Proof-of-stake can never scale without blowing up, because PoS isn't trustless

[generalizethis]

If it reaches a large enough valuation, then the incentives to game DPoS should kick in, which looks like it would end up being a power vacuum battle over influence of the ecosystem and profit opportunities with that ecosystem.

Good call.

Shelby, don't stress too much over kiklo. Let's ask him a question and see if there's hope. Kiklo, what theoretical evidence would convince you that POS fails decentralization (theoretical is purposely being used in multiple sates here)?

At least that is a attempt at conversation.

... if the Government taxes it at every transaction til they gain majority ownership.

So if that's demonstrated theoretically,  you will acknowledge POS fails at decentralization? --not sure why taxation must be the method, but I'll keep from getting sidetracked from the point.

Also, the topic is POS, so let's stick to that.

[iamnotback]

kiklo when you are ready to quote specific passages in my OP and have a specific debate on specific facts, then we can get specific.

Until then, you are just using vague meaningless verbiage to run away from the fact that I will destroy you in a specific debate.

So if that's demonstrated theoretically,  you will acknowledge POS fails at decentralization? --not sure why taxation must be the method, but I'll keep from getting sidetracked from the point.

Also, the topic is POS, so let's stick to that.

He will never stay on specific points made by the OP, because he will lose the argument.

[kiklo]

If it reaches a large enough valuation, then the incentives to game DPoS should kick in, which looks like it would end up being a power vacuum battle over influence of the ecosystem and profit opportunities with that ecosystem.

Good call.

Shelby, don't stress too much over kiklo. Let's ask him a question and see if there's hope. Kiklo, what theoretical evidence would convince you that POS fails decentralization (theoretical is purposely being used in multiple sates here)?

At least that is a attempt at conversation.

... if the Government taxes it at every transaction til they gain majority ownership.

So if that's demonstrated theoretically,  you will acknowledge POS fails at decentralization? --not sure why taxation must be the method, but I'll keep from getting sidetracked from the point.

Also, the topic is POS, so let's stick to that.

Because taxation is a valid threat, but I am willing to listen to a theory that makes sense,
I just have not heard one yet.

 

[kiklo]

kiklo when you are ready to quote specific passages in my OP and have a specific debate on specific facts, then we can get specific.

Until then, you are just using vague meaningless verbiage to run away from the fact that I will destroy you in a specific debate.

So if that's demonstrated theoretically,  you will acknowledge POS fails at decentralization? --not sure why taxation must be the method, but I'll keep from getting sidetracked from the point.

Also, the topic is POS, so let's stick to that.

He will never stay on specific points made by the OP, because he will lose the argument.

Maybe instead of claiming you won the argument , you could make one and we can get started.

 

FYI:
If you don't want to converse , just say so, but don't pretend you won an argument we did not have yet.

FYI2:
Post 1 theory , that you are certain will destroy ZEIT and we can begin. 

[iamnotback]

generalizethis, you are feeding the troll. Please let me deal with him. He will just take you on a meaningless verbiage troll fest filling up the thread with meaningless words.

Let me corner him with his own words, since he is being such a bastard by refusing to acknowledge that I already answered specifics, which he now pretends I didn't refute.

[iamnotback]

Longest chain with the most difficulty Wins in PoS or PoW is not rocket science ,
Checkpoints are PoS or PoW , also not rocket science.

Which part of the prior rebuttal (quoted below) did you not read and are now pretending I never wrote?

Do I need to quote the part of the OP that explains why PoS can't provide a mathematical verification of the time ordering of block events? Are you that lazy that you are incapable of finding that portion of the OP?

Your statement is a PoS history has no verifiable longest chain , actually it is the same as PoW , in that the Longest Chain with the most difficulty wins and normally will be the true chain.

Checkpoints are not verifiable math. They are adhoc social trust. The entire point is that PoS is not trustless, because nothing can be verified about time with math. Please go back and re-read the OP, because you've not understood the OP.

Some coins use checkpoint servers or issue checkpoints in the wallet updates.
This actually gives those coins a protection from history attacks.
And it can be done by PoS or PoW coins, example : monero >https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/blob/master/src/cryptonote_core/checkpoints.cpp

In other words PoS is just as trustworthy as PoW, since they can both use or not use checkpoints.

Nope. See what I wrote above.

A properly designed PoW block chain with sufficient hashrate doesn't need checkpoints.

[generalizethis]

generalizethis, you are feeding the troll. Please let me deal with him. He will just take you on a meaningless verbiage troll fest filling up the thread with meaningless words.

