 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
Litecoin brings Light to our lives. You can't kill it, it's unstoppable! Love & Light. Peace  |
|
|
|
... scifi, ... The universal AI...
Hmm, we might be approaching The Singularity sooner than we think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHVtUw5wToAHopefully, a little bit of humor allows our brains to cool down and start thinking better  |
|
|
|
Centralization remains an issue
That's why PoW provides a 51% mechanism. It works both ways, any 51% attack can be 51% attacked. Don't make me laugh. You think you can 51% the government? lol That's why we have an anarchy of competing governments. Governments aren't going to be 51% attacking each other to protect BTC users' autonomy. The majority of governments work in concert with each other. "Competing governments" are an illusion. ... unless governments themselves become BTC users, which they should. It's a good question though. In the scenario of a single totalitarian world government PoW might not be the best option and instead a myriad of anonymous PoS coins will serve better. Though it would not be a perfect global money system for variety of reasons. This solution is temporary and so is the one world government. Once it falls apart PoW provides a neutral playground for competition. We are far from the scenario described above, because there are clearly big countries who agreed to disagree. We need both systems as each serves its own purpose, so we will see how this plays out. |
|
|
|
SlipperySlope started a project to implement PoS in Bitcoin.
Implementing PoS in Bitcoin is indeed a SlipperySlope Nothing is coincidental. |
|
|
|
I wonder how much energy has been wasted in this circlejerk of a thread.
If you really want to see energy waste, go check out reddit.com/r/bitcoin. It is one huge circle jerk, and r/buttcoin makes fun of them (us) So the mass-debating continues There is no white paper because the wiki is speaking in general terms.
One example is Meni's implementation of adding proof of stake
checkpoints.... One of the key words here is adding proof
of stake, NOT replacing proof of work entirely.
If you were meaning to say that replacing proof of work entirely
with proof of stake shouldn't even be considered (rather than
being in the category of "disputed"), then I would generally
agree, as it is too huge of a change.
And by the way, this is a perfect example. Meni's idea sounds
appealing, but the core devs (and even Meni) dispute it being
implemented because they do not believe it will make bitcoin
more secure.
I wonder what happens if stakeholders hire a small group of miners and simply start checkpointing the blockchain they produce, even though it's not the longest one? Would it help mitigate 51% attacks?
51% attacks is a cornerstone of PoW design. If attack is not possible then the entity/mechanism preventing the attack becomes the central point of failure. |
|
|
|
Centralization remains an issue
That's why PoW provides a 51% mechanism. It works both ways, any 51% attack can be 51% attacked. Don't make me laugh. You think you can 51% the government? lol That's why we have an anarchy of competing governments. Putting governments' spending onto blockchain would allow for greater transparency and accountability. BTC blockchain might become the DNA of humanity, as a single healthy organism, that would evolve beyond the confines of a single planet. Looks like you prefer to joke instead of defending your point of view. Ok, never mind.
I have rehashed most of my arguments up thread. Provided that this isn't the first time there is a discussion on the topic, there isn't much to add. I'm glad that debates have continued, though. Debates is what keeps us alive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpMPu5p_QXUBy the way, you might notice some parallels in the video above and the movie I referred to earlier, so my concerns are not completely unfounded. PoW and PoS may and should co-exist and can even be friends |
|
|
|
You should watch Hunger Games, it's one heck of a movie, that's the asymptote I refer to.
Is the sci-fi movie the only thing that backs your words? No, I'm just saying that trying to furk bicoin might result in bi-furk-action. So, bi careful and don't furk it up! |
|
|
|
This is what separates PoW from PoS. It is much more dynamic system without obvious asymptotes of power saturation.
Obvious? I'm not sure that such an asymptote even exists. Provide more info, pease. You should watch Hunger Games, it's one heck of a movie, that's the asymptote I refer to. Centralization remains an issue
That's why PoW provides a 51% mechanism. It works both ways, any 51% attack can be 51% attacked. I wonder how much energy has been wasted in this circlejerk of a thread.
You're probably saying that we've had a lot of fun here. I don't know about you, but I'm mining the heck out of JoyCoin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=905184.0 |
|
|
|
Improvements in PoW come in a form of advancements in energy-efficient computation
You mean improve on how to waste energy more efficiently? Energy cannot be wasted, just transformed. Do you play computer games, do you watch tv, engage in sports maybe? Do you realize how much energy humanity 'wastes' by simply existing? Yeah, the whole Universe is just an utter waste of energy, this needs to stop, teh Big Crunch will save us |
|
|
|
Like it or not, some variation of PoS is going to dominate. The general opinion is slowly being aware that the money given over to the electricity and the hardware companies is better off being utilized to develop the coin itself.
No one is forced to give any money to anyone, people exercise their own choices. Competition requires energy, no-competition doesn't. So which of the competition is better suited - the one which is spending resources to keep the network running, or the other which is using the same resources in improving itself? We might have a different definitions of improving. Improvements in PoW come in a form of advancements in energy-efficient computation, new types of power sources and research of cryptographic hash functions. These improvements are tangible and can be applied to other areas of human life. Improvements in PoS only benefit the few in power as any innovation will be privatized and used to further strengthen the control grid. So you equate PoS cryptocoins to dollars...
