Proof-of-stake is more decentralized, efficient and secure than PoW- white paper

[spartacusrex]

For Instance..

The Asset Exchange on NXT is 'almost' separate from the value of NXT itself. It certainly makes users want to choose it, like someone picking the NASDAQ or London Stock Exchange, given it's reputation and standing.

POS Teck has enabled a decentralised secure low-energy-usage exchange  to operate in a way unimagined BB (Before Bitcoin).

That's useful.

[CloakT]

So instead a cartel of miners you'll get a cartel of crypto-banks and exchanges with lots of coins in their cold wallets for which they'll additionally earn interest, without having to reinvest in new generation hardware. MtGox would have dominated a PoS-version of Bitcoin quite exclusively back then.

Not that I know of any better solution, concentration of wealth and power seems to be a general problem inherent in capitalism, or possibly even any imaginable form of human society.

Would that mean exchanges would not have to take fees from users then? Enabling fee free trading?

[achimsmile]

spartacusrex, your theory is constantly falsified in reality:

Collectors items tend to cost a lot more than their producction cost
When 1 bitcoin was >1000$, production cost was a lot lower than that, if you didn't pay crazy high electricity rates.
A 100$ bill is worth more than the fancy paper (yes, because the government guarantees it).

In the PoS currency that I use, I gain about a magnitude more fees than what I pay for electricity to produce the blocks.

[Minerjoe]

It s definitely more user friendly for ordinary small miners/minters. Big guys cannot crown us out just like that.

[spartacusrex]

spartacusrex, your theory is constantly falsified in reality:

Collectors items tend to cost a lot more than their producction cost
When 1 bitcoin was >1000$, production cost was a lot lower than that, if you didn't pay crazy high electricity rates.
A 100$ bill is worth more than the fancy paper (yes, because the government guarantees it).

In the PoS currency that I use, I gain about a magnitude more fees than what I pay for electricity to produce the blocks.

Hmmm.. Well 'Collector's Items' are a little special.. I agree.

As for the Bitcoin and POS statements, we are simply to early to make any judgement calls about what, quite frankly, the Hell is going on..

I'm referring to a future where crypto is more established and understood.

When I think of mobile phones, TV's, cars, computers,  etc etc.. they all tend to cost pretty much the production cost..  Except when you pay just for the label.. Like apple.. .. ..

Or not ?

[Daedelus]

Apple is sexy taken care of.

What makes New York or London Stock Exchange more valuable than Toronto or Madrid? Is 'cloning' the NYSE a ticket to untold riches?

Would you invest in a carbon copy startup of facebook today?

[LiQio]

Although "the value of a good tends to its production cost" is not wrong in many cases you cannot reverse the argument. Production cost compromises a lot more than electricity. Wasting energy doesn't produce value. And Bitcoin mining means wasting a lot of energy (to secure the network and to distribute coins) as soon as we observe that the same result can be generated using other (less costly) methods. It is possible that PoS can fill the gap here (and that's probably also the reason why loads of Legendary members and even Bitcoin developers spread FUD about PoS).

[jonald_fyookball]

Although "the value of a good tends to its production cost" is not wrong in many cases you cannot reverse the argument. Production cost compromises a lot more than electricity. Wasting energy doesn't produce value. And Bitcoin mining means wasting a lot of energy (to secure the network and to distribute coins) as soon as we observe that the same result can be generated using other (less costly) methods. It is possible that PoS can fill the gap here (and that's probably also the reason why loads of Legendary members and even Bitcoin developers spread FUD about PoS).

poS has been discussed deeply by Bitcoin developers and it might be possible in the future to incorporate an element of PoS but so far I don't think there are any implementations suggested that improve overall security.  Even when I asked Meni R. who's PoW/PoS implementation is on the Bitcoin wiki, he basically said it wasn't going to work.

[lucasjkr]

So instead a cartel of miners you'll get a cartel of crypto-banks and exchanges with lots of coins in their cold wallets for which they'll additionally earn interest, without having to reinvest in new generation hardware. MtGox would have dominated a PoS-version of Bitcoin quite exclusively back then.

Not that I know of any better solution, concentration of wealth and power seems to be a general problem inherent in capitalism, or possibly even any imaginable form of human society.

I forget, miners being forced (if they want to remain competitive) to continually throw away old hardware and but new hardware a positive thing?

And yes, people with larger balances that they can stake will earn more than people with smaller balance, but everyone would have the opportunity to earn proportionate to their balances,, rather than the mining world which is getting more and more consolidated.

If it's just about income, people will migrate to services that share more of that income with their depositors/investors, or else be actually motivated to hold their own coins.

If it's consolidated power, such a set up would allow the community to have a say; if they saw that one exchange or wallet service was accruing too much power, it would be trivial to shift their coins elsewhere to balance things out. Far more democratic than the mining cartels were or are. Way back when, we basically had to take friedcats word that ASICminet wouldn't account for more than 30% of the network, but no way to keep them in check.


