Why do most known experts and widly-respected posters prefer PoW over PoS & PoI?

[coolbeans94]

Mintcoin was full pow then a hybrid and now full pos.  Seems to be doing great.

[Cryddit]

Market does not accept meaningfull work that actually does some worthy results, that was exactly the goal of utilising BOINC (Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing is an open source middleware system for volunteer and grid computing) in GRC Gridcoin. Daily trade volume like thirty bucks, rejected.

I'm interested in this, but I don't see how BOINC has the properties needed to secure a cryptocurrency.  I think a lot of people saw possible problems with it and stayed away.  How did Gridcoin manage the problems involved? 

First, a lot of BOINC problems are linear (fastest computer wins ALL the time, rather than in proportion to speed).

Second, it doesn't usually happen, as I understand it, that everybody is working on the SAME problem - some get easier and some get harder. 

Third, it makes their servers a bottleneck and a vulnerability - people have to contact these servers to get a new problem every round, the block chain dies if the servers ever go down, and somebody could arrange to get "easy" problems if the operators collude or can be bribed. 

I'm not saying there's no way for it to work; I just don't know how to engineer around these issues.

[ðºÞæ]

Mintcoin was full pow then a hybrid and now full pos.  Seems to be doing great.

what ever it is you take it must be damn good shit.
mintcoin 24h volume a whopping $ 207 of worldwide trade (not only the local corner store)
=dead!

[jwinterm]

Just replied to a similar question in another thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=624223.msg10981889#msg10981889

Basically because not that many people stake their coins, they leave them on an exchange or the leave them offline. So, if a major exchange gets hacked and 5 or 10% of the available coin supply gets stolen, this can be more than enough coins to do a 51% attack, since not everyone/most people don't leave their wallets staking all the time. This vulnerability (related to centralized exchanges) just doesn't exist for PoW coins. The fairly recent hacks and thefts of Mintpal/Vericoin and Bter/NXT are real world examples of this.

[e-coinomist]

Market does not accept meaningfull work that actually does some worthy results, that was exactly the goal of utilising BOINC (Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing is an open source middleware system for volunteer and grid computing) in GRC Gridcoin. Daily trade volume like thirty bucks, rejected.

I'm interested in this, but I don't see how BOINC has the properties needed to secure a cryptocurrency.  I think a lot of people saw possible problems with it and stayed away.  How did Gridcoin manage the problems involved?  

Pure POS only for the coin. POW mining comes on top for reward distribution. They are inside the transition process, was pure SCRYTP mining before, POW to secure the blockchain.

Many altcoin scams have burned the POW-to-POS transition by doing a week of mining, a week of pumping, some more days of dumping and then folding down all operations. That has caused some serious trust deficits in the markets.

At least if Bitcoin goes POS one day, nobody can say that mining periode was to short.

[Daedelus]

Just replied to a similar question in another thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=624223.msg10981889#msg10981889

Basically because not that many people stake their coins, they leave them on an exchange or the leave them offline. So, if a major exchange gets hacked and 5 or 10% of the available coin supply gets stolen, this can be more than enough coins to do a 51% attack, since not everyone/most people don't leave their wallets staking all the time. This vulnerability (related to centralized exchanges) just doesn't exist for PoW coins. The fairly recent hacks and thefts of Mintpal/Vericoin and Bter/NXT are real world examples of this.

See ur other post. Once we have determined reality, we can talk more  

[TaunSew]

Just replied to a similar question in another thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=624223.msg10981889#msg10981889

Basically because not that many people stake their coins, they leave them on an exchange or the leave them offline. So, if a major exchange gets hacked and 5 or 10% of the available coin supply gets stolen, this can be more than enough coins to do a 51% attack, since not everyone/most people don't leave their wallets staking all the time. This vulnerability (related to centralized exchanges) just doesn't exist for PoW coins. The fairly recent hacks and thefts of Mintpal/Vericoin and Bter/NXT are real world examples of this.

NXT example is wrong.  At most they only had 5% of the total supply on BTER and the hacker returned most of them.

