Bitcoin Forum
June 15, 2024, 09:14:07 PM *
News: Voting for pizza day contest
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: How soon we will need a new algorithm?  (Read 1226 times)
MightyStorm (OP)
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 10

God is with us


View Profile WWW
May 27, 2015, 03:19:48 AM
 #1

A little too much math for me.

Can someone explain in simple terms?

                                           D E P O ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ DEPOSITORY NETWORK | WP   :   ENG   CN   RUS
FOLLOW US: ► TELEGRAM    ► TWITTER                                  The World’s   F i r s t   D e c e n t r a l i z e d
                                                ► LINKEDIN      ► FACEBOOK        BUY DEPO         M u l t i - P l a t f o r m   Collateral   I n f r a s t r u c t u r e
doof
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 765
Merit: 503


View Profile WWW
May 27, 2015, 04:00:35 AM
 #2

You don't understand Proof of Work, vs Proof of Stake?
Lorenzo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406
Merit: 250



View Profile
May 27, 2015, 04:28:34 AM
 #3

A little too much math for me.

Can someone explain in simple terms?

In a proof-of-stake system, each coin is kind of like a miniature mining rig and the more coins you stake, the more coins you can get as rewards. These rewards either come from network fees or from inflation.

The article provides an argument that proof-of-stake systems are flawed. It claims this is so because in most proof-of-stake systems, having 51% of the staking coins at any one time is basically the equivalent of having 51% of the hashrate of a proof-of-work coin, and since the rich get richer under some proof-of-stake models, the coin will eventually be controlled by a single rich person who might be able to sufficiently mount a 51% attack and manipulate the blockchain.

It then goes into detail about how this could be prevented by proposing novel variations of proof-of-stake.

Surprisingly however, proof-of-importance doesn't seem to be on that list. It's a variation of proof-of-stake but where factors other than just your staking balance are also taken into account:

http://cointelegraph.com/news/113698/proof-of-importance-nem-is-going-to-add-reputations-to-the-blockchain
MightyStorm (OP)
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 10

God is with us


View Profile WWW
May 27, 2015, 05:05:47 AM
 #4

A little too much math for me.

Can someone explain in simple terms?

In a proof-of-stake system, each coin is kind of like a miniature mining rig and the more coins you stake, the more coins you can get as rewards. These rewards either come from network fees or from inflation.

The article provides an argument that proof-of-stake systems are flawed. It claims this is so because in most proof-of-stake systems, having 51% of the staking coins at any one time is basically the equivalent of having 51% of the hashrate of a proof-of-work coin, and since the rich get richer under some proof-of-stake models, the coin will eventually be controlled by a single rich person who might be able to sufficiently mount a 51% attack and manipulate the blockchain.

It then goes into detail about how this could be prevented by proposing novel variations of proof-of-stake.

Surprisingly however, proof-of-importance doesn't seem to be on that list. It's a variation of proof-of-stake but where factors other than just your staking balance are also taken into account:

http://cointelegraph.com/news/113698/proof-of-importance-nem-is-going-to-add-reputations-to-the-blockchain

Thanks, that's easier to understand.

                                           D E P O ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ DEPOSITORY NETWORK | WP   :   ENG   CN   RUS
FOLLOW US: ► TELEGRAM    ► TWITTER                                  The World’s   F i r s t   D e c e n t r a l i z e d
                                                ► LINKEDIN      ► FACEBOOK        BUY DEPO         M u l t i - P l a t f o r m   Collateral   I n f r a s t r u c t u r e
lithiumc
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 8
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 27, 2015, 05:12:37 AM
 #5

blake 256 is all you ever need
louise123
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 462
Merit: 250



View Profile
May 27, 2015, 07:35:55 AM
 #6

Surprisingly, nobody seems to have noticed that both mentioned algorithm depend on those with the most cash.
Yes, it is true for Bitcoin as well.
If you got the cash, you get the coins, either by buying or by setting up a mining operation.
(Smart investors will go for the first option)
It is as simple as that.

