|
Yawn.. this isn't nearly as entertaining as I thought it would be.
Is Monero being attacked or not? If someone is performing a TW attack is there any way to tell?
|
|
|
|
|
Lol.. The passport he posted is Smoothie
|
|
|
|
85% ?? Where did you get that number from? as shown in the chart not too many days ago the "peg" was well below 99% That is where I "got it from" and no it is not a totaly accurate "alltime" (what a few weeks) ave but just a number from somone that casualy checked the price, not a BitsharesX devotee, uh I mean delegate. I guess someone actually cashed out, im sure the data feed blah will fix all the flux in the future. Nubits does the same thing NXT has coino and mt.gox had mt.gox $ but yea this has almost nothing to do with PoS vs. PoW You conveniently deleted my explanation of BTER being a bad place to track the value of bitUSD regarding most of the market depth and liquidity being on the BTSX decentralized market. Even with it being the most inaccurate source of data in regards to the peg, it has averaged 99.55% which is pretty damn close to parity. You picked the most inaccurate point on the graph to make your claim which is convenient for your side of the argument. Nxt's CoinoUSD is centralized. Comparing Mt. Gox to BTSX or Nubits is idiotic. I am confident anyone who is interested in looking into the facts can come to the conclusion on who is closer to reality in regards to our statements about the market peg. I don't expect anyone to take my word for it.  |
|
|
|
"Your own Ft. Knox" is an a bit far fetched analogy. It is marketing talk. This should not be confused with what makes it work and what the functional output is. Functionally it can be best described as a prediction market which results in a crypto currency like token that is pegged to a certain real world asset yes I know, it is marketing talk that is the point. It is sold as one thing but it is another. I know that it has "pegs" and it will fail as soon as the base price of bitsharesX crashes atm it is only about 85% I guess that is a stable peg. 85% ?? Where did you get that number from? http://www.cryptocoincharts.info/pair/bitusd/usd/bter/alltimeIf you use the feature on the above website to hide the price spikes sufficiently, which are caused by low market depth and liquidity on BTER, you will see bitUSD has averaged 99.5% of USD's value. Furthermore, the centralized exchanges won't track the price as accurately as the decentralized market in BTSX, as most of the market depth and liquidity is on the decentralized exchange in BTSX. However, this has nothing to do with PoW, PoS, or DPOS. |
|
|
|
Still just an employee. As much as I'd like for Josh to put on his big boy orange jumpsuit, he appears to have no ownership in the company and thus his liability is minimal. Fancy title means little. He had no authority to do anything. I can't find it right now, but someone with inside knowledge here on the forums stated that not everyone that had ownership in the company was charged, and then went on to state Josh was not charged in the same post. I am assuming he was alluding to at the very least Josh having at least a small ownership percentage.. he does seem pretty high up in the company. |
|
|
|
It seems that Monero will not be able to fix the vulnerability in time. I noticed today they added checkpoints in preparation for the attack: https://github.com/monero-project/bitmoneroSo.. what does this mean? Will the checkpoints sufficiently defend against the attack? Bla bla bla... I'm a troll... Bla bla bla My question was directed towards someone that has insight into the vulnerability and sufficient technical knowledge to answer my question... Such as a Monero developer or Anonymint... Not trolls. :p |
|
|
|
It seems that Monero will not be able to fix the vulnerability in time. I noticed today they added checkpoints in preparation for the attack: https://github.com/monero-project/bitmoneroSo.. what does this mean? Will the checkpoints sufficiently defend against the attack? |
|
|
|
@InBitweTrust
I think you were confused in regards to my last post. I wasn't debating you or your ideas, I was stating the benefits of DPoS over PoW since everyone seems to be so focused on the negatives and I hadn't got a chance to go over all the positives.
