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

[kiklo]

This whole topic is nothing more than a Hit Piece against Proof of Stake By a UBER IDIOT!

This AssHat , has been saying for months , he will be releasing a coin (Fart Bubble) , that is superior to PoW & PoS.
And to this date , what has he accomplished , Nothing except having the highest post count in all of BTCTalk.

He pretends like he has all of the answers, even against people that actually make Proof of Stake Coins.

Believe this Fool at your own Peril.


 

FYI:
Notice not One PoW Dev has agreed with the Asshat by removing the hard coded checkpoints in their wallet code.
Kito's explanation was accurate.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1549494.msg15588049#msg15588049

[iamnotback]

And no (significant) PoW coins have been hard forked to change the protocol (which is not the same as fixing a bug as was the case for Bitcoin) without a proof-of-stake vote (Ethereum's fork was supported by a stake voting).

And PoW coins with sufficient hashrate (e.g. Bitcoin) do not require hard checkpoints to be of any recent frequency.

PoS is entirely unnecessary as it isn't even an optimization of anything. It lowers the security and centralizes unnecessarily.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zP4Chk8g7A#t=1734

Charles frankly you were incorrect and the younger guy was correct that you are conflating inflation with transaction fees.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zP4Chk8g7A#t=2700

Charles explains why miners should not have any power other than to implement (validate) the protocol.

And I don't even need to write in slobbering, drooling blue text to make my point.

Funny how trolls who've never written a line of code in their life become so emboldened by their ignorance.

[kiklo]

And no PoW coins have been hard forked to change the protocol without a proof-of-stake vote.

And PoW coins with sufficient hashrate (e.g. Bitcoin) do not require hard checkpoints to be of any recent frequency.

BTC hard forked, and it was a Centralized Act of Control
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1549494.msg15591265#msg15591265

PoW coins can also suffer a history attack ,
No Checkpoints and one of those Chinese ASICS manufacturers , could easily use some of the latest ASICS to create a stronger chain up until the beginning of the year , and then switch the rest of their ~70% control of BTC to implant the new chain over the old.  

Tell you what , get BTC to remove all Hard Coded Checkpoints from their wallet code, and then post it.

They won't do it , why won't they , they know you are just a Fool Shelby.

 


FYI:
Monero (other PoW Coin) also won't remove their hard coded checkpoints for the same reason,
Notice how they have not commented on your Stupidity, cause they have enough sense to know hard coded checkpoints are free protection without drawbacks.

[iamnotback]

What kind of complete delusional idiot thinks even a Chinese ASIC manufacturer could launch an hashrate attack against Bitcoin rewriting the block chain going back a year. Some trolls lack some math skills.

No single entity can touch the Bitcoin block chain. Only an oligarchy of existing mining farms can.

The reason we have mining farms is because mining is profitable. I will change this soon.

This asshat troll will hide under a rock then and hope nobody remembers his blue text slobbering.

A favor is done by not quoting the troll, so later he can delete or edit his posts.

[presstab]

Charles has agreed that PoS requires centralized checkpointing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zP4Chk8g7A#t=1632

You will need some hard checkpoints. In my opinion, a widely disbursed and actively staked coin does not need a checkpoint server. So the centralization would come from the source code, just like the protocol rules do for every coin.

you either have checkpoints or you dont. having just some hardcoded checkpoints makes no sense?

There is a big difference. In one case the checkpoints are controlled by a single node and are given out to the network on the fly, in the other case there are maybe 5-10 hardcoded checkpoints in the source code.

In the case of a checkpoint server, it is truly centralized control and choice of the chain. In the case of the hardcoded checkpoints, it is simply cementing in the blockchain, usually months or more, in the past. There is a huge difference, don't know how you could argue that there isn't. In one case you have trust in one specific node, in the other your trust is given to the source code that you built from.

[presstab]

What kind of complete delusional idiot thinks even a Chinese ASIC manufacturer could launch an hashrate attack against Bitcoin rewriting the block chain going back a year. Some trolls lack some math skills.

No single entity can touch the Bitcoin block chain. Only an oligarchy of existing mining farms can.

I agree with this. No private entity could attack the chain.

[kiklo]

What kind of complete delusional idiot thinks even a Chinese ASIC manufacturer could launch an hashrate attack against Bitcoin rewriting the block chain going back a year. Some trolls lack some math skills.

No single entity can touch the Bitcoin block chain. Only an oligarchy of existing mining farms can.

I agree with this. No private entity could attack the chain.

Point of Clarification :
I mean the County of China Could do it by coordinating their resources, not a single person.
And I believe they can , it is one of the perks to being the world's biggest industrialize nation.
But with hard coded checkpoints they can't.

 

[kiklo]

What kind of complete delusional idiot thinks even a Chinese ASIC manufacturer could launch an hashrate attack against Bitcoin rewriting the block chain going back a year. Some trolls lack some math skills.

No single entity can touch the Bitcoin block chain. Only an oligarchy of existing mining farms can.

The reason we have mining farms is because mining is profitable. I will change this soon.

This asshat troll will hide under a rock then and hope nobody remembers his blue text slobbering.

A favor is done by not quoting the troll, so later he can delete or edit his posts.

Hey ASSHAT,

Have you found a PoW Dev willing to remove all of their hard coded checkpoints yet?

Answer : No , because they know you are a Fool.

 

[criptix]

Charles has agreed that PoS requires centralized checkpointing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zP4Chk8g7A#t=1632

You will need some hard checkpoints. In my opinion, a widely disbursed and actively staked coin does not need a checkpoint server. So the centralization would come from the source code, just like the protocol rules do for every coin.

you either have checkpoints or you dont. having just some hardcoded checkpoints makes no sense?

There is a big difference. In one case the checkpoints are controlled by a single node and are given out to the network on the fly, in the other case there are maybe 5-10 hardcoded checkpoints in the source code.

In the case of a checkpoint server, it is truly centralized control and choice of the chain. In the case of the hardcoded checkpoints, it is simply cementing in the blockchain, usually months or more, in the past. There is a huge difference, don't know how you could argue that there isn't. In one case you have trust in one specific node, in the other your trust is given to the source code that you built from.

Let me try to understand what you said:

So hardcoded checkpoints are made by the protocol?

It isnt wrote by a dev and shared with the public through a update of the protocol?

[kiklo]

Let me try to understand:

So hardcoded checkpoints are made by the protocol?

It isnt wrote by a dev and shared with the public through a update of the protocol?

Hard Coded checkpoints are written directly into the program code of a wallet.
And only updated at the time a new wallet is created.
But they only work if over a certain % of active users update their wallet.

Checkpoints sent our across then network are usually a by a Checkpoint Server, which runs continuously.
(Checkpoint servers are a target, as controlling it means you can control the entire coin network.)

 

[iamnotback]

Checkpoints in the client s/w are entirely optional. Someone could run a client without them. If many users did that with PoS, they'd be taking on a huge risk. If they did that with Bitcoin, the risk is ~0.

The risk of the entire country of China overtly attacking Bitcoin is ~0. The China oligarchy is instead doing insideous 51% attacks such as delaying the block size increase in order to gain more pricing power with transaction fees.

Again I intend to end China's control by making PoW unprofitable.