██████
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
                ▄███
             ▄███▌ █
            ▀▀▀██▄  █
          ▄███▄▄ ▀▀▀█
         █ █████▀▀▀▄▄
        ▄██ ███▄    █
       ▐███▀   ▀█   █
       ████     █   █
      ▄██▀▄█▄▄▄█▀   █
      ▀▄▄███▌      █
  ▄▄▄▀▀▀████       █
▄▀    ██ ██       █
▐▌     ██▌▐▌      ▀▄
█      ██ █         ▀▄
█      █▀▄▌          █
█   ▄▀█▄██           █
█ ▄▀      ▀▀▄▄▀▄     █
▀▀             █    █
              █  ▄▀
              ▀▄█
     ▀█████████████▄▄
 ▀ ▀▀▀███████████████▌
  ▀ ▀▀▀▀██▀▀▀▀▀▀██████         ▄███████▄      ▄▄███████▄    ▄███▄    ▄███▄ ▄███▄      ▄███▄
▀ ▀▀▀▀█████▄▄▄▄▄▄█████▌       ▄████▀▀▀████▄   ▐████▀▀█████   ▀████▄ ▄████▀ █████▄    ▄█████
   ▀▀███████████████▀       █████     ████▌          ████▌    ▀████████▀    █████▄  ▄█████▌
  ▀ ▀████████████████▀ ▀    ██████████████▌   ▄▄██████████     ▄██████▄      █████▄▄█████▌
    ██████      ██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▀ █████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀    █████▀▀▀█████    ▄████████▄      ██████████▌
    ██████▄▄▄▄▄▄██████▄ ▄    ████▄▄   ▄▄█▄   ████▄  ▄█████ ▄█████▀▀█████▄     ████████▌
    █████████████████▀        ▀███████████   ▀████████████  ████▀    ▀████      ██████▌
    ██████████████▀▀             ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀       ▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀    ▀▀        ▀▀        █████
                                                                               ▄█████
                                                                           ▄███████▀
                                                                           ▀████▀▀
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
██████
|█████████████████
███████████████████
█████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
  WHITEPAPER 
 LIGHTPAPER
|Instant Deposit
✓ 24/7 Support
Referral Program
e1ghtSpace
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526
Merit: 1001


Crypto since 2014


View Profile WWW
May 27, 2015, 07:39:22 AM
 #7

A little too much math for me.

Can someone explain in simple terms?
Basically with POW, power goes in (mining) and coins come out.
With POS, nothing except time (staking) goes in, and coins come out.

This is why I feel POS coins are not worth anything at all.
LiteCoinGuy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1011


In Satoshi I Trust


View Profile WWW
May 27, 2015, 03:20:42 PM
 #8

after the 20mb block increase...so never i fear  Lips sealed

ajareselde
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722
Merit: 1000

Satoshi is rolling in his grave. #bitcoin


View Profile
May 27, 2015, 03:43:26 PM
 #9

From this idiotic "article:"

Quote
If the rich are more likely to get a block, they are more likely to collect the reward for the block. Every block they get, the richer they become. The richer they become, the more likely they are to collect the reward for a block.

This keeps going on for the life to the cryptocurrency and if the cryptocurrency lives long enough, it will see 51% stake holders, or 91% stake holders, or even 99.91% stake holders. It is only a matter of time.

This is too idiotic to merit response. Who is "Guest Author" anyway? Does Cointelegraph just let anybody post "articles" on their site?

But POS is still proven to be dumb solution, disregarding the way the article was written, i agree with this fact. Holding coins should never give you advantage in minting new ones.
This is what made me lol way too much "Proof of Hodl (PoH)" - First and last time i read this, i hope.

cheers
dothebeats
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3668
Merit: 1353


View Profile
May 27, 2015, 03:57:29 PM
 #10

From this idiotic "article:"

Quote
If the rich are more likely to get a block, they are more likely to collect the reward for the block. Every block they get, the richer they become. The richer they become, the more likely they are to collect the reward for a block.

This keeps going on for the life to the cryptocurrency and if the cryptocurrency lives long enough, it will see 51% stake holders, or 91% stake holders, or even 99.91% stake holders. It is only a matter of time.

This is too idiotic to merit response. Who is "Guest Author" anyway? Does Cointelegraph just let anybody post "articles" on their site?

But POS is still proven to be dumb solution, disregarding the way the article was written, i agree with this fact. Holding coins should never give you advantage in minting new ones.
This is what made me lol way too much "Proof of Hodl (PoH)" - First and last time i read this, i hope.

cheers

The proof of Hodl (or more commonly known as PoS) is kinda off in methods of minting new coins. 51% attack could easily be done by a single entity who holds too much coins, whereas in proof of work method, you will first need a lot of hashing power before you could perform an attack. PoS could easily be taken advantage, while in PoW you need a lot of hashing power and hardware before you could perform an attack. However, as difficulty rises in PoW, a lot of computing power is needed to solve a block in order to generate coins--this requires a lot of energy and power. The demand for power over time in PoW is ever increasing, which is also a problem to be talked upon if ever bitcoin gone mainstream.
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4256
Merit: 4523



View Profile
May 27, 2015, 03:59:40 PM
 #11

Surprisingly, nobody seems to have noticed that both mentioned algorithm depend on those with the most cash.
Yes, it is true for Bitcoin as well.
If you got the cash, you get the coins, either by buying or by setting up a mining operation.
(Smart investors will go for the first option)
It is as simple as that.

yep the algorithms based on POS are to make the rich richer
eg mark kerpeles
eg exchanges

once the large hoarders take their slice all that would be left is dust. far far less than someone would get if they bought miners

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
crazyivan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1007


DMD Diamond Making Money 4+ years! Join us!


View Profile
May 27, 2015, 04:33:30 PM
 #12

New algo? Why would we need another one. These we have are quite sufficient. PoW and PoS especially.

For security, your account has been locked. Email acctcomp15@theymos.e4ward.com
flyingplows
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 27, 2015, 07:27:13 PM
 #13

New algo? Why would we need another one. These we have are quite sufficient. PoW and PoS especially.

If you would care or at least read, instead of spamming bs, what OP was trying to say - you would understand that PoS has a major flaw because of compounding interest for big bag holders as explained by math in the article which explicitly show that your % in PoS is always getting lower if you're not rich in that particular coin. Further they discuss how to solve these problems. Real implementations are being made in their own understanding like VARY coin by igotspots guy if you're really interested Wink

Kazimir
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1003



View Profile
May 27, 2015, 09:25:34 PM
 #14

blake 256 is all you ever need
Blake-256 offers exactly zero advantage over sha256.

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
Insert coin(s): 1KazimirL9MNcnFnoosGrEkmMsbYLxPPob
cryptworld
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714
Merit: 503



View Profile
May 27, 2015, 10:33:09 PM
 #15

Bitcoin will never change its algorithm,as simple as that
bitllionaire
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120
Merit: 1000


View Profile
May 27, 2015, 11:03:18 PM
 #16

Why is a new algorithm needed?
There are many algorithms,anyway bitcoin will keep sha256 to the end
thebenjamincode
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490
Merit: 500


37iGtdUJc2xXTDkw5TQZJQX1Wb98gSLYVP


View Profile
May 28, 2015, 02:38:37 AM
 #17

you know what? altcoins mostly do new algorithm
try to go for the altcoin discussion section and you might get what you want
Amph
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3206
Merit: 1069



View Profile
May 28, 2015, 06:48:40 AM
 #18

Bitcoin will never change its algorithm,as simple as that

it's not guaranteed, if something in the future could come up, and it could reveal to be better why not? it's not like we are stuck with current tech forever
Kyraishi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 952
Merit: 513



View Profile
May 28, 2015, 07:44:08 AM
 #19

Bitcoin will never change its algorithm,as simple as that

it's not guaranteed, if something in the future could come up, and it could reveal to be better why not? it's not like we are stuck with current tech forever

That is true, though I doubt it will just switch to another encryption algorithm just cause it's better.
More like if there was a thread to the current algorithm (Sha-256).

Which brings me to this question:
Wouldn't that make Bitcoin an alt-coin?

shulio
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540
Merit: 1016


View Profile
May 28, 2015, 08:03:41 AM
 #20

Bitcoin will never change its algorithm,as simple as that

it's not guaranteed, if something in the future could come up, and it could reveal to be better why not? it's not like we are stuck with current tech forever

That is true, though I doubt it will just switch to another encryption algorithm just cause it's better.
More like if there was a thread to the current algorithm (Sha-256).

Which brings me to this question:
Wouldn't that make Bitcoin an alt-coin?

Bitcoin will still be bitcoin although it may change algorithm in the future. If there is something better that could give some advantage for bitcoin, I dont see why not changing the algorithm as long as you dont switch the POW to POS then bitcoin will still be a bitcoin. There is a lot of altcoin that use sha256 as well but that doesnt mean that they are bitcoin
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!