a beautiful way of distributing PoS coins.
Silently sending PoS coins to people is dangerous to the network. Because most of them won't notice, thus won't mine, which is a disaster for a PoS coin. But yes, I guess it's a good idea, if all receivers notice about that. |
|
|
|
|
In PoW, the coins are minted steadily by miners from all around the world. The minted coins are initially distributed to the miners, and then spread to more people in circulation. In PoS, because the block mining is associated with existing stakes (coins), there must be a process of issuing seed stakes. In the early stage, the issued stakes might bear high capacity of generating new coins. The stakeholders are likely to be reluctant to sell stakes at hand. Therefore, issuing all seed stakes at once in the beginning may result in an inert market environment, jeopardizing the further distribution of the stakes.
I think a more reasonable mechanism is to issue the seed stakes regularly (e.g. quarterly) in the first several years. Each time, a certain percentage of seed stakes will be issued, including all their mining awards so far. These regular stake supplies will open windows for new participants. The percentage may gradually decrease (like Bitcoin's supply control). When the seed stake supplies run out, most of the coins should have already been minted. At that time, the earnings from coin minting will be a minor factor compared to the market price variation, and thus the stakeholders will no longer be reluctant to trade their stakes. After the seed stake issue has finished, the running of the transaction system will be fully decided by the PoS protocol and free market.
What do you think is the proper way to distribute a PoS coin?
|
|
|
|
|