Sure, I understand why DPoS is a slight improvement on PoS coins like Nxt (~70 large stakeholders) and BTSX at least forces 100 delegates to make a decision and those 100 delegates have equal power unlike with Nxt. My point is why do you need voting at all? Why add that unneeded level of complication and the wasted time of voting and delegate campaigning? It just seems like DPoS is a patch on traditional PoS that adds other problems which don't need to be added in the first place. Yes, there would have to be some anti-spam and botnet measures built in but you don't need voting to accomplish this. I already went over one of the benefits of voting: DPoS allows the user base to control who secures the block chain, and thus who profits from confirming transactions. This allows the user base to vote in developers and community members that have projects that will enhance the value of the coin. For instance, there are several delegates in BitsharesX that use their profits from confirming transactions to fund various projects which supports the expansion of the infrastructure and development of services around the cryptocurrency. With Bitcoin, you have no control over who profits from the work of confirming transactions and cannot specifically give that job to someone that is improving the community or cryptocurrency in some way. Your argument that people are already doing this with Bitcoin is moot, because it is a benefit over the PoW/PoS model because how much of the profits from Bitcoin mining/PoS forging do you think are going back into benefiting the community rather than into someone's pocket? Voting allows you to use the necessary costs of confirming transactions for the greater good instead of wasting it. In PoS bad Share Holders can still mess with the system *some* of the time. In DPoS bad shareholders have very little influence over operation of the network assuming the majority are not deceived. Some people will only vote for delegates whom have revealed their identity, this helps give incentive to delegates not to attack the block chain if their identity is known and to prevent people from running more than one delegate. |
|
|
|
|
@InBitweTrust
I think you were confused in regards to my last post. I wasn't debating you or your ideas, I was stating the benefits of DPoS over PoW since everyone seems to be so focused on the negatives and I hadn't got a chance to go over all the positives.
|
|
|
|
I'll give you a tip OP.. you wont get an unbiased answer here in the Bitcoin Discussion sub-forum of Bitcointalk.  |
|
|
|
@inBitweTrust I think some of your ideas are good, but it may require that the Bitcoin community be open minded and willing to change the way Bitcoin functions including its incentive model and the amount of currency that will be created. I have my doubts whether they are/could be or not, as is evidenced by a lot of the old timers arguing up and down that there are no benefits to implementing PoS. I agree that completely abandoning PoW and switching the consensus algorithm would cause a lot of discourse towards miners, mining manufacturers, and suppliers, so they probably shouldn't be completely phased out. There should be a way to marry the two ideas of PoW and PoS so that everyone is happy. I would like it if our debate started heading in that direction, as that is the real issue to figure out. I would like to go over a few things first though. It seems you don't understand the benefits of DPoS, only mainly the negatives. That is understandable, because this thread is mainly people talking about the negatives of DPoS and I haven't had a chance to explain the benefits. The whole voting process with DPoS is merely an unnecessary act of supererogation where the real goals aren't about creating a popularity contest, rather to develop methods of securing the network better through decentralization. If there is going to be a hardfork in bitcoin I want 100k "delegates"(nodes) not 100.
The point of DPoS is not to improve upon the security of PoW, but the point is to improve upon it in other ways meanwhile remaining sufficiently secure. All systems tend toward centralization whether planned (DPoS) or unplanned (PoW ASICs.) DPoS gives the end user as much control over that centralization as possible, where as the other systems (PoW ASICs & PoS in Nxt and Peercoin) the small players eventually have less control. DPoS is faster and scales better than other consensus algorithms, also there are reasons for voting and only having 101 delegates rather than having 1000 delegates as I will explain below. A. DPoS greatly reduces the cost of securing the network compared to other consensus algorithms, and thus has the potential to have cheaper transaction fees. A1. The electricity required for all delegates combined is trivial when compared to the amount of electricity it takes to secure PoW networks. A2. Having 101 delegates rather than 1000 reduces these costs even more so. Delegates (not unlike miners with PoW) need to be incentevized to do their job, the more delegates the more it will cost the network to validate transactions. A3. Since there is exponentially less electricity required and transactions only need to be confirmed by 101 delegate nodes to be confirmed by 100% of the network through their delegates, DPoS transactions fees have the ability to be less than any other consensus algorithm. B. DPoS is faster and scales better than other consensus algorithms due to it being more efficient. B1. Due to the ability of having 101 delegates confirm all transactions for the entire network, transactions can be confirmed much faster and efficiently. In the time it takes Bitcoin to produce a single block a DPoS system can have your transaction verified by 20% of the shareholders, and by the time Bitcoin claims the transaction is almost irreversible (6 blocks, 1 hour) your transaction under DPoS has been verified by 100% of the shareholders through their delegates. This is both quicker and more efficient than other consensus algorithms. B2. A transaction can be confirmed much faster and more efficiently when it only needs to be confirmed by 101 delegates rather than 1000 delegates, this is yet another reason to only have 101 delegates rather than 1000. C. DPoS allows the user base to control who secures the block chain and thus who profits from that activity. This allows the user base to vote in core developers, developers working on core services, and community members that have other various projects that will enhance the value of the coin. With Bitcoin you have no control over who profits from the work of securing the network and cannot specifically give that job to someone that is improving the community or cryptocurrency in some way. One of Bitcoin's problems is funding projects that will enhance user experience, funding for core services, and funding core development. DPoS gives a way for the user base to do this without subjecting them to having to donate (although of course they can still donate if they like.) |
|
|
|
I don't get how any of this refutes what I said. How do PoS coins have value then, in some cases in the multi million dollar range?
