Ok, I'll give you a little something that might pique some people's interest... The first part of the title is a quote from BCNext. The second part is a quote for Come-from-Beyond. And no, I'm not making that up  |
|
|
|
Now this is much better.
...
*snipped full post*
Good side step. But a point the OP keeps making in this thread is based around... I would never argue passionately that Pepsi should not be marketed because I prefer Diet Coke. Neither does the OP. You should have realised his objection is that he sees Pepsi is saying it tastes like Diet Coke > Bitshares is saying it is decentralised. Not that Bitshares and x can't exist together. In fact Bitshares is claiming Pepsi tastes more like Diet Coke than Diet Coke > Bitshares is more decentralised than x  The way I see it, this represents the spectrum of Bitshares/POS holders and stakes  As it is impossible for them all to stake/forge/mint/mine themselves in Bitshares, then they have no choice but to choose between...  ...to represent them and their stake. I have read the arguments and find it hard to accept a POS system that caps the number of stakers to a small percentage of users can be called decentralised. It is distributed, a la Ripple. The claims of being more decentralised... that is definitely a leap too far. I would also like to see a response to DE calcs and fewer plugs for Bytemasters blog posts. |
|
|
|
Feels good, right?   |
|
|
|
From Geoff's famous https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf... Is it possible to obtain a distributed consensus without provably consuming some resource
outside of the system?
Intuitively, the answer is no, but there is no rigorous argument for this claim. An opinion piece masquerading as a whitepaper, designed for mass consumption for those who don't think for themselves. |
|
|
|
What if everyone playing Skyrim was also running a node? Negligible cost and no reason for objection, especially if Nxt provided something in return. If only there was a way of providing Skyrim players a better gaming experience while at the same time bolting a Nxt node on... [substitute Skyrim for any online multiplayer game, if you choose] |
|
|
|
Great! So not "just another exchange" then I hadn't heard of Shapeshift. I've noticed the ads, but I just ignore those  |
|
|
|
Choose a platform that has the best liquidity. There is no point launching a coin and there being no one to buy it or sell to. Nxt has the highest number of assets, widest variety of buyers and has had over $15,000 of trades in the last 24 hours and over $770,000 trade in the last 30 days (Av. $25,000 / day). There has been an average of over 300 trades a day, every day, since the day of launch in May 2014*. Liquidity is key for a healthy coin. Look at coinmarketcap, hundred of coins while most barely trade at all. They are zombie coins with bagholders, a sorry hangover from 2014 splurging. Nxt Monetary System takes the hassle out of creating your coin and it can be exported from Nxt at a later date, if something else is a better fit. They can be minable too, if you want a POW distribution. In the next release, they will be shufflable too (so anonymous). And it is already in an established ecosystem. Take a look when weighing up your options. * http://nxtreporting.com/assetcap.php, scroll to bottom for sources of info. Nxt assets have already been listed on Polo and Bter. Monetary System Coins will follow. I have asked what was required from those involved in the listings. |
|
|
|
