Sign up up.  Win88 name: EsteNuno |
|
|
|
That thread makes no sense whatsoever. It presents zero facts, and has nothing more than a couple of pointless one-liners. *I* believe in Monero because I know what we can turn it can become, but don't overstate what it is - "Monero is as profitable as gold", lol seriously:) It's a simple truth. The fact is that XMR can make you rich. As one of the Monero Core Team members I can assure you that Monero has not "made me rich". It's a nice assertion, though. Pretty sure any dev working on any non-scamcoin project is being made more poor(at least in the short run) by choosing to spend their time working for minimal(if any) compensation rather than taking jobs that would pay them probably an order of magnitude more money.  Unless one of these new IPO coins that are raising hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars actually turns out to not be a scam...  |
|
|
|
If it's a question of what's more secure, I'm betting that within two years we'll have at least one working PoS system that's demonstrabily more resistant to attacks than PoW.
I betting within two years no one will be having this debate and PoW will have crushed everything else into oblivion.  And I am also betting it won't be Bitcoin. It will turn out that PoW is absolutely essential. Everyone will go "a ha" and that will be the end of the debate. (I might be a bit too optimistic...we'll see...) If PoW is what we have, I'm fine with that too. I stongly dislike the way Bitcoin mining is headed though. I think everyone who isn't one of the few running one of these 9 figure operations must as well. A billion people mining on their low powered mobile phones would be nice. As was discussed previously in this thread. |
|
|
|
No. You need the majority of stake in any point of time past, to forge all the history of the future from that point of time on. So any group who ever had 51% of the currency/votes/etc. can rewrite the history at will. Or any group that can coerce any group at any point of time. There is also no mechanism to keep track which of the forks is the correct one.
Yes, there is a mechanism to keep track which fork is correct. It's called Economic Clustering. But it will likely never be utilized, as getting private keys of 51% coins seems a much more insurmountable task than coercing 2-3 biggest PoW pool operators to follow a certain agenda. But EC will be there just in case, so yes, nodes can know which fork is correct and be in consensus. There is also a penalty in EC for forgers who forge on an incorrect fork. As I stated a month or so ago in this thread, I think people mis-estimate the ease of borrowing large amounts of money if you already have large amounts of money. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=624223.msg7689885#msg7689885If you're a billionaire, you could borrow a billion dollars of a coin (or buy it outright, use it as rpietila said, and then re-sell), and if you worked through proxies, you could probably do it without people even realizing you'd done it. Well hedged bets like this make people a lot of money. Heck - you could even do the attack, make money off of it, and then short the currency hard as it looks like it's going to drop and then reveal that it was owned, causing it to collapse faster... Adversarial finance is tricky. And let me make this very concrete: I've actually had a conversation along these lines with someone who works at a private investment firm. It was speculative, and probably won't go anywhere, but don't think that people aren't already starting to plan for things like this in the event that bitcoin or foo-coin becomes successful. You're not wrong, but I fail to see how this doesn't apply to PoW as well. Someone could short/borrow a large amount of BTC and perform any sort of attack. It wouldn't even have to be a 51% attack to cause a massive crash. Someone providing as little as 25% of Bitcoin's hashrate going rogue and attempting double spends or doing any of the attacks outlined on hackingdistributed would cause a panic. It would seem that PoS is inherently more resistant to the 'rich guy' attack. And as far as borrowing goes apparently NXT is implenting a change that would require someone to have 90% of the stake in order to fork(is that correct?). Keeping 10% of the total stake unborrowed seems like a reasonable challenge that can be met. That almost sounds too good to be true, so I'm pretty skeptical about a cryptocurrency that requires 90% consensus actually coming true. If it's a question of what's more secure, I'm betting that within two years we'll have at least one working PoS system that's demonstrably more resistant to attacks than PoW. Maybe I'm just being optimistic, but it seems to be heading that way. edit: Ah, you said at the end there that people are already starting to plan such things for Bitcoin. Which makes perfect sense and will likely be a major problem in the future. How would any cryptocurrency, no matter the type, survive when the financial benefit of attacking it is positive? |
|
|
|
PoS being sound enough to actually work despite warnings from nearly all competent analysts, go right ahead. And I really do mean this. Being willing to go up against the prevailing wisdom of experts is a great thing and important to progress. Just know that the odds are very much against you.
