Nice timing for this article to come out to add to the discussion: https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/05/stake/Reading things like this tends to me the main reason I'm not quite ready to invest in PoS just yet. I want to see the air cleared and the debates settle down, because right now it's quite heated with some big names on both sides making good arguments. Yes, and see the above link I posted, hopefully it will be discussed and debated the shit out of for everyone to come to conclusions and to make decisions on whether to invest in PoS. |
|
|
|
I've seen the term 'nothing-at-stake' come up multiple times in this thread. I don't think questions about it have been answered. What is it, is it a problem, and if it is .. is there any way to fix it?
If it's been answered before .. does anyone have good links going over it in depth?
You can follow the 'nothing-at-stake' discussion here with Vitalik Buterin joining it: https://nxtforum.org/index.php?topic=3343.msg60114#msg60114 |
|
|
|
I don't own any PoS coins at the moment either btw.
I've seen you say that a few times already. Why? Do you prefer to give PoS more time to prove itself? |
|
|
|
|
By the time any PoW coin hits mainstream, most people can't mine any of it, unless they buy special hardware (and even then it's very hard for them to get ROI, it's more profitable to just buy coins). They will find it unfair that someone was able to mine it in its early stages. You can bet the farm on it, they will find it unfair. This issue of (un)fairness is becoming boring already.
|
|
|
|
I agree with those points. The Main, Main, problem is, the distribution of purely PoS coins. No matter how I look at it, even if they distributed to 100,000 people, it's still unfair, simply because everyone else didnt get in on time and gets nothing, unlike PoW, where you can always mine and get coins yourself.
Cut the crap, dude. I can't mine any bitcoins with my laptop even if I jumped over my head. I have to spend cash to buy coins, I don't give a damn if it's PoW or PoS, I'll buy what I think is more advanced and more efficient and what I assess will appreciate more in the future. That's the line of thinking most people have or will have if we ever arrive to the era of crypto currencies used by common folks to buy coffee. |
|
|
|
The value increasing 1% a month is same as adding the money supply 1% a month.
No. What you refer to is the price of Bitcoin going up, because fiat is inflationary and people buy more goods and services trying to get rid of inflationary fiat, thus fiat inflation is reflected in the price of goods and services, including Bitcoin. But Bitcoin itself functions as money, the inflation of Bitcoin as money is being discussed here. |
|
|
|
Yeah, but even just a public effort or something to voice concerns. But from what I've seen from the Litecoin community someone trying to voice honest concerns and push the coin forward would probably be labeled as a 'FUDder'.
I think even the idea that Litecoin should be improved is offensive to Litecoiners. Maybe their logic is: "we got this far doing nothing, it would be wrong to mess with a good thing!".
Yeah, they are a special kind, singing their 'silver to Bitcoin's gold' mantra with no clue that in real world silver has special properties that people value it for, which gold doesn't have, while in cryptos Litecoin doesn't have anything special, hence this mantra doesn't apply, but they still sing it. Old habits die hard. |
|
|
|
|
Litecoin holders don't control anything. Miners are the ones who are in control in PoW cryptos. That's why PoS cryptos are above PoW, because in PoS users are the ones who are in control, not miners. I don't want to picture users and miners as two opposing groups, but often they act just like that.
|
|
|
|
|
I know one thing for sure. It's either cheap or dying.
|
|
|
|
|
I believe, for objectivity purposes, it would make sense to differentiate between 'normal conditions' and 'emergency conditions' when comparing systems. So, two sets of numbers are required for each system in the table.
|
|
|
|
No you have misunderstood. Compromised does not mean anything more than not producing a block. That is the only way a delegate can be comprised. Delegates don't have any role other than producing blocks. If a delegate filters transactions they will automatically lose approval as each client can detect this action and each subsequent transaction will remove approval until the delegated is ultimately voted out of his or her position. And the next capable delegate will include the transactions.
Ah ok, I see, thank you for clarifying. This doesn't completely eliminate the attack vector, as this can still cause damage to the network, but gives it less chance to be successful. |
|
|
|
I own some of each, just curious what people feel are the pros and cons of each.