It's at lot easier to get 51% of hash power than it is to buy / steal 51% of a PoS coin.   Most people in cryptos are holding to the moon, so for you to get 51% of a coin you would have to create thousands of millionaires (spend $billions of dollars).   Whereas some mining pools, before they split up, had essentially came close to attaining 51% - if you can get 51% with computers in basements, all you probably need is a $50 million compound to get 51% of Bitcoin's hash.    

[nachoig]

And PoI is..?

Think they mean Proof of Interest.

Here is an example from Magi CPU mining | PoS-II | PoM | Unique BLK reward | [MagiPay] (XMG)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=735170.msg10972627#msg10972627

It seems what they call is not a way to secure the network, it's just some crazy experiment with loans or something like that.

I think in this topic this should be intended as proof-of-importance, which is used at NEM.

Others - worth discussing?:

Delegated Proof of Stake
http://bitshares.org/intro-to-delegated-proof-of-stake/
http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/DPOS
http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/TITAN

Proof of Activity by coblee
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=102355.0

Interesting, what I know about proof-of-activity is more like this: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zDlGZn7sICIA8bUPhe6jPPzGOxA4YgTgi6J4XilFpgs/edit

What coblee described it sounds to me like the proof-of-transaction (Fluttercoin) and proof-of-importance (NEM) schemes. I dislike these two.

[111magic]

And PoI is..?

Think they mean Proof of Interest.

Here is an example from Magi CPU mining | PoS-II | PoM | Unique BLK reward | [MagiPay] (XMG)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=735170.msg10972627#msg10972627

It seems what they call is not a way to secure the network, it's just some crazy experiment with loans or something like that.

I think in this topic this should be intended as proof-of-importance, which is used at NEM.

Others - worth discussing?:

Delegated Proof of Stake
http://bitshares.org/intro-to-delegated-proof-of-stake/
http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/DPOS
http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/TITAN

Proof of Activity by coblee
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=102355.0

Interesting, what I know about proof-of-activity is more like this: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zDlGZn7sICIA8bUPhe6jPPzGOxA4YgTgi6J4XilFpgs/edit

What coblee described it sounds to me like the proof-of-transaction (Fluttercoin) and proof-of-importance (NEM) schemes. I dislike these two.

Will respons short on this. The Magi Proof of Interest is not an experiment with loans or for securing the network.
Its a nice campaign for giving back some extra coins to the great community.
Made possible by generous donation from somebody who wants to remain anonymous.
This anonymous person appreciates the process of the young digital currency (Magi)
Magi team works very hard and has respect for all other currencies.

The Proof of Mining campaign, which will be launched shortly has more to do with securing the network.
I dont want to go off topic here but had to respond briefly to clarify.
Thanks for reading.
(Nice topic Dewdeded)

[Cryddit]

What that payment is for, in the long run, is securing the network.  

The miners contribute directly to security in a PoW network, but the network still isn't secured if there aren't a meaningfully large number of full nodes available.  

And so far, both PoW and PoS schemes have failed to broadly reward people for keeping a full node up.  Somebody who does that, deserves a full share of that payment regardless of their hashing power or capital invested.  

So, if you want a protocol to survive in the long run, I think it's vital to find a way to provide an incentive for people to keep nodes up - reliably, not just if they win some hugely biased lottery (that they have no chance at without million-dollar investments) and get a chance to form a block.  

I think a coinbase transaction every block with fifty outputs - one fairly-big one of maybe half the award for the miner, and forty-nine others distributed semi-randomly to full nodes that happen to be up at that very minute - would be a good idea regardless of whether you determine block formation via PoW or PoS.

Hmmmm....  Now that I think of it, I have an idea .....  

[onemorexmr]

So, if you want a protocol to survive in the long run, I think it's vital to find a way to provide an incentive for people to keep nodes up - reliably, not just if they win some hugely biased lottery (that they have no chance at without million-dollar investments) and get a chance to form a block.  

Hmmmm....  Now that I think of it, I have an idea .....  

+1
this is my idea: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=975447.msg10660505#msg10660505

hope it helps