HODLING soon to be renamed BAGHODLING  All the way to the bank. |
|
|
|
"PoS is aristocratic in nature. PoW is proletariat"... wtf does this even mean, if we look at Bitcoin PoW mining power is extremely concentrated. discus fish and ghash.io controls at least 40% of the network, and several other large mining companies control the rest. While PoS distribution is usually much better, and this is demanded by the community. For example Peercoin, the largest PoS stakeholder address that is mining with his stake, has about 1% of the coin. Also one of the funny thing I observed in a PoS system, is that many of the stake holders decides to not to mine. Usually only about 10-20% of the coin actively engage in mining PoS.
Bitcoin is completely decentralized mining. The pools are made up of independent miners that choose which pools they use at any particular moment. If there are any large mining businesses, they fluctuate at any given time. How can you possibly know anything about who owns what stake in a PoS? Do you think they will advertise the fact that they are going to attack the network? I am all for a PoS system if it is backed by a strong central government and I would trust it as much as I did that government. |
|
|
|
There is a fundamental difference between PoS and PoW. PoS is aristocratic in nature. PoW is proletariat. It comes down to which side of humanity you choose to identify.
This seems poorly thought out - proles can't afford "high end ASIC" can they? Yes. Anyone can own part of a miner. |
|
|
|
We're talking theoretical here. Bitcoin's pool problem is temporary and being dealt with currently no PoS system is safe at all, that's why they have not much value. No guarantee with PoS because you have to trust people. Bitcoin only trusts math, If a 51% secret cabal took over any PoS, then it could take permanent control. Even if someone temporarily took 51% control of Bitcoin, then someone else could simply add mining power and take it away. With PoW, the permanent ability to 51% attack isn't even a possibility. With PoS it is inevitable.
There's so much wrong in your statement, I don't know where to start, let me give it a try: * "currently no PoS system is safe at all"Actually, just the opposite. Currently no PoS altcoin has been successfully 51% attacked, ZERO! While plenty of PoW altcoin has been attacked to death. Well altcoins don't really have much work behind them yet, do they? That's a poor argument. * "If a 51% secret cabal took over any PoS, then it could take permanent control"
That's true, except you don't even need 51% of the eco-system in PoW, you need 0% of the coin, and at most 10% of the value of the eco-system, also you don't push up the coin price while you acquiring hardware, unlike in PoS, you will push the price up astronomically even acquiring 10% of outstanding coins. So attacking a PoW system is MUCH easier. Also, if someone manages to somehow owns 51% of the PoS eco-system (probably after spending an astronomical amount of money), they have zero reason to attack it, since they are basically attacking themselves, as they are the biggest stake holder in the eco-system, the only result would be destroying their own wealth.
You can try to double spend at any percent. If you try you will fail and probably be prosecuted for fraud. Even if you have a successful 51% attack, it is likely to be detected and you will lose your mining investment. * "Even if someone temporarily took 51% control of Bitcoin, then someone else could simply add mining power and take it away"
Like who? non of the 51% attacked to death altcoins has shown this phenomenon, please give me some examples.
Altcoins can be interesting experiments. Many of them make unfounded claims and deserve their fate. Namecoin was spared this fate by merge mining because it serve a purpose other than competing with Bitcoin. * "With PoW, the permanent ability to 51% attack isn't even a possibility. With PoS it is inevitable."
Except, again, ZERO PoS altcoin has been 51% attacked, so I'm not sure where this "inevitability" come from. Though I could say a PoW system being attacked IS inevitable, once the coin supply run out, and it become extremely cheap to attack. The Bitcoin PoW network is basically currently being secured by the coin supply, once it runs out, it's laughably cheap to 51% attack Bitcoin(unless transaction fees somehow become extremely expensive, and people would still accept that).