If you only follow this thread... Critical update before height 330,000.-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Release 1.4.7 [See https://nxtforum.org/nrs-releases/nrs-v1-4-7/] sha256: [deleted] Change log: This is a mandatory update. Everyone should update to 1.4.7 or later before block 330000. The Message Pattern in AccountInfo feature, introduced in 1.4.0e, has been disabled, and will not be activated at block 330000. This is to prevent possible denial of service attacks by malicious regular expression patterns which can cause excessive CPU load with certain inputs. This feature will probably be introduced again in 1.5, but with a predefined set of allowed well behaved regex patterns. Multiple minor UI improvements and bugfixes. Enhanced nxt.allowedBotHosts property to also accepts a range of addresses using CIDR notation. This release will perform a rescan on first start, on testnet only. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUrCMhAAoJEFOhyXc7+e2AV2sQAJVZ92xvW3VewLVMQxCekbd6 Pd86NZJ/I/0cdwGNIO6/s4Ct/NRDs2Ijk0gJ1QUJjnyouOMkFJBqatx0wHdjZsgV S/YNVWOBqAxM+KgxzAK1BnVI6SGH1wjGfBr6qT3Vupn5gVFiCjtWWFTY0GqhX5Nw CmpZ5WvcqrYAL0tc8DPLmOQmwZ8mTIpO9d6/IxtZjQbjpNBkGJPm+p0VsqV+0xcI GMD4H7Xb7E9kUCW3JtarkJjjDbtRicfWeTp/6MLSvoLwe1HjfDTBGjSfE6eNyDA7 8dbK8L0lxfqT0CEoyUj8ie2bFo7mV3wRDYI/cZ2Nyg5fwbaT930yTSb6qgQ+T4sl 6udDFLgMiM3cEQl5otsnIH7Ms7ZbKe9JWUk3jgIPrC4RuUOxJpsBfxklK/Rchzgn 6/1Y6Z4Jq7S+JeIo8aC0kn9h2DNlXtBGAG8NPi04hkrkZTJXpafERAt0++MgesiW 5gxWD+lwN35Xz1qebmSV5sxTdoweYHR83Ql2EDovtGdpoD+3VL/iTqv8oYZiAj7U BBnFWMyd6fFKmLjAwQ0OBbIZcNFgsT1m+GasuD1lR0TlCLjsCP0tFpaHx2azthvw DWWxYvX1IvWv/OCbfkmwEaU87TuZOT5hxuTl1V/h+OVOyu2t7X87xQIk1tzltmT6 Q0RgXGfryFRlysOCVs3A =/fMC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
|
|
You should take a longer, broader view.  Only a handful are defying Bitcoins fall, only one of them is in the top 10. As has been the case for a while now. |
|
|
|
[Anyone interested in the discussion Jonald is trying to repeat can read the link above] Tl:dr Thread states A and B. Jonald says "see, it says A" You say "It also says B" Jonald "It clearly says A" You "It says A and it says B" Jonald "In plain english, it says A"... And you can go around in circes until you're blue in the face. Then repeat yourself a few weeks later Jonald, you are misrepresenting what the authors are saying by excluding what you don't like. I refer you to the thread above in response to you next post I am tired. |
|
|
|
You're repeating yourself.
That's true. Your misrepresentation has been debunked once.
No, it hasn't. Cool story bro |
|
|
|
You're repeating yourself. Your misrepresentation has been debunked once. I don't have the time/energy to fully digest what the paper is saying, but the conclusions of the author seem to say that Nothing at stake is a real problem that hasn't been solved. As we have all the algorithms developed to simulate N@S attack we
present result in the separate paper along with possible ways to resist it.
Giving some results now we present not the full picture of the problem. Fol-
lowing this section it is reasonable to get the impression that this problem
actually matters and we concentrate to possible solutions at the moment....
...The open question for the future work are: (1) the PoS consensus depen-
dence on the measure function (2) the ways to avoid N@S attack if any (3)
the optimal confirmation length investigation (4) the optimal multibranch
depth investigation. Actually, the td;dr version is: - multibranch forging gives measurable possibility to earn more fees. I guess Nxt should not ignore it in long-term as the profitable activity will be implemented by somebody sooner or later
- there's no long-range attack against a blockchain V. Buterin described, only short-range. The short-range attack doesn't allow double-spending but gives multibranching forger possibility to earn more fees in singlebranch environment by producing few blocks in a row. However producing few blocks in a row could be an issue too (e.g. evil forger may postpones orders submissions etc) but not critical at the moment.
