Initial Distribution of a 100% PoS Coin

[rexzhao]

In PoW, the coins are minted steadily by miners from all around the world. The minted coins are initially distributed to the miners, and then spread to more people in circulation. In PoS, because the block mining is associated with existing stakes (coins), there must be a process of issuing seed stakes. In the early stage, the issued stakes might bear high capacity of generating new coins. The stakeholders are likely to be reluctant to sell stakes at hand. Therefore, issuing all seed stakes at once in the beginning may result in an inert market environment, jeopardizing the further distribution of the stakes.

I think a more reasonable mechanism is to issue the seed stakes regularly (e.g. quarterly) in the first several years. Each time, a certain percentage of seed stakes will be issued, including all their mining awards so far. These regular stake supplies will open windows for new participants. The percentage may gradually decrease (like Bitcoin's supply control). When the seed stake supplies run out, most of the coins should have already been minted. At that time, the earnings from coin minting will be a minor factor compared to the market price variation, and thus the stakeholders will no longer be reluctant to trade their stakes. After the seed stake issue has finished, the running of the transaction system will be fully decided by the PoS protocol and free market.

What do you think is the proper way to distribute a PoS coin?

[BayAreaCoins]

Tl;dr

Check out Clamcoin for a beautiful way of distributing PoS coins.

[rexzhao]

Tl;dr

Check out Clamcoin for a beautiful way of distributing PoS coins.

Silently sending PoS coins to people is dangerous to the network. Because most of them won't notice, thus won't mine, which is a disaster for a PoS coin.

But yes, I guess it's a good idea, if all receivers notice about that.

[markm]

Pure proof of stake is not secure, because somewhere in the workings of it there has to be some kind of random or pseudorandom number generator used to decide which staking client wins the/a stake on any particular block.

Someone with more computer power can explore multiple possible futures, generating billions trillions quadrilions etc such random or pseudorandom numbers, massively increasing their chance of having their stake, of whatever size, "get lucky".

This is pretty much a pure nature of the problem kind of problem, not only has it not been solved it probably is not solvable.

That is why proof of stake coins that make even a token, propaganda-style pretence of being in any way even slightly secure (such as ppcoin for example) have a proof of work element in them, they are not pure proof of stake and admit that it is because pure proof of stake cannot be secure that they are a hybrid, having proof of work as well as proof of stake.

Worrying about how to initially distribute coins you know a-priori are never going to be able to be secure is basically a waste of time, a mere thought-experiment about an inherently useless and pointless "product".

You might just as well work on how to distribute sewage to as many individuals as possible, or how to drop a brick on the head of as many people as possible etc.

-MarkM-

[rexzhao]

Pure proof of stake is not secure, because somewhere in the workings of it there has to be some kind of random or pseudorandom number generator used to decide which staking client wins the/a stake on any particular block.

Someone with more computer power can explore multiple possible futures, generating billions trillions quadrilions etc such random or pseudorandom numbers, massively increasing their chance of having their stake, of whatever size, "get lucky".

This is pretty much a pure nature of the problem kind of problem, not only has it not been solved it probably is not solvable.

That is why proof of stake coins that make even a token, propaganda-style pretence of being in any way even slightly secure (such as ppcoin for example) have a proof of work element in them, they are not pure proof of stake and admit that it is because pure proof of stake cannot be secure that they are a hybrid, having proof of work as well as proof of stake.

Worrying about how to initially distribute coins you know a-priori are never going to be able to be secure is basically a waste of time, a mere thought-experiment about an inherently useless and pointless "product".

You might just as well work on how to distribute sewage to as many individuals as possible, or how to drop a brick on the head of as many people as possible etc.

-MarkM-

PoS can be secure. In fact, we have one solution. It's clean as PoW, with proof.
Aside from that, I really want to know what is a "good" solution to distribute the coins in everybody's opinion.

[markm]

Most people do not have the skills or even the inclination to code an exploit, so the initial coding of an attack routine is a bit of a bottleneck admittedly.

Way back when PPCoin came out though didn't someone demonstrate?

You run into all kinds of bullshit claims of purported solutions but so far bullshit is all they are, as far as I know there are no proper scholarly whitepapers, peer-reviewed journal publications nor the like yet on any actually real solution. Just propaganda spam from bag-holders / stakeholders / scammers / partisans and the like.

The "New York City has not been destroyed by any nuclear bombs therefore New York City is actually less vulnerable to atomic bombs than e.g. Hiroshima" is a particularly bullshit type of argument that one sees all too often.

-MarkM-

[rexzhao]

Most people do not have the skills or even the inclination to code an exploit, so the initial coding of an attack routine is a bit of a bottleneck admittedly.

Way back when PPCoin came out though didn't someone demonstrate?

You run into all kinds of bullshit claims of purported solutions but so far bullshit is all they are, as far as I know there are no proper scholarly whitepapers, peer-reviewed journal publications nor the like yet on any actually real solution. Just propaganda spam from bag-holders / stakeholders / scammers / partisans and the like.

Thev "New York City has not been destroyed by any nuclear bombs therefore New York City is actually less vulnerable to atomic bombs than e.g. Hiroshima" is a particularly bullshit type of argument that one sees all too often.

-MarkM-

Agreed. An attack does not happen yet doesn't mean it won't happen in the next few years. Secure should be math proved.

[tyz]

In my opinion, NEM has had the best POS distribution so far. They set up an asset a year before final distribution. The asset could be bought and traded by everyone. And everyone had the chance to get into the coin for one year ago.

[markm]

I agree there are an awful lot of bullshit hype solutions, but it's a big mistake to write off everything that isn't pow based in some way becauseof that.

Here's a white paper you may be Interested in. As far as scholarly goes, this is the best iv seen by a long shot. That's likely cos it's written by scholars and industry leaders (it's not hard to tell these guys are in another League). It's not a proper white paper so it's termed a technical reference. if it were. Written like a proper white paper the vast majority wouldn't be able to grasp anything in it.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7wAe2jt1MMzYVJhUUFnMHQxZ1U/view?usp=sharing

If you understand the math, or know anyone that would. I'd be very interested to here a review of it.

Also, I said it suggests that it's more secure. No different to saying it floods in India 10 times a year and hasn't flooded in Ireland in 5 years which suggests it rains more in India. Simply an observation and estimation of risk based on historic data. Based on that observation the odds are that it rains more in India than Ireland or that pos is more Secure. Doesn't mean it is, just that the odds are higher that that is the case

It does not appear to be about Proof of Stake.

It looks more as if, like Ripple, a whole different system of consensus was come up with, probably because they realised Proof of Stake was no good so tried to come up with something better.

-MarkM-

[rexzhao]

In my opinion, NEM has had the best POS distribution so far. They set up an asset a year before final distribution. The asset could be bought and traded by everyone. And everyone had the chance to get into the coin for one year ago.

Thank you. We'll look into it.

[HCLivess]

I will care to reclaim my clam once theyre worth something

[markm]

I will care to reclaim my clam once theyre worth something

I claimed mine and dumped them as soon as I heard about them, they were worth something then.

Back in the day it seemed like most core bitcoin people were saying any such forked coins they would promptly cash out of.

Even if they skyrocket I will have no regrets as I am not really keen on profiting from sticking poor sods with garbage.

-MarkM-

[BayAreaCoins]

I will care to reclaim my clam once theyre worth something

I claimed mine and dumped them as soon as I heard about them, they were worth something then.

Back in the day it seemed like most core bitcoin people were saying any such forked coins they would promptly cash out of.

Even if they skyrocket I will have no regrets as I am not really keen on profiting from sticking poor sods with garbage.

-MarkM-

Any profit is good Profit.

They are worth something now with a strong demand. Just-dice.com uses them.

Hehe not keen on profiting by sticking folks with garbage. Funniest claim I've heard a bitcoiner say in a while <3

[Braino]

Aside from that, I really want to know what is a "good" solution to distribute the coins in everybody's opinion.

Give them to me and I will make sure they get into the right hands

[TinEye]

In my opinion, NEM has had the best POS distribution so far. They set up an asset a year before final distribution. The asset could be bought and traded by everyone. And everyone had the chance to get into the coin for one year ago.

It had a better distribution than most even though the one starting it had multiple sockpuppets and abused it.

I claimed my token on NXT and sold it. One of the better decisions I made.

[andy35]

I will care to reclaim my clam once theyre worth something

I claimed mine and dumped them as soon as I heard about them, they were worth something then.

Back in the day it seemed like most core bitcoin people were saying any such forked coins they would promptly cash out of.

Even if they skyrocket I will have no regrets as I am not really keen on profiting from sticking poor sods with garbage.

-MarkM-

Any profit is good Profit.

They are worth something now with a strong demand. Just-dice.com uses them.

Hehe not keen on profiting by sticking folks with garbage. Funniest claim I've heard a bitcoiner say in a while <3

I've only got about 4, but I'm keeping them in case they are worth a lot someday. If I sell them now I will only get about $5 for them so I'm hodling.

[Bizmark13]

Counterparty's proof-of-burn method of distribution could be used to distribute a PoS coin without the "scammy" associations of an IPO.

Tl;dr

Check out Clamcoin for a beautiful way of distributing PoS coins.

Can it be repeated though?

Someone who knew about the CLAMs distribution method before its launch would have stood to make an enormous profit by manipulating the system by creating hundreds/thousands of non-empty addresses beforehand.

I agree there are an awful lot of bullshit hype solutions, but it's a big mistake to write off everything that isn't pow based in some way becauseof that.

Here's a white paper you may be Interested in. As far as scholarly goes, this is the best iv seen by a long shot. That's likely cos it's written by scholars and industry leaders (it's not hard to tell these guys are in another League). It's not a proper white paper so it's termed a technical reference. if it were. Written like a proper white paper the vast majority wouldn't be able to grasp anything in it.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7wAe2jt1MMzYVJhUUFnMHQxZ1U/view?usp=sharing

If you understand the math, or know anyone that would. I'd be very interested to here a review of it.

Also, I said it suggests that it's more secure. No different to saying it floods in India 10 times a year and hasn't flooded in Ireland in 5 years which suggests it rains more in India. Simply an observation and estimation of risk based on historic data. Based on that observation the odds are that it rains more in India than Ireland or that pos is more Secure. Doesn't mean it is, just that the odds are higher that that is the case

It does not appear to be about Proof of Stake.

It looks more as if, like Ripple, a whole different system of consensus was come up with, probably because they realised Proof of Stake was no good so tried to come up with something better.

-MarkM-

It's a modification/variant of proof-of-stake. Perhaps one that is so far different from other PoS variants that it belongs in a separate category but it is still fundamentally a modification of PoS nonetheless. With proof-of-importance, coin balance is just one of the factors taken into account that determine your staking weight whereas with PoS, it is typically the only factor that is taken into account (with a few caveats).

[Daedelus]

Pure proof of stake is not secure, because somewhere in the workings of it there has to be some kind of random or pseudorandom number generator used to decide which staking client wins the/a stake on any particular block.

Someone with more computer power can explore multiple possible futures, generating billions trillions quadrilions etc such random or pseudorandom numbers, massively increasing their chance of having their stake, of whatever size, "get lucky".

This is pretty much a pure nature of the problem kind of problem, not only has it not been solved it probably is not solvable.

Research >>> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=897488.0


And so far, so good... Nxt's pure POS implementation has been found to be secure against all formally described (i.e. testable) attacks so far. You can also repeat Kushti's finding's using the models he has made available, if you so choose.

To summarize the discussion, known claimed attacks on proof-of-stake distributed consensus algorithm(and concrete implementations) at the moment:

1. Short-range attack  - attacker can offer better chain started few blocks behind current canonical chain. The attack is possible at the moment, the only likely outcome though is just gathered fees increase for an attacker. In our simulations this kind of attack is possible mostly when a long delay occurs due to low target. By the way, the attack has positive aspect for network, as it shorten delays average between blocks. So attacker gets extra fees for a good job done 

2. Long-range attack - attacker can start fork hundreds or thousands blocks behind current chain. From our investigations the attack isn't possible. 

3. Nothing-at-stake attack - not possible at the moment! Will be possible when a lot of forgers will use multiple-branch forging  to increase profits. Then attacker can contribute to all the chains(some of them e.g. containing a transaction) then start to contribute to one chain only behind the best(containing no transaction) making it winner.  Previous statements on N@S attack made with assumption it costs nothing to contribute to an each fork possible and that makes N@S attack a disaster. In fact, it's not possible at all to contribute to each fork possible, as number of forks growing exponentially with time. So the only strategy for a multibranch forger is to contribute to N best forks. In such scenario attack is possible only within short-range e.g. with 25 confirmations needed 10% attacker can't make an attack. And attack is pretty random in nature, it's impossible to predict whether 2 forks will be within N best forks(from exponentially growing set) for k confirmations. So from our point of view the importance of the attack is pretty overblown.

4. History attack - attacker can buy whale's private key for $5 and build alternative story. Solved with some checkpoints now, located behind max rollback possible, so the solution is not so scary in terms of centralization etc.


If you know any other kind of attack, please add. Please note IPO properties of a concrete coins etc isn't related to proof-of-stake distributed consensus problems.

And Consensus Research is going to work on better proof-of-stake prototyping & implementation !

This is a summary form January, you'll see in the thread more work has been done and a test environment has been developed (Scorex*) to test improvements to the Nxt POS algo as we speak, based on the groups research.

*https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1060567.0


Where are you getting your information from?

[box0214]

many people say NEM had sock puppets, but is there a thread that proves this is the case?

but what i do notice is that NEM bag holders are very obvious in trying to push nem when nxt topics come up.

[aurtur215]

Counterparty's proof-of-burn method of distribution could be used to distribute a PoS coin without the "scammy" associations of an IPO.

Tl;dr

Check out Clamcoin for a beautiful way of distributing PoS coins.

Can it be repeated though?

Someone who knew about the CLAMs distribution method before its launch would have stood to make an enormous profit by manipulating the system by creating hundreds/thousands of non-empty addresses beforehand.

........

There were a great many POS coins distributed to bitcointalk members last year. It could be repeated by scanning the genesis block of each coin for addresses to distribute to. It's too late to manipulate the genesis distribution of those coins now.

Some of them are dead, but you could probably find people prepared to make downloads of their blockchains available. Some of them are still alive like coin2, community coin, faircoin, NAS, and premineplus.

The dead ones include BTCtalkcoin, FootballCoin, freebies coin, lottoshares, sharecoin, and yellowcoin.