No, I could use BTC instead of USD. In BTC large coin holders need to decide what percentage of their wealth they will keep in coins and what they reinvest in mining so that competition for control keeps the system robust. Investing the whole stake is risky as mining farms can burn or become obsolete as new tech emerges, so some balance need to be sought. This is what separates PoW from PoS. It is much more dynamic system without obvious asymptotes of power saturation. It is possible of course that PoS system stays robust and honest for a long time without spending any energy, but it's better to have alternatives where competition is more welcome. PoW provides that. |
|
|
|
Like it or not, some variation of PoS is going to dominate. The general opinion is slowly being aware that the money given over to the electricity and the hardware companies is better off being utilized to develop the coin itself.
No one is forced to give any money to anyone, people exercise their own choices. Competition requires energy, no-competition doesn't. |
|
|
|
Is it some form of hidden g@y propaganda? I'm straight, so I'm out Have you just attempted to insult ~10% of BTT users? Of course not, everyone has a right to choose what they prefer, bicoin is cool, let's furk it! PoS security mechanism is that of a private enterprise.
PoS = PoW with one level of indirection removed. Instead of Dollars -> Mining rig -> Cryptocoins PoS offers Comparison with a private enterprise is incorrect because you compare only few aspects ignoring the others. I could say that Bitcoin = FED because miners print money if I followed your tactics. So you equate PoS cryptocoins to dollars, which is correct as both have stakeholders at the center of their security model, while recognizing that PoW makes a difference, which I fully agree with. |
|
|
|
PoS security mechanism is that of a private enterprise.
PoS = PoW with one level of indirection removed. Instead of Dollars -> Mining rig -> Cryptocoins PoS offers Comparison with a private enterprise is incorrect because you compare only few aspects ignoring the others. I could say that Bitcoin = FED because miners print money if I followed your tactics. Dollars, hmm... never heard of them, you mean $nakes? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7wHMg5YjgBy the way, we are talking about forking "bicoin" here. Is it some form of hidden g@y propaganda? I'm straight, so I'm out |
|
|
|
be more entertaining to do it to btc testnet  Give me a plan on how to do this instead and I'll consider it. My impression is that I would have to get new testnet-related code into the code for the main bitcoin client. I could write the code and create a pull request (I guess), but I see no reason why it would be accepted. It will be more effective on the mainnet if the goal is to put an end to the continual debates about making Bitcoin pos. Make it a modular change so it can be kept current. :-) Debates is what keeps us alive https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpMPu5p_QXU |
|
|
|
Protection against 51% attacks is a concern.
51% mechanism is what allows to challenge the status quo, thus enabling competition for power. Just sitting on your money in PoW does't give you control over the system, just engaging in the competition for control doesn't bring you money as mining is normally a break-even game. Thus money and control become orthogonal, which results in a dynamic system without asymptotes. In PoS you get both in a nice single package, which saturates fairly quickly. Hybrid systems are more tricky beasts, thus they need to be studied closely. I'm concerned that saturation in PoS aspect of the hybrid will at some point begin to negatively influence the competition on PoW side. 51% PoW mechanism is what allows malicious agents to challenge the legitimate miners, thus overpowering them via a hashpower coup d'etat. Do you really think that the legitimate miners in Bitcoin can prevent a government from forcing their rules on the Bitcoin network? Mind you, the NSA had a $10.7 Billion USD budget in 2013. The only way to prevent such actions from external actors is via PoS. You're inserting judgement into equation. PoW rules are neutral - run the algorithm faster and you win. Does that make you malicious? It is like saying, countries can be attacked by other countries, thus countries are bad. Planets can be attacked by aliens - planets are wrong. Universes can collapse in a Big Crunch - universes are evil. PoW 51% mechanism is what sets things in motion, PoS saturates towards centralization of power and stays there. If you are interested in using PoW as a distribution mechanism and PoS as a security mechanism, NXT's monetary system offers such a solution. PoS security mechanism is that of a private enterprise. It works well when there are other enterprises to run to. Network effects work great with money, thus global money system is better served with PoW as it can stay robust all by itself by allowing competition for both money and control within the system. |
|
|
|
51% mechanism is what allows to challenge the status quo, thus enabling competition for power. Just sitting on your money in PoW does't give you control over the system, just engaging in the competition for control doesn't bring you money as mining is normally a break-even game. Thus money and control become orthogonal, which results in a dynamic system without asymptotes. In PoS you get both in a nice single package, which saturates fairly quickly. Hybrid systems are more tricky beasts, thus they need to be studied closely. I'm concerned that saturation in PoS aspect of the hybrid will at some point begin to negatively influence the competition on PoW side. |
|
|
|
I'm POW vs. POS agnostic...
They are suitable for different purposes. You don't want a global money system to be a private enterprise owned by a wealthy few indefinitely. Time might be better spent analyzing various properties and seeing it for yourself. |
|
|
|
|