- not explicitly stated in the paper but easily derived, a long delay between blocks not only annoying but also a security problem as it's the moment for short-range attack could happens
- we have formally defined nothing-at-stake attack(again, using Buterin's informal definition) and made initial simulations. We haven't included their results in paper as they are seems to be too raw, but I can reveal them here: N@S attack could happens only in short-range, e.g. for within 20 blocks for 10% stake, so with 30 confirmations we haven't observed the successful attack. Also please note the attack has pretty unpredictable nature for attacker, so he can hardly enforce it, even in theory(in practice it's even harder to get it done properly). The correlation with stake size is still the open question, but it's nearly impossible to attack a proof-of-stake currency with "1% stake even" as stated by ButerinSo yes, there máy be problems with certain forms of N@S, and that needs to be researched. Research means keeping an open mind, not cherrypicking and taking out the last sentence and twisting it to mean what you want to mean. They do nót say "Nothing at stake is a real problem that hasn't been solved." They say "We have made a simulation that produces a N@S as described and we are going to find out what it does." You have seen the paper but it is still obvious you haven't read it. There is a fourth paper being written with the results, as jonald well knows. The authors aren't worried about N@S being a problem. |
|
|
|
|
(I will check in again later)
|
|
|
|
Where are the models? Or is it just their opinion? [Bitcoin Wiki, 2014] Bitcoin Wiki "Proof of Stake" page. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof of Stake. Retrieved on 02/05/2014. [Eyal and Sirer, 2013] Eyal I. and Sirer E.G. (2013) "Majority is not enough: Bitcoin mining is vulnerable", arXiv: 1311.0243. [Kroll et al., 2013] Kroll J.A., Davey I.C. and Felten E.W. (2013) "The economics of Bitcoin mining, or Bitcoin in the presence of adversaries", Mimeo. [Krugman, 2013] Krugman P. (2013) "Adam Smith hates Bitcoin". NYTimes blog. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/adam-smith-hates-bitcoin/[Nakamoto, 2008] Nakamoto S. (2009) "Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system". For the sake of simplicity and with a slight lack of rigor... With a simple (one could say simplistic) model... The idea is to bluff to scare people into selling for nothing... there is a reason this paper didn't gain any traction. Geoff's pos.pdf paper even admits that there is no rigour in his claim. Is it possible to obtain a distributed consensus without provably consuming some resource
outside of the system?
Intuitively, the answer is no, but there is no rigorous argument for this claim. Intuitively, the sun goes around the earth. You can even watch it happening.. Vitalik has discussed Nxt's POS algo with the devs on nxtforum.org and was satisfied that it was adequate. He thought he could improve it but he would wouldn't he.. |
|
|
|
But you would prove they are insecure. That would be worth much more.
no... if i would knew a way i would way until the liquidity is high enough to enable me cashout an high enough amount If you destroy the POS idea, money is likely to flow into back to bitcoin as they all die, no? |
|
|
|
These are opinion. Don't forget: https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdfJonald and another said/think POS isn't secure. I have made no comment on POW. Where is the proof POS is insecure that isn't argument from authority or strong belief? Yes, opinions from security analysis and experts which is based upon reason , logic and evidence. These experts create models and run mathematical simulations to test their hypothesis.. but i guess to you one opinion is as good as anothers. Where are the models? I posted the POS models that back those papers above. You can repeat and verify the results, if you were so inclined. |
|
|
|
if a pos system runs a few years with the same marketcap as btc i might change my mind.
That is my big reservation, that the market for current PoS coins is so thin and fragile that any serious attempt at attacking them would leave you owning a bunch of nothing, so why bother? It's like trying to steal paper money by burning the bank down. But you would prove they are insecure. That would be worth much more. |
|
|
|
So we have arguments from authority and strong beliefs.
There is good evidence to support both security models as evidenced through testing and research analysis. We don't have enough data to make conclusive statments at this time. Anyone that is suggesting that PoS/DPoS is more secure than Bitcoins PoW is making an assumption and ignoring any countering evidence. https://blog.ethereum.org/or some research papers like: https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00945053/documentThese are opinion. Don't forget: https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdfJonald and another said/think POS isn't secure. I have made no comment on POW. Where is the proof POS is insecure that isn't argument from authority or strong belief? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