None of this sounds bad, and in fact sounds preferable. If course, there is huge vested interest that will be opposed to such an idea. Mining pool operators. Miners themselves. Who will either say if you want POS, go for a different coin, rather than try to envision a way forward fir Bitcoin itself; I still think that ASICSZ were detrimental to the community, as it drastically reduced the democracy of the ecosystem, replaced a single investment in a set of GPUS with a never ending cycle of buying newer and newer asics to what end? Security? I don't think the network is anymore secure if it requires an attacker to invest $2bn in Gpus rather than $2bn in asics

[LiQio]

Although "the value of a good tends to its production cost" is not wrong in many cases you cannot reverse the argument. Production cost compromises a lot more than electricity. Wasting energy doesn't produce value. And Bitcoin mining means wasting a lot of energy (to secure the network and to distribute coins) as soon as we observe that the same result can be generated using other (less costly) methods. It is possible that PoS can fill the gap here (and that's probably also the reason why loads of Legendary members and even Bitcoin developers spread FUD about PoS).

poS has been discussed deeply by Bitcoin developers and it might be possible in the future to incorporate an element of PoS but so far I don't think there are any implementations suggested that improve overall security.  Even when I asked Meni R. who's PoW/PoS implementation is on the Bitcoin wiki, he basically said it wasn't going to work.

That's also how I understand it - IMO sad for Bitcoin. Too many smart people start to discover PoS, Bitcoin developers should change direction (again IMO).

PS: Speaking of Meni Rosenfeld, since I read the following I tend to put him in the category of FUD spreaders with an agenda as well:
"So they [BCNext] went with a centralized issuing, where the coin's creator gets all the proceeds from the issuing. Of course, this means the currency is not decentralized.
Probably, the creator wanted to get rich quick, and this contributed to the decision."
(source http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/36675/what-prevented-nxt-from-being-distributed-the-same-way-bitcoins-are )

[Mikestang]

You don't get it. Bitcoin mining is supposed to be inefficient. There in lies the very core of its trustworthiness.

See Andreas Antonopoulos explain this very clearly in a few minutes.

This. For some reason people can't get their heads around the fact the difficulty levels are good and it's what makes the network bulletproof. I would rather trust POW than POS distribution..

Also, the inefficiency adds an intrinsic value to bitcoin - the cost to mine it.  Although the current value far surpasses this cost, it was this cost of inefficiency that gave bitcoin it's initial "value", and it is this cost that will ensure that bitcoin always has a value.

[LiQio]

Also, the inefficiency adds an intrinsic value to bitcoin - the cost to mine it.  Although the current value far surpasses this cost, it was this cost of inefficiency that gave bitcoin it's initial "value", and it is this cost that will ensure that bitcoin always has a value.

Now, this (bold) is dead wrong. (Assuming that you speak of a value > 0)

[inBitweTrust]

Now, this (bold) is dead wrong. (Assuming that you speak of a value > 0)

No , you sir are dead wrong.

There are enough of us fundamentalists that will insure that bitcoin will always remain above 0 in price. Even if I am the only one buying it , the price will be above 0. I can afford to buy all Bitcoin mined and run a few ASICs myself to keep it going. It may drop down to a very low amount if only a few of us are buying but will never go to 0 out of respect for this project and what Satoshi has done..


You just don't get it do you?  Bitcoin represents a historic achievement and its tokens have value even if its just for sentimental reasons to honor that achievement.

[jonald_fyookball]

Although "the value of a good tends to its production cost" is not wrong in many cases you cannot reverse the argument. Production cost compromises a lot more than electricity. Wasting energy doesn't produce value. And Bitcoin mining means wasting a lot of energy (to secure the network and to distribute coins) as soon as we observe that the same result can be generated using other (less costly) methods. It is possible that PoS can fill the gap here (and that's probably also the reason why loads of Legendary members and even Bitcoin developers spread FUD about PoS).

poS has been discussed deeply by Bitcoin developers and it might be possible in the future to incorporate an element of PoS but so far I don't think there are any implementations suggested that improve overall security.  Even when I asked Meni R. who's PoW/PoS implementation is on the Bitcoin wiki, he basically said it wasn't going to work.

That's also how I understand it - IMO sad for Bitcoin. Too many smart people start to discover PoS, Bitcoin developers should change direction (again IMO).

PS: Speaking of Meni Rosenfeld, since I read the following I tend to put him in the category of FUD spreaders with an agenda as well:
"So they [BCNext] went with a centralized issuing, where the coin's creator gets all the proceeds from the issuing. Of course, this means the currency is not decentralized.
Probably, the creator wanted to get rich quick, and this contributed to the decision."
(source http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/36675/what-prevented-nxt-from-being-distributed-the-same-way-bitcoins-are )

I don't think we are in agreement actually.