Wealth has a funny way of aggregating into a few families. With PoS, it can be quietly and secretly secured over time until only one person controls the majority stake. With PoW, people have to actually work to maintain wealth. It's not so easy to own human spirits. There is a fundamental difference between PoS and PoW. PoS is aristocratic in nature. PoW is proletariat. It comes down to which side of humanity you choose to identify. |
|
|
|
@cbeast you are completely on the wrong track. Bitcoin only trusts math is the biggest myth in crypto. It is a matter of fact that users have to trust that tx versifiers / block producers do not collude. Pools and ASICS also are a fact and won't go away (any reason why it should not centralize further?). If you are really interested and want to understand it read this http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/DPOShttp://bitshares.org/delegated-proof-of-stake/I will wait for Bitshares 2 or 3 that has more features and is proven. That's another flaw with PoS, there is no fair distribution that can't be duplicated with a superior blockchain and a slick marketing campaign. PoW is too expensive to do that. If there is going to be a successful PoS, I will wait for a major corporation or government to roll it out with parades and a Michael Bolton theme song. |
|
|
|
|
They see me HODLin, they hatin, they trolling trying to catch me selling early.
|
|
|
|
I hope they succeed Google Wallet. That was a big failure
Apple is better at marketing bad ideas. |
|
|
|
350 incomming.
Falling is right. SO glad he opened my eyes and I cut my losses.
cut your loose. it's the end. abandon all hope ye who enter. |
|
|
|
In a PoS currency how do you guarantee that a 51+% stake holder remains a benign actor?
It's only logical that the 51% group of holders will not have bad intentions against a currency that they themselves have a majority stake in. You have no guarantee in a PoW system neither, since it only needs about 10% of the value of the eco-system to 51% attack. Also the other problem is you don't even need to own the currency to attack it, therefore the attacker have no stake in the system. To 51% attack a PoS eco-system, you yourself must be an extremely large stake holder in the eco-system, which means you are basically attacking yourself. Not to mention you need extremely large amount of resources, at least several times the value of the eco-system, to achieve 51% in the first place. Just plain wrong on all accounts. 51% PoS stakeholders have every reason to reverse transactions. Because they use TOR, nobody knows they even have 51%. They can attack transactions to grow their wealth. When they are rich enough, they can sell their stake. With PoW, they have to invest in equipment that is traceable so they can't attack anonymously. When they want to cash out, their equipment is obsolete and worth much less. As far as the value of the ecosystem, 51% is 51%. That means just over half, not "several times the value." In DPOS it is not the stakeholders who generate block but delegates (comparable to pools in Bitcoin except that the DPOS delegates/pools can be voted in and out) which makes your argument invalid. Who guarantees the stakeholders and delegates are not colluding? No guarantee but it is highly unlikely (way more unlikely than with Bitcoin) since block producers are more decentralized (~ 60 individuals (delegates) all with the same block production capacity than with Bitcoin's 2 or 3 pools which control 50% of the block production capabilities) and because stakeholders who vote for delegates have a stake in the network whereas with POW there is no way that the coin holders can choose who is securing their network. We're talking theoretical here. Bitcoin's pool problem is temporary and being dealt with currently no PoS system is safe at all, that's why they have not much value. No guarantee with PoS because you have to trust people. Bitcoin only trusts math, If a 51% secret cabal took over any PoS, then it could take permanent control. Even if someone temporarily took 51% control of Bitcoin, then someone else could simply add mining power and take it away. With PoW, the permanent ability to 51% attack isn't even a possibility. With PoS it is inevitable. |
|
|
|
In a PoS currency how do you guarantee that a 51+% stake holder remains a benign actor?
It's only logical that the 51% group of holders will not have bad intentions against a currency that they themselves have a majority stake in. You have no guarantee in a PoW system neither, since it only needs about 10% of the value of the eco-system to 51% attack. Also the other problem is you don't even need to own the currency to attack it, therefore the attacker have no stake in the system. To 51% attack a PoS eco-system, you yourself must be an extremely large stake holder in the eco-system, which means you are basically attacking yourself. Not to mention you need extremely large amount of resources, at least several times the value of the eco-system, to achieve 51% in the first place. Just plain wrong on all accounts. 51% PoS stakeholders have every reason to reverse transactions. Because they use TOR, nobody knows they even have 51%. They can attack transactions to grow their wealth. When they are rich enough, they can sell their stake. With PoW, they have to invest in equipment that is traceable so they can't attack anonymously. When they want to cash out, their equipment is obsolete and worth much less. As far as the value of the ecosystem, 51% is 51%. That means just over half, not "several times the value." In DPOS it is not the stakeholders who generate block but delegates (comparable to pools in Bitcoin except that the DPOS delegates/pools can be voted in and out) which makes your argument invalid. Who guarantees the stakeholders and delegates are not colluding? |
|
|
|
In a PoS currency how do you guarantee that a 51+% stake holder remains a benign actor?