Since you own some of each, you tell us  |
|
|
|
if 51% of the delegates are compromised - that is more than 51% of delegates are not producing blocks - then the network would require greater confirmation time. delegate participation on the test network has rebounded from 30% to 90% after the fork i referred to.
'Compromised' can mean much more than just 'not producing blocks'. And even in that scenario, that would signify some damage to the network. Anyway, BitShares seems like a system designed to function well in normal conditions. It hasn't been tested in battle conditions yet, only time will tell if it's good enough for those. |
|
|
|
This is the Wiki of BitShares. What do you expect?  They of course need to put their product into the right light. There is nothing wrong with that. ...claiming here, that the wiki gives the worst possible scenario for BitShares and best possible for others, while it's vice versa if the comparison chart assumes anything at all it assumes the worst possible scenario for bitshares and the best possible scenario for competitors. everything in the bitshares column aside from market pegged assets has been tested on public test network.
|
|
|
|
|
What if 51% of BitShares delegate nodes are compromised or some other large enough number? Wouldn't that cause disruption to the network? Not even temporary?
Github is github, live net is live net. I believe BitShares devs are knowledgeable enough to fix bugs. So, BitShares prevents spamming of the network with enforcing limits on txs in the software. NXT takes a different, fee-based approach to prevent spamming of the network.
|
|
|
|
|
Colluded is less likely than coerced, I admit that. Same argument goes for Bitcoin by the way.
BitShares hasn't launched yet. Test net is so much different than live net. It's too premature to talk about the speed of development of BitShares until they have launched real trading and have been attacked by real hackers who exploit for profit. Not many hackers would exploit the test net, because they can't profit from it.
|
|
|
|
for some reasons it does not matter at all does it? - the emmission curve of bbr is slower and it is, as well as xmr, a very good project, but its market cap is less than one forth of moneros. maybe it is only important to define in which way and at what speed a coin is produced and the market participants are pricing this in.
All CN coins are still so immature, that it's too early to predict anything. We can take into account the factor of initial inflation and how this can affect the price, but there are just too many other underlying short-term and long-term factors to tell anything for certain, not the least one of which is the initial support of XMR by hero members with many bitcoins. Would they continue to buy a quickly increasing supply of moneros to support the price? That's the question we should be asking. |
|
|
|
Yep, I noticed the omission. TBH i dont understand the above enough to understand its value and priority, up against all the other stuff going on. I guess AT will be going to a clone now.  AT hasn't been tested yet according to this: https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/nxt-hierarchy-at-discussion/msg59637/#msg59637As far as I understand it may be implemented in the future, but it's not considered a priority right now. And because it requires extensive testing by AT devs before it can go live, it conveniently falls in line with it not being a priority. |
|
|
|
how is the centralization an issue? i want you to really think hard about that question. the point of the making these systems decentralized is so that there is no one point of failure and no one point of control. with dpos you get that since delegates have an easy task that can be audited by all clients on the network. delegates can not sign two blocks or they will be fired, so the cannot double spend. delegates cannot stop processing transactions or they will get voted out for a delegated that can. delegates are neither a central point of failure or control. the network is secured by the shareholders. as a result of this structure you have a more scalable system.
nxt is adding new features that will make the transaction sizes excessive. while i was generous to leave transactions per second at 3.4. the base transaction size is 160 bytes, but there are transaction types that can be as large as 10KiB, limiting the block to only 3 of these transaction - thats 0.05 tps. the largest transaction size for bitshares is 340 bytes.
both from a design and technical standpoint bitshares is more scalable than nxt. while you can say that nxt is more decentralized, bitshares is more secure.
if the comparison chart assumes anything at all it assumes the worst possible scenario for bitshares and the best possible scenario for competitors. everything in the bitshares column aside from market pegged assets has been tested on public test network.
What if several delegates collude or are coerced? Especially if these several delegates each controls more than 1 node. That makes them a central point of failure. You can't fire old delegates and hire new ones dynamically, it takes time. If they collude or are coerced and do harm to the network, it will take time to recover from the damage. NXT doesn't have this limitation per design, hence NXT is more secure. tx size and the 3.4 limit is temporary. Until TF is implemented, NXT is still in the bootstrapping phase. Until TF is implemented NXT is not what it's designed to eventually be. When TF is implemented, NXT will be more scalable. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