But there are experts on both sides. Vitalik just recently being a convert. And SlipperySlope here as well. I know gmaxwell has posted about 'Nothing at Stake' attacks, but that appears now to be a solveable issue. Infact, Vitalik wrote a whole article about them and it appears as a result of his article sparking debate, a solution was found. I certainly don't claim to have the anwser, but it would appear that this is something that's headed towards being solved. Unless of course AnonyMint is correct and it's totally unworkable. If it comes down to one entity controlling 51% of the money supply and that's the main issue, then I think it's already better than PoW since theoretically it should cost more to mount that sort of attack than attempt a similar 51% attack on a PoW network(edit: unless someone can borrow 51% of the money supply on leverage). If there are other issues then of course all of those will need to be solved. |
|
|
|
Hi, I would like to enroll the campaign if it's still possible. My Win88 account name is estenuno. Please confirm. Thanks. |
|
|
|
... By design, CPoS does not have the well known vulnerabilities of Satoshi's Bitcoin, e.g. 51% attack, Sybil attack, Finney attack, lost transactions, miner-ignored transactions, selfish mining, partitioned network, etc. Rather CPoS has a set of new to-be-found vulnerabilities because the Texai code base has never been used in production. DDoS attacks will be mitigated by paid-for DDoS traffic filtering at each full node. Best-effort volunteers operate the existing PoW networks, whereas CPoS operators will be paid professionals. ... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=584719.0AnonyMint seems absolutely convinced that PoS cannot work. You both seem confident in your respective opinions. Does your CPoS system address any of his concerns? |
|
|
|
SlipperySlope and anyone else who has an interest in PoS: What are you opinions on this DPoS? Is this the holy grail that people have been waiting for? I thought Vitalik was a PoW hardliner. So I was a bit surprised to read this. I shared a conference call with Daniel Larimer, listening to progress on DPOS and explaining my own work. I commend Dan and his team. My greatest interest in DPOS is not how they secure the blockchain but rather the Distributed Autonomous Corporation, which I believe can be implemented in my Texai cognitive architecture. As I consider the design of my own work, I see less reliance on proof-of-stake as a method to secure the blockchain, and much more emphasis on traditional financial software techniques. CPOS will have a single mint agent that migrates over a network of paid full nodes, creating new blocks without effort, and whose results are verified by other agents that replicate and verify the canonical blockchain. My approach is much less complicated than reinventing Satoshi's design from scratch. I merely encapsulate bitcoind and control what nodes it connects with, and give one of them at a time permission to generate the block. I plan to fork the most popular PoW coins Bitcoin, Litecoin, Dogecoin and Namecoin on separate networks with separate branding - CPOS-B, CPOS-L, CPOS-D and CPOS-N respectively. To buoy prices, I would allocate a modest portion of the block rewards as dividend payments proportional to unspent transaction outputs. The remainder of the block reward finances generous support of full nodes and developers. The extreme low costs of CPOS with regard to PoW - which consumes the entire block reward, allows CPOS to offer 100x lower transaction fees. That feature, together with modest dividends and immediate acknowledgement of accepted transactions, should entice users to migrate over to CPOS from the PoW networks. All they need to do is configure new seed node addresses on their wallets and services. Their pre-fork coins will be present for spending. So if I'm understanding right you plan to do a hard-fork of the Bitcoin, Litecoin, Dogecoin, and Namecoin blockchains? How does that work exactly? People will have their balances from their orginial blockchains on your CPoS forks as well? Has this ever happened before? Is the intention to lure people over to these new networks where their balances are duplicated? It's an interesting idea, that's for sure. |
|
|
|
Pretty surprised that I was cut from the campaign to be honest. I wonder what criteria the 3rd party was using to determine "quality posts". I'm not going to PM Stunna about it of course, as he said in the PM that it's non-negotiable. But thought I would at least register my skepticism here with whatever methods were used. Its not like that u are spaming its just that goal was to cut 50% , so criteria was rly strict . Lots of ur posts are in other section short and not fully constructive. 50% is huge cut so u need to understand that even some pretty good posters needed to be cut off . Im sorry for that. Also if quality of ur posts improve and there will be some free spots for the taking u are more than welcome to apply for this campaign again. And btw i wasn't deciding who will be cut off, i just put a marks on users that are so/so in my opinion and everybody of them are later checked by Stunna. Thanks for the reply. I tend to answer or ask a lot of questions, and I'm often concise. So if your were scanning through thousands of different peoples posts and looking for length I can see how you might have gotten that impression. And yes, it must have been difficult having to choose 50% of all senior and hero members. |
|
|
|
Pretty surprised that I was cut from the campaign to be honest. I wonder what criteria the 3rd party was using to determine "quality posts". I'm not going to PM Stunna about it of course, as he said in the PM that it's non-negotiable. But thought I would at least register my skepticism here with whatever methods were used. Third party? What third party? I thought primedice and stunna decided who got cut and who didn't. I'll tell you why you probably got cut. Half of your posts are in off-topic and only 25% are in the alt-coins sections, as compared to over 95% of mine being in alt-coins where the miners and speculative investors are [people with coins to spend and an appetite for risk]. That's just my guess but I bet I'm right on the money. I'd be curious to know how many other guys made it and if they have a very high post % in the alt-coin section. Cheers! The "third party" was claimed by Stunna in the PM he sent out to cut memebers: Hey all, Unfortunately you were determined to be in the bottom half of currently enrolled members in terms of post quality, as discussed on the thread I was going to be making cuts today. This decision is not negotiable, I had a third party determine this to remain unbiased and you are not elgible for the August to September term. You are however still eligible for the affiliate program: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=745779.0I appreciate your support thus far and wish you all the best, sorry to have to boot you out after many of you had been involved so long. As mentioned before this isn't negotiable unfortunately, so please do not PM me with arguments. Thank You |
|
|
|
|
A decent amount of my posts in off-topic were made a couple of years ago, or on a campaign that I was on previous to Primedice that allowed posting in off-topic. The off-topic forum wasn't always a complete waste of space like it is now.
For what it's worth I don't even think I posted in off-topic while I was with the Primedice campaign, and if I did I definitely didn't claim it.
|
|
|
|
Pretty surprised that I was cut from the campaign to be honest. I wonder what criteria the 3rd party was using to determine "quality posts". I'm not going to PM Stunna about it of course, as he said in the PM that it's non-negotiable. But thought I would at least register my skepticism here with whatever methods were used. |
|
|
|
The error will, of course, be corrected ASAP.
Hey isn't that what Github or bugzilla are for? When was anything perfect on the first draft. This thread is getting noisy (I was was wishing I could ignore that thread of discussion). More interesting and higher S/N ratio when we discuss higher level analysis. Risto are you still moderating? Please delete this post (hopefully before it is archived by bitcointa.lk). If I had an altcoin and the other altcoins wanted to write incorrect statements in their whitepapers and technical documentation, I wouldn't waste my time correcting them. The more mistakes and constrictor gordion knots they tie themselves in, the better. Degrees-of-freedom baby, i.e. decentralization. Without it, gridlock. What do you think about the fact that Vitalik seems to be convinced that Bytemaster's DPoS system is superior to PoW? I ask you especially since you have been Bytemaster's biggest critic from what I can tell. |
|
|
|
Good to see. It always amazes me how some of these currencies maintain such reletively high market caps despite being essentially 'dead'. |
|
|
|
SlipperySlope and anyone else who has an interest in PoS: What are you opinions on this DPoS? Is this the holy grail that people have been waiting for? I thought Vitalik was a PoW hardliner. So I was a bit surprised to read this. |
|
|
|
Our pool for BitMark is up and running - will not post a link here but it will hopefully be added into the OP shortly
Nice looking pool. edit: Confirms required should be 721 and not 120 btw. |
|
|
|
I entered. Good luck as well to everyone who entered. |
|
|
|
You guys don't get it.
NXT is supposed to be a social experiment as well as a crypto currency experiment per its founder's original intention.
That's why a choice was presented to the community. The majority of the community were against rollback and voted against rollback with their stakes, which can be interpreted as the majority of NXT community understand the purposes of crypto and why rewriting history is bad, unless it's a technical issue with software of course.
If no choice had been given, the NXT community wouldn't know who stands for which values. It's best to know beforehand while NXT is still small what the community members are up to, because without a community any crypto currency is dead. If no choice had been given, it would mean developers couldn't be sure in the future if NXT is supported just by profiteers or mostly by genuine enthusiasts. Now they can be sure of the latter outcome.
I loved out how the community came together to vote against this, I felt bad for bter but its the community that makes the coin, not the exchanges. I wonder if coins were insured somehow, will it make a difference in saving bter from this, or it can also lead to abuse of altcoins as well? Deja Vu. Wasn't a rollback considered for a coin that got hacked on Mintpal recently? I agree rollbacks are not in the best interests of decentralised cryptocurrency. Once something is stolen, it is stolen. Takesies backsies doesn't work for crypto. and What do you think if a coin can have a insured type of backing to it? In theory it would be nice but how could you stop people "losing" their coins by stealing them themselves and claiming it? |
|
|
|
Reference post: 1851 posts. I didn't do one before and it messed me up. :/ edit: This is to record my post count for next month. I won't be claiming it for pay in case your curious |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