It's only logical that the 51% group of holders will not have bad intentions against a currency that they themselves have a majority stake in. You have no guarantee in a PoW system neither, since it only needs about 10% of the value of the eco-system to 51% attack. Also the other problem is you don't even need to own the currency to attack it, therefore the attacker have no stake in the system. To 51% attack a PoS eco-system, you yourself must be an extremely large stake holder in the eco-system, which means you are basically attacking yourself. Not to mention you need extremely large amount of resources, at least several times the value of the eco-system, to achieve 51% in the first place. Just plain wrong on all accounts. 51% PoS stakeholders have every reason to reverse transactions. Because they use TOR, nobody knows they even have 51%. They can attack transactions to grow their wealth. When they are rich enough, they can sell their stake. With PoW, they have to invest in equipment that is traceable so they can't attack anonymously. When they want to cash out, their equipment is obsolete and worth much less. As far as the value of the ecosystem, 51% is 51%. That means just over half, not "several times the value." |
|
|
|
[
Anyways, none of that is important. The only important thing is that money is a creature of the state not a creature of the market. In other words, if USD collapse the US govt will just replace it w another currency. Bitcoin will never replace USD unless the govt allows it to.
Governments are creatures of the market as well. |
|
|
|
|
Yet another Professor Bitcorn.
|
|
|
|
A point that seems to be missed is that Bitcoin is already replacing fiat to the extent of approx $30 million per day. If bitcoin/crypto did not exist fiat would have to be used for most of that volume of transaction. It is a small beginning and currently the $ value and transaction volume is increasing incrementally at approx 3% per month average.
Wow poor logical thinking. Its not zero sum. Those bit coins came into existence through mining. They didn't replace any fiat because no fiat got taken out of circulation Speak for yourself. My bitcoins replaced my fiat. Your fiat still exists its just in someone else's possession  Wrong. That fiat is their's, not mine. So if you can't see it, then it cease to exist? Mmmmkay. Gotcha. When everyone exchanges their fiat for bitcoins, only you will still have any fiat. Good luck spending your fiat then. |
|
|
|
A point that seems to be missed is that Bitcoin is already replacing fiat to the extent of approx $30 million per day. If bitcoin/crypto did not exist fiat would have to be used for most of that volume of transaction. It is a small beginning and currently the $ value and transaction volume is increasing incrementally at approx 3% per month average.
Wow poor logical thinking. Its not zero sum. Those bit coins came into existence through mining. They didn't replace any fiat because no fiat got taken out of circulation Speak for yourself. My bitcoins replaced my fiat. Your fiat still exists its just in someone else's possession Wrong. That fiat is their's, not mine. |
|
|
|
A point that seems to be missed is that Bitcoin is already replacing fiat to the extent of approx $30 million per day. If bitcoin/crypto did not exist fiat would have to be used for most of that volume of transaction. It is a small beginning and currently the $ value and transaction volume is increasing incrementally at approx 3% per month average.
Wow poor logical thinking. Its not zero sum. Those bit coins came into existence through mining. They didn't replace any fiat because no fiat got taken out of circulation Speak for yourself. My bitcoins replaced my fiat. |
|
|
|
|
I wish Sacha Baron Cohen or Robin Williams would host the Academy Awards.
|
|
|
|
They won't be able to dive for sunken bitcoins.  Seriously, just don't worry about it. Make sure you are known as the first. Bank call themselves the First National blah blah Bank and other such names because it instills confidence. When they come, they will want to come to someone with experience. |
|
|
|
All Apple is doing is reinventing the credit card. The benefits of BTC are that because it's decentralized, it's cheaper than any other payment method could be and can't be censored. Good luck sending $10,000 to somebody on the other side of the world for no cost in seconds with Apple's currency Not to mention the fact that if they get hacked then your CC information could be stolen. With BTC you are the only person in charge of your money, and that is a huge benefit in today's world with hackers always looking for a way to make a quick buck This is true only if one uses a Free Libre Open Source Operating Software system such as GNU/Linux to store and / or enter the XBT private keys. If one uses a propriety operating system infected with DRM and linked to a cloud service such as those sold by Apple and Microsoft then the risk that the XBT private keys suffer the same fat as those celebrity nude photos still remains. Edit: By the way the same applies to fiat banking credentials, so this is less a fiat vs crypto-currency issue than a propriety software vs FLOSS issue. Bitcoin needs to be so secure you can use it at an internet cafe. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