It's not they believe that PoS can work and
they are ignoring it to keep the status quo.
They just don't believe it can work, and
I can see why (see my previous posts in this thread).

[Cryddit]

I had (and still have) pretty much the same opinion as Meni Rosenfield about BCNext.  So if he's a FUD spreader, then so am I.

Anyway, the security of a PoW block chain is largely a matter of the miners expending a resource to support exactly one version of the block chain, which they cannot also use to support a different version of the block chain.  That is, they're committing a finite resource and, at the same time, showing that it is not also being used elsewhere.

That's really hard to match with a PoS system.  Locking up coins for a given number of rounds doesn't really provide security for the chain.

The only finite "stake flavored" resource I can come up with is transactions - and that's true only if the transactions cannot be played into both forks by an attacker.  If the transactions have to "stake" a recent block and are not valid in any chain that does not include that block, then they become a finite resource that can't also be used in support of a different branch.  An attacker could still try spending the same coins in both branches of the fork, and waiting for confirmation would be a lot more important because the tx you get won't be valid unless the branch it's staked in becomes the accepted branch.

Anyway, given all that -- the TxOuts that were created before the fork and used in transactions staked in blocks after the fork, can be counted as a resource spent in support of that branch.

The major advantage is that if an attacker tries to build an attack chain in secret, with everybody else in the world staking their tx in the visible block chain, he literally has to have a greater stake than everybody who makes a transaction while he's working or it's not going to work.  That's a guarantee ALMOST as good as PoW.  

But the tx being valid only in one branch of the fork opens up all kinds of games that attackers can play.  And while mining effort is very stable because miners mine at about the same rate whenever they've got their stuff turned on, Transactions as Proof of Stake is very sensitive to the timing of large spends, and a big spend in a fork that's nine blocks behind can force a reorg.  

So, although I think it's secure against VERY long forks, it's pretty horrible for deciding forks in a very short time the way PoW mining does.  So you'd have to use it in combination with something else.  

One thing about this is that it's the people making transactions who secure the block chain, so they deserve their part of the payment for securing the block chain.  The people who actually form blocks?  They can continue to form blocks by PoW or something, also contributing to the security of the block chain. They'll be needed until transaction volume gets high enough that it starts to be at least a little bit "steady" for purposes of short-term resolving stuff.  Thing is, that makes PoW necessary for YEARS, not weeks, and it only makes sense if the coin actually gets used.  It might work for Bitcoin at this point; but no alt that isn't seeing widespread actual use could sustain it.

[LiQio]

Now, this (bold) is dead wrong. (Assuming that you speak of a value > 0)

No , you sir are dead wrong.

There are enough of us fundamentalists that will insure that bitcoin will always remain above 0 in price. Even if I am the only one buying it , the price will be above 0. I can afford to buy all Bitcoin mined and run a few ASICs myself to keep it going. It may drop down to a very low amount if only a few of us are buying but will never go to 0 out of respect for this project and what Satoshi has done..

You just don't get it do you?  Bitcoin represents a historic achievement and its tokens have value even if its just for sentimental reasons to honor that achievement.

This is a legendary post, I like you 

PS: Just for the record, I totally agree with you here "Bitcoin represents a historic achievement"

[Come-from-Beyond]

PS: Speaking of Meni Rosenfeld, since I read the following I tend to put him in the category of FUD spreaders with an agenda as well:
"So they [BCNext] went with a centralized issuing, where the coin's creator gets all the proceeds from the issuing. Of course, this means the currency is not decentralized.
Probably, the creator wanted to get rich quick, and this contributed to the decision."
(source http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/36675/what-prevented-nxt-from-being-distributed-the-same-way-bitcoins-are )

I've added my answer to that question.

[LiQio]

Although "the value of a good tends to its production cost" is not wrong in many cases you cannot reverse the argument. Production cost compromises a lot more than electricity. Wasting energy doesn't produce value. And Bitcoin mining means wasting a lot of energy (to secure the network and to distribute coins) as soon as we observe that the same result can be generated using other (less costly) methods. It is possible that PoS can fill the gap here (and that's probably also the reason why loads of Legendary members and even Bitcoin developers spread FUD about PoS).

poS has been discussed deeply by Bitcoin developers and it might be possible in the future to incorporate an element of PoS but so far I don't think there are any implementations suggested that improve overall security.  Even when I asked Meni R. who's PoW/PoS implementation is on the Bitcoin wiki, he basically said it wasn't going to work.

That's also how I understand it - IMO sad for Bitcoin. Too many smart people start to discover PoS, Bitcoin developers should change direction (again IMO).