Let me corner him with his own words, since he is being such a bastard by refusing to acknowledge that I already answered specifics, which he now pretends I didn't refute.

steps away

[kiklo]

generalizethis, you are feeding the troll. Please let me deal with him. He will just take you on a meaningless verbiage troll fest filling up the thread with meaningless words.

Let me corner him with his own words, since he is being such a bastard by refusing to acknowledge that I already answered specifics, which he now pretends I didn't refute.

Language,
My Birth Certificate confirms a father, so your bastard comment is invalid.

Hey , I was leaving til generalizethis acted like he actually wanted to converse.


 

[iamnotback]

Hey , I was leaving til generalizethis acted like he actually wanted to converse.

I figured you'd run away once I had cornered you and shown you were refusing to acknowledge my prior rebuttal. I will delete this post if you reply to my prior post where you are now cornered.

[kiklo]

Hey , I was leaving til generalizethis acted like he actually wanted to converse.

I figured you'd run away once I had cornered you and shown you were refusing to acknowledge my prior rebuttal.

OK , Jackass, I was going to just agree to disagree,
but you fucked that up.

 

[iamnotback]

I am still waiting for your reply. And now you pissed me off by trolling my thread after I asked you to please stop. So now no mercy on you. I am not going to let you wiggle away without destroying your reputation entirely.

[kiklo]

Longest chain with the most difficulty Wins in PoS or PoW is not rocket science ,
Checkpoints are PoS or PoW , also not rocket science.

Which part of the prior rebuttal (quoted below) did you not read and are now pretending I never wrote?

Do I need to quote the part of the OP that explains why PoS can't provide a mathematical verification of the time ordering of block events? Are you that lazy that you are incapable of finding that portion of the OP?

Your statement is a PoS history has no verifiable longest chain , actually it is the same as PoW , in that the Longest Chain with the most difficulty wins and normally will be the true chain.

Checkpoints are not verifiable math. They are adhoc social trust. The entire point is that PoS is not trustless, because nothing can be verified about time with math. Please go back and re-read the OP, because you've not understood the OP.

Really then why don't you modify and destroy a blockchain by placing a fake block into a PoS Block Chain and prove your ridiculous point.

Oh, You Can't because you are full of SHIT!!!

Some coins use checkpoint servers or issue checkpoints in the wallet updates.
This actually gives those coins a protection from history attacks.
And it can be done by PoS or PoW coins, example : monero >https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/blob/master/src/cryptonote_core/checkpoints.cpp

In other words PoS is just as trustworthy as PoW, since they can both use or not use checkpoints.

Nope. See what I wrote above.

A properly designed PoW block chain with sufficient hashrate doesn't need checkpoints.
And neither does a properly design PoS block chain .
So you have no point.

[iamnotback]

Ok generalizethis, I give you green light to handle him by quoting from your excuses that shitcoin liars use to avoid a debate.

He is now instead of addressing the technical points, using the "then attack our PoS coin to prove it" tactic of avoiding the technical point, when in fact I quoted the Vericoin white paper in the OP where they admitted that 30% of the tokens were stoken by an exchange because PoS has the technical problems I have enumerated.

And his claim that PoS doesn't need checkpoints is making him the laughing stock of any one who knows anything about this issue. Even Vitalik admits that and he is pro-PoS. I have cited in the OP a research paper from BitFury which explains that in great detail. He is just a troll.

There is absolutely nothing to say to someone who so incredibly disingenuous. How can anyone have a rational discussion with someone who doesn't even understand nor address the technical points. And pretends that Vericoin's theft never happened. And pretends that even Vitalik and every one doesn't admits PoS requires checkpoints to deal with the Long Range attack problem.

He will go on a tirade now, because he has made an complete fool of himself for all readers to see. Nothing more for me to say to him.

[kiklo]

Ok generalizethis, I give you green light to handle him by quoting from your excuses that shitcoin liars use to void a debate.

He is now instead of addressing the technical points, using the "then attack our PoS coin to prove it" tactic of avoiding the technical point, when in fact I quoted the Vericoin white paper in the OP where they admitted that 30% of the tokens were stoken by an exchange because PoS has the technical problems I have enumerated.

And his claim that PoS doesn't need checkpoints is making him the laughing stock of any one who knows anything about this issue. Even Vitalik admits that and he is pro-PoS. I have cited a research paper from BitFury which explains that in great detail. He is just a troll.

And you are a Giant Bullshit Artist trying to trick people into buying a shit coin , you are too lazy to even start.

See why it is not a good idea to piss me off.