Exchanges can manipulate the price easily, they can create fiat money and cryptocurrency out of nothing in their database and maintain whatever exchange rate they want, but they don't really have any serious market depth, a large sell order can bring down the price dramatically. So it is important that major stake holders don't dump their coins, just like a typical stock The same could be said about Bitcoin... Exchange manipulation: Mt. Gox & The willy report; Suspicious volume from Chinese exchanges; All Bitcoin exchanges are centralized and prone to manipulation. There could be widespread manipulation going on right now, and you have no way of knowing if there is or isn't. If large major Bitcoin stake holders dump their stake, then the price would tank due to liquidity being astronomically smaller than the market cap. Bitcoin due to its liquidity is less prone to this than any other coin.. PoW or PoS, but this is just an arbitrary numbers game and has nothing to do with electricity being burned, PoW, or PoS. |
|
|
|
These PoS guys are still here, huh? PoS coins have value because someone is willing to hype them like snake oil, but in the end they will only have value because someone has guns pointed at you to accept them. There is not one PoS coin that can guarantee that there isn't a central bank behind them. Not one developer has gone on record claiming Proof of Freedom from permanent centralization.
Only time will tell, but I am betting on you being wrong. This is just speculation that they will be worth nothing "in the end". Whatever "in the end" means... I am not going away anytime soon.  |
|
|
|
I'm tired of all the arguments that a cryptocurrency needs to burn electricity through PoW mining to achieve value.
These arguments can be instantly refuted by the fact there are multiple PoS cryptocurrencies with market caps in the multi million dollar territory.
This argument is whack..
If a cryptocurrency requires electricity to be consumed via PoW mining to achieve value, how have these PoS cryptocurrencies in the multi million dollar range regarding market caps defied all odds and achieved their values without PoW mining?
The answer is that there are more dynamics at play in how a cryptocurrency is valued in the free market... many more dynamics than simply their consensus algorithm. The dynamics are similar to that of those of how different PoW cryptocurrencies are valued on the free market... some are worthless and some are worth millions.
It is not about PoW or PoS, it is about the value that must pay to produce the currency. The only currency that does not need value input is fiat money, since they are forced into circulation, thus can have arbitrary value decided by the central banks. Since people must get fiat money to purchase goods/services, there is a fixed demand for fiat money For cryptocurrency, there are no central authority to force its usage. So you can not use any modern monetary theory to analyze cryptocurrency's value. If people are willing to use this coin, the coin must give them some reason for its value, cost is one of the most simple and fundamental explanation for the value: If it cost at least that much to mine a coin, then it at least worth that much. Of course they could also look at the exchange rate, but since all the exchanges are still in wild west stage and have leverage and FRB practice, no one know if the price is manipulated by those exchanges Of course there are many things cost a lot but have little demand, like those ghost towns in china. But even for those ghost towns, the label price of the apartment is still higher than the cost. They will never lower the price under the cost, even none of the apartment is sold, and eventually the demand will pick up and digest those apartments at a later time I don't get how any of this refutes what I said. How do PoS coins have value then, in some cases in the multi million dollar range? If what you say is true they would all be valueless. The answer is that coins can derive value from other dynamics. People see the most valuable PoS coins as being valuable, and are willing to pay money for them based on that perceived value. In the case of Bitshares, people see value in DPOS, TITAN, a truly deflationary currency (bitcoin is inflating), and the decentralized exchange for market pegged assets (FIAT/commodities/cryptos). In the case of Nxt, people see value in POS and the numerous features Nxt has added. Both of these coins cost next to nothing in electricity to make/secure, yet they both have valuations of over 60 million dollars currently. If what you say is true these coins would be worth much less.. practically nothing. Innovation, community, infrastructure, merchants, security, ease of use, features, and development are what make coins valuable.. not the amount of energy used to make them. |
|
|
|
I'm tired of all the arguments that a cryptocurrency needs to burn electricity through PoW mining to achieve value.
These arguments can be instantly refuted by the fact there are multiple PoS cryptocurrencies with market caps in the multi million dollar territory.
This argument is whack..
