I think you are being hasty ... it is worth a look and it could even be something big.

It is the first working implementation of "micropayment channels" (awfully non-descriptive) that use some of the scripting functions of bitcoin for contracts. It demonstrates how off-chain transactions can be "hooked" into the blockchain to leverage blockchain level security.

Note trustless server ... James has done some great work here imho.

(NB: I don't know anything about cryptocoinnews quality)

some blindly people are easy to get happy even with another feeble dead cat bounce (bounced to $39x only? come on, remember about those dead cat bounces at $680 $600 $500 $400 ?)

do NOT buy in trap, bitcoin is going to nowhere but down!

Yes, this cycle is a good common-sense explanation for the oscillations we see even after daily- and other-scale price movements. I believe these feedback loops reliably force the contours of the price graph into triangular and other patterns. It always makes me laugh to see the fools in the WALL OBSERVER thread alternatively express their bewilderment during the "correction" phase and excitement after each rebound, in real-time, following any indicative movement .

actually that isnt true by any means about 2.0/3.0 being just marketing gimmicks.. its down the architecture of the protocol. nothing to do with marketing. there is a very clear line between 1.0 and 2.0.

government issued PoS coins? seriously? haha like that would ever take off lol

"Nxt has a very controversial IPO that will continue to always haunt it in the same way that Satoshi's 750k to 1 million coins will haunt bitcoin(Not as bad as a 2 month IPO where the date was changed however)"

i actually fully agree with you on the matter posted above and its one reason why im fully invested in a coin other than nxt. believe it or not i actually hold a minimal amount of nxt. i hold most of my funds in a coin that has stakes on their asset exchange, a coin that im 100% certain is going to push nxt down a peg on coin marketcap and one you will hear about very soon. so ya im not fighting nxt's corner.. im fighting the 2.0 corner really. all the negativity aimed at nxt alone is enough to hinder further adoption. i dont like that so few have so much. but up until i found out about this other platform it was the most promising i could find.

as for the bundling apps.. would it not be better if there wasnt a need for third parties to bundle the software in multiple different clients?.. would it not be better if the software already came bundled and segmented as stock? if a new user wants to use bitcoin and also app x y z.. how do they find app x y z after downloading and installing a bitcoin client? they would have to search for the right bundled client and do a second downoad. the apps not being in the first client someone downloads is enough to put most joe soaps off. would it not be better if they could download the client of the software and find all the apps they need in the clients app store? joe soap is not going to want to go around looking for the right client that has the features they need to fit their needs. what if the next day they want to use a different feature thats not in that client? they would have to go find a different one that does have it. having to use 3rd parties to bring these features together is far from optimal.

Maybe Jeff and Josh met at a bipolar disorder anonymous meeting.

So a coin with combined PoS and PoW can be attacked both ways? I thought if a coin with combined PoW and PoS, an attack has to attack PoW and PoS part simultaneously.

Because going to $14 and $2 is impossible or you wont buy it if it go to that level..

I would like to rephrase my question.

If a coin has both PoS and PoW, is it more secure than a coin with either PoS or PoW only?

I don't really see the point in using theoretical energy consumption as an indicator.

The value created with every block is going to give you a good indicator of the total monetary input into the bitcoin mining industry.
We are already in the ASIC era where first generation units are close to becoming worthless. In contrast to cpus or gpus these units have very few alternative uses.
Their production cost and the value created for the hardware seller as well as the energy expended needs to be contrasted to the total amount of coins created by it, not just the energy cost the miner had.

Sure you can assume a stable system and no hardware costs. But what exactly is that telling you?

I don't know where the authority part should come from. You seem to like the idea that a government will use a PoS coin (to control people? to conserve power?).
Why would a government be interested in a currency with fixed supply?

'Churning' is the right term. The swings are wild. Between 180 PH and 280 PH in 20 days.

EBay to Spin Off PayPal

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/09/30/ebay-to-spin-off-paypal-adopting-strategy-backed-by-icahn/

cbeast after reading Satoshi's paper you'll see that "CPU power" is the term used (for mining). The idea is great (Nobel-Prize worthy actually).

But the romantic times are gone: mining pools and ASIC factories brought everyone back to earth.
Now massive centralization is the reality.

TL;DR same problems as PoS but at the same time wasting tons of energy.

01001001 00100000 01110100 01101000 01101001 01101110 01101011 00100000 01101001 01110100 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01110100 01101001 01101101 01100101 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01100010 01110101 01111001 00100000 01100010 01110101 01111001 00100000 01100010 01110101 01111001 00100001 00100000 01001011 01001000 01001101 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01110010 01100101 01110011 01100011 01110101 01100101 00101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01100101 01101110 01100100 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01101110 01101001 01100111 01101000 00101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01100101 00100000 00100000 01101000 01101111 01100100 01101100 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100000 01110111 01101001 01101100 01101100 00100000 01110000 01110010 01100101 01110110 01100001 01101001 01101100 00101110 00100000 01001111 01110100 01101000 01100101 01110010 00100000 01110011 01110100 01110101 01100110 01100110 00101110 00100000 01000100 01101001 01100100 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01101100 01101100 01111001 00100000 01100010 01101111 01110100 01101000 01100101 01110010 00100000 01110100 01110010 01100001 01101110 01110011 01101100 01100001 01110100 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01110100 01101000 01101001 01110011 00111111 00100000 01101000 01100001 00100000 01101000 01100001 00100000 01000010 01010101 01011001 00100000 01000010 01010101 01011001 00100000 01000010 01010101 01011001 00100000

thx for your confirmation that the above assumed scenario is valid atm.

I agree that the decline in hashrate could be a good sign as producing BTC at this prices isn't profitable anymore. That means mining equip has to be shut down, which lowers supply and results in an increasing price.

haven't read the full thread and don't know if this was already mentioned but if not here is another important factor about attack visibilty.

pow - an attack can be hidden prepared, just by accumulating hardware in the dark (unlimited available if really needed), no way to detect this before the attack is already running.

pos - an attack can't be hidden prepared. funds are needed to accumulate/reorged/controlled and a look to peerforging compared to known accounts triggers instant attention.
accumulating mining capacity (buying nxt) would also be seen immediatly on the exchanges.

without any deeper pow knowledge, is this simplified view correct atm?

With pure PoS you trust the majority of stake.
With pure PoW you trust the majority of hashpower. (with bitcoin you trust the biggest mining pools as an example)

you are unbelievable you know that! dont listen to this guy if you need to learn about crypto. he is  a prime example of what you wuld call a "bitcointard" who thinks bitcoin is the perfect flawless crypto while all others are "scams".

this is a prime example of what happens when such a person is met with resistance by people who know what they are talking about: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=787100.msg9027745#msg9027745

the thread is full of that stuff. calling someone paranoid is not by any means a valid return in a debate when a very logical argument has been put forth.

PoS is just as secure if not more secure than PoW as is explained (why bitcoin is centralised and therefore less secure) here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=787100.msg9027321#msg9027321

however PoS does also have its own flaws, distribution being a difficult hurdle to overcome among other minor issues but nothing that makes it a "scam" or "insecure". the best thing to do is do your own research into the matter. the guys at www.nxtforum.org know their stuff and you can find the white paper for nxt there too which doesnt use the same PoS algo that most of the "PoS FUD" comes from. if you dislike PoS or the FUD has put you off. their is an alternative, Nem, that uses a new consensus algorithm called proof of importance. its a major major advancement on PoS. and soon going to be a real pain in cbeasts back side..

so ya do your own research and please do not heed guys like cbeast because he is a very very well known bitcointard that quite obviously has some serious vested interests in bitcoin being top dog.