PS: Speaking of Meni Rosenfeld, since I read the following I tend to put him in the category of FUD spreaders with an agenda as well:
"So they [BCNext] went with a centralized issuing, where the coin's creator gets all the proceeds from the issuing. Of course, this means the currency is not decentralized.
Probably, the creator wanted to get rich quick, and this contributed to the decision."
(source http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/36675/what-prevented-nxt-from-being-distributed-the-same-way-bitcoins-are )

I don't think we are in agreement actually.

It's not they believe that PoS can work and
they are ignoring it to keep the status quo.
They just don't believe it can work, and
I can see why (see my previous posts in this thread).

Yes, our opinions differ.

Yes, they don't believe it can. It remains to be seen what the future holds...

[inBitweTrust]

This is a legendary post, I like you  

PS: Just for the record, I totally agree with you here "Bitcoin represents a historic achievement"

Cheers brother. I heard many bitcoin advocates and critics suggest "Bitcoin will either go to over a million or 0" and I thought that was ludicrous. I think Bitcoin will either go to a few dollars or between 10k and  millions for the simple reason that people still buy obsolete fiat currency like older nigerian dollars or confederate notes for sentimental reasons.

 
One thing about this is that it's the people making transactions who secure the block chain, so they deserve their part of the payment for securing the block chain.  The people who actually form blocks?  They can continue to form blocks by PoW or something, also contributing to the security of the block chain. They'll be needed until transaction volume gets high enough that it starts to be at least a little bit "steady" for purposes of short-term resolving stuff.  Thing is, that makes PoW necessary for YEARS, not weeks, and it only makes sense if the coin actually gets used.  It might work for Bitcoin at this point; but no alt that isn't seeing widespread actual use could sustain it.

I agree with everything in you post and would love seeing a TapoS layer, sidechain, or bitcoin wallet (using PoW and TapoS) to strengthen the security of bitcoin. Simpler variants of PoS can easily be attacked with a 4 % stake, but more elaborate TaPoS variants like Nxt and the crazy ideas that Vitalik has been dreaming up need much higher stakes of 20-30% to attack or different forms of sophisticated attacks where you compromise stakeholders or create a ponzi lease staking scheme. Certainly there are benefits to PoW above TaPoS and vice versa so I would love seeing them come together in time.

[LiQio]

I had (and still have) pretty much the same opinion as Meni Rosenfield about BCNext.  So if he's a FUD spreader, then so am I.

With power comes responsibility. Therefore the occasional "IMO" or swallowing an entire statement would be welcomed.

Anyway, the security of a PoW block chain is largely a matter of the miners expending a resource to support exactly one version of the block chain, which they cannot also use to support a different version of the block chain.  That is, they're committing a finite resource and, at the same time, showing that it is not also being used elsewhere.

That's really hard to match with a PoS system.  Locking up coins for a given number of rounds doesn't really provide security for the chain.

The only finite "stake flavored" resource I can come up with is transactions - and that's true only if the transactions cannot be played into both forks by an attacker.  If the transactions have to "stake" a recent block and are not valid in any chain that does not include that block, then they become a finite resource that can't also be used in support of a different branch.  An attacker could still try spending the same coins in both branches of the fork, and waiting for confirmation would be a lot more important because the tx you get won't be valid unless the branch it's staked in becomes the accepted branch.

Anyway, given all that -- the TxOuts that were created before the fork and used in transactions staked in blocks after the fork, can be counted as a resource spent in support of that branch.

The major advantage is that if an attacker tries to build an attack chain in secret, with everybody else in the world staking their tx in the visible block chain, he literally has to have a greater stake than everybody who makes a transaction while he's working or it's not going to work.  That's a guarantee ALMOST as good as PoW.  

But the tx being valid only in one branch of the fork opens up all kinds of games that attackers can play.  And while mining effort is very stable because miners mine at about the same rate whenever they've got their stuff turned on, Transactions as Proof of Stake is very sensitive to the timing of large spends, and a big spend in a fork that's nine blocks behind can force a reorg.  

So, although I think it's secure against VERY long forks, it's pretty horrible for deciding forks in a very short time the way PoW mining does.  So you'd have to use it in combination with something else.  

You should have the guys from the consensus research group (http://consensusresearch.org/) analyze that kind of attack.
They have a thread here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=829639.0

One thing about this is that it's the people making transactions who secure the block chain, so they deserve their part of the payment for securing the block chain.  The people who actually form blocks?  They can continue to form blocks by PoW or something, also contributing to the security of the block chain. They'll be needed until transaction volume gets high enough that it starts to be at least a little bit "steady" for purposes of short-term resolving stuff.  Thing is, that makes PoW necessary for YEARS, not weeks, and it only makes sense if the coin actually gets used.  It might work for Bitcoin at this point; but no alt that isn't seeing widespread actual use could sustain it.

OK, you propose at least some PoS influence - adds an additional layer of complexity though.