I agree with you that burning electricity doesn't directly create value in a token. The best one can argue is that electricity usage is one variable amongst many that support the value of bitcoin as it adds an extra layer of security that DPoS and PoS lack. I understand that you don't agree that electrical costs/equipment costs don't add any security to a coin but this is where I disagree with you. It really doesn't add any security.. hack a large Bitcoin pool and you can 51% Bitcoin. Take a gun to a large Bitcoin pool and you can 51% Bitcoin. There are ways to 51% Bitcoin for cheap that doesn't require the use of massive amounts of electricity or specialized hardware. A controlling stake of DPoS delegates could decide to start blacklisting or faking certain transactions at no cost to themselves besides risking alienating part of the community and possibly creating a fork hurting all users which may or may not happen.
I guarantee you if this happens we will fork, move on, and let the attackers play with themselves on the old chain. It is not a challenging thing to do. With PoW the cost is not only upsetting the community and possibly forking the coin but also the electrical costs costs which to generate one block now is over 11k. In the future when block reward is 12.5 and bitcoin is 4-8 times higher in value this cost will be 25k - 100k in electricity alone not including the equipment....So there is up-front costs in attacking even if you spend 600million to 1 billion in equipment. The ongoing costs of mining also forces miners and pools to increase security as there is tangible day to day costs and if they get hacked than they lose all of their investments.
Again.. there are much cheaper ways to 51% Bitcoin. With PoS one can slowly start purchasing coins with no one knowing and with PoW the ASIC manufacturers and engineers setting up the mining warehouse would know what you are doing. So a 51% attack with PoW is much harder to pull off in secret than with PoS or DPoS. And if word leaks out as it will we can counter it by increasing the difficulty in response so the net effect of an unsuccessful attack or yet to be completed attack is that it is merely increasing security for the network from other attackers. So if their are multiple attackers attempting a 51% attack than the arms race will remain at a stalemate.
If someone tries to hack 51 delegates, they run the risk of 1 delegate finding out they are hacked before being able to hack the other 50 delegates. We can then increase the delegate amount which would work similar to increasing the difficulty, so that they would have to hack double the amount they would of originally. Alternatively we can just vote out the infected delegates. If someone buys up 51% of the currency supply and attacks, then we can fork the coin, burn their stake and move on. Again if all else fails, we fork the chain if it comes under attack, and leave the attackers holding a bag of useless coins. It is not as huge a deal as you are making it out to be. |
|
|
|
This is silly. The only reason why people are buying Bitcoin is to speculate too...
This is quite an overstatement. I pay employees in bitcoin, I buy goods and services regularly in bitcoin, I "wire" funds in bitcoin, I give gifts in bitcoin , I tip in bitcoin. Yes, most transactions are still for investment for bitcoin, but for alts it is a far higher percentage than Bitcoin. How many employees and business accept BTSX for payment, 0.001% of Bitcoins marketplace? I suppose Dodgecoin is an exception as most movement is probably for tipping. This is a silly statement too. How long has BTSX been around versus Bitcoin... Give time for the infrastructure to develop before you make such claims. Again, you went from rational debate to FUDing about DPOS pretty quick.. Bitcoin is not being used for ecommerce at a large level yet. I ran a cryptocurrency business and accepted cryptocoins and Paypal. The number of people that preferred to pay with paypal and not spend their precious cryptocurrencies was massive. Out of hundreds of orders, I can count on two hands the number of people that paid with cryptocurrencies. |
|
|
|
Voting power is directly proportional to the amount of coins you own, so if you own 1% of the money supply your voting power would be 1% of the total votes, regardless of how many DPOS nodes you run.
Damn, I must have read 20 pages on the site, wiki, and forums with regards to voting and they fail to clarify that. Ok, that makes it clear the difference between Bitcoin and BTSX and reinforced some serious dilemmas within BTSX: With DPOS the largest stakeholders can simply vote themselves as delegates to collect a salary and control the approval of transactions. Stakeholders could try increasing the delegate quantity above 100 but that would increase costs and thus it is likely that they will settle for a smaller amount of delegates. It is true that they could vote themselves in as delegates, but as soon as they start doing nefarious activity such as blacklisting or selectively approving transactions, they risk the community forking the coin leaving them holding worthless coins. That alone should be incentive enough for a large stakeholder to not act nefarious. If not it isn't really a big deal.. we fork, burn their stake and move on. With Bitcoin the amount of "stake" you own is essentially tied to the amount of hashing power your own. Thus the health of the network is comparing the distribution of hashing power in PoW to the largest stakeholders in DPOS. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing what the distribution ratio is in BTSX unlike with Bitcoin where we can see the accumulation of miners within pools and the quantity of miners and where they are located in realtime.