 

[kiklo]

There is absolutely nothing to say to someone who so incredibly disingenuous. How can anyone have a rational discussion with someone who doesn't even understand nor address the technical points. And pretends that Vericoin's theft never happened. And pretends that even Vitalik and every one admits PoS requires checkpoints to deal with the Long Range attack problem.

He will go on a tirade now, because he has made an complete fool of himself for all readers to see. Nothing more for me to say to him.

Are you an idiot?

Can PoS coins Hard Fork , Answer is Yes
Can PoW coins Hard Fork, Answer is still Yes.

Both PoS & PoW coins can use or not use Checkpoints.

And you still have not made a point.

 

FYI:
The only thing being proved here, is that you can't form a decent argument.

[iamnotback]

Can PoS coins Hard Fork , Answer is Yes
Can PoW coins Hard Fork, Answer is still Yes.

I will address this because it is technical claim.

It is very difficult to hard fork a PoW coin, as evident by Bitcoin's block chain debate, the fact that Bitcoin was never forked (only a bug was fixed to make it agree with the protocol as specified), and also that Ethereum had to revert to voting by stake to take a vote to try to push the miners to support a fork.

Whereas, PoS coins have been forked by an exchange (as quoted from Vericon's white paper in the OP), something that could never happen to PoW coin with any decent amount of hashrate.

That PoS coins aren't forked willy-nilly is because of an adhoc social contract that records checkpoints and thus has centralized the coin. PoW doesn't require this because the math validates the time ordering.

Besides I have another design for PoW which will make it virtually impossible to fork the coin, because the miners will number (eventually) in the millions and they are transient (all the payers are the miners).

How much more disingenuous can this troll be? Does he refuse to understand that PoS places no computational limitation on how far back in the chain an attacker can begin attacking because there is no PoW cost to doing so (which is why checkpoints and a tenuous social contract are required).

On top of that, even after I asked him to not use blue text, he increases his use of blue text just to prove he is an insolent asshole that doesn't respect calm and sincere discourse.

Does he wish to have his reputation totally trashed by continuing to be disingenuous with me? Let's see if he wants to take me on. Come on fool!

[kiklo]

Can PoS coins Hard Fork , Answer is Yes
Can PoW coins Hard Fork, Answer is still Yes.

I will address this because it is technical claim.

It is very difficult to hard fork a PoW coin, as evident by Bitcoin's block chain debate, the fact that Bitcoin was never forked (only a bug was fixed to make it agree with the protocol as specified), and also that Ethereum had to revert to voting by stake to take a vote to try to push the miners to support a fork.

Whereas, PoS coins have been forked by an exchange (as quoted from Vericon's white paper in the OP), something that could never happen to PoW coin with any decent amount of hashrate.

That PoS coins aren't forked is because of adhoc social contract that records checkpoints and thus has centralized the coin.

Besides I have another design for PoW which will make it virtually impossible to fork the coin, because the miners will number in the millions.

It is no more difficult to fork a PoW than a PoS, all depends on if the users upgrade or not.

Still not seeing any valid points here.

 

FYI:
Until you actually get a coin working, keep the vaporware comments out of the conversation.

[iamnotback]

It is no more difficult to fork a PoW than a PoS, all depends on if the users upgrade or not.

Incorrect disingenuous fool who is on a trolling tirade and destroying his reputation for everyone to see:

I don't agree with smooth's claim that the mining nodes can't fork the block chain without the support of the users who transact; because users need to be on the longest chain else double-spends on the competing forks will force payees to recognize only the longest chain.

[kiklo]

It is no more difficult to fork a PoW than a PoS, all depends on if the users upgrade or not.

Incorrect disingenuous fool who is on a trolling tirade and destroying his reputation for everyone to see:

I don't agree with smooth's claim that the mining nodes can't fork the block chain without the support of the users who transact; because users need to be on the longest chain else double-spends on the competing forks will force payees to recognize only the longest chain.

Longest Chain with the Most Difficulty Wins, PoS or PoW
You're just sprouting misinformation saying anything else.
If the Majority of the Users don't update, then there will be no fork either PoS or PoW.


 

FYI:
My Rep will hold up better than yours.

[iamnotback]

Longest Chain with the Most Difficulty Wins, PoS or PoW

PoS doesn't have a longest chain dufus. That has been the entire point that has been made to you over and over again. There is no work proven with PoS, thus no way to objectively measure the length of the chain relative to any other. The amount of computational work to produce a block is not recorded in a PoS block chain. There is no computational limit that prevent making a new chain from as far back as the genesis block. The only protection are checkpoints, adhoc social contract, and thus centralization.

How many times does someone have to repeat the same information for you to absorb it in your retarded skull?