This is not necessarily a good thing, there are benefits for users being able to select who profits from securing the network. By voting in delegates that are improving the cryptocurrency in some way, it gives the users a way to compensate people that are doing good work in the community. For instance, There is someone creating a multi pool that will automatically exchange mined coins for BitsharesX, which will increase buying support. We have supported this initiative by voting him in as a delegate. There is someone creating a nice block explorer and statistics website. We have supported this user by voting him in as a delegate. One problem with Bitcoin is that it cannot select who profits off of Bitcoin mining. It is mostly for-profit ventures that are not really giving back to the community. Being able to select who profits from this activity is a good way to pay developers and other entities that are working on improving the cryptocurrency in some way. A large stakeholder could make it appear that he is many users and make it appear that a fair vote exists.
A lot of people will only vote for delegates whom can publish and prove their identity. I don't believe this is a big problem unless there is some complicated and massive social engineering scheme at play. I can count on one hand the number of multiple delegates that are under one persons control, and again that is because they are developing something cool for the community that will improve it in some way. Maybe I am naive, but I don't see this as a big issue. With PoW the expense of equipment and electricity decrease the value incentive of miners as it makes it very costly to conduct a 51% attack. With DPoS it would be much more costly if an outsiders tries to buy up a stake to conduct a 51% attack
A 51% attack on both chains would be equally expensive. You could say it would be less expensive if delegates were hacked, but you could say the same about Bitcoin pools being hacked. I see less electricity being used as a benefit to DPOS, because millions per month are not being spent to secure the network and can instead be spent developing the infrastructure or providing buy support. This of course wouldn't need to be done as the existing stakeholders could "irrationally" attack themselves, or hackers could hijack the stakeholders, or a series of scams /ponzi schemes from grifters could slowly or quickly accumulate all the stake. A Mtgox scenario with DPoS is really dangerous (like with Vericoin) but with bitcoin Mark merely stole the coins and doesn't control the miners or nodes.
I see these all as non issues, as if something extreme were to happen we can fork the coin and move on. Leave the attackers to play with themselves on the original chain, and everyone else move to a new one. It is not a huge deal. You are bordering on FUD as to your current arguments for DPOS, because you are ignoring all benefits and only focusing on the negatives. |
|
|
|
If a cryptocurrency requires electricity to be consumed via PoW mining to achieve value, how have these PoS cryptocurrencies in the multi million dollar range regarding market caps defied all odds and achieved their values without PoW mining?
People like to speculate with their money. Creators Scammers of altcoins are often very good at getting people to want to invest in their "new" "idea" and people do invest. To back up this claim, just look at the level of actual commerce of these PoS coins, there is none with the exception of buying/selling the coins for bitcoin (or other altcoins). The only reason people are buying these PoS coins is to speculate This is silly. The only reason why people are buying Bitcoin is to speculate too... |
|
|
|
Please don't state this as if it's fact.. it is only speculation that I think he may have an accomplice. He could be bluffing for all I know.
ya i know. i can change it to maybe instead of maybeprobly if you'd like (other people say you are a bcx sockpuppet) i 100% agree he's working with more people. I highly suspect that AFTER the last monero attack he hooked up w bytecoin devs and then SOMETHING threw hiim over the edge and he decided he could be successful. he was bragging but saying he wasn't gonna do it - till something happened behind the curtains that made him know he could do it for certain. Lol.. I am not a BCX sock puppet. I am just someone who is highly entertained from this ordeal seeing as though I don't own any Monero or Cryptonote coins. I think Zerocoin/Zerocash will be better options as far as anonymity goes. People claim you can't trust the Zerocash implementation, but according to Matthew Green (I think that's his name) on Twitter (ZeroCoin/Zerocash dev), he said it is more like having to trust that 1 out of 20 people didn't cheat you. As long as 1 out of the 20 people were honest in generating the accumulator, Zerocash will be a "trust less" implementation. Call me naive, but I have faith they will set it up properly with little trust required. |
|
|
|
So CoinHoarder says that he thinks bcx is maybeprobably working with ArtForz ... I looked at history and this is one of the first posts i saw https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=63365.msg742437#msg742437i do quote Not to mention I said from the start that CPU coins are a fucking stupid idea because even a tiny botnet can trivially 51% em.
Please don't state this as if it's fact.. it is only speculation that I think he may have an accomplice. He could be bluffing for all I know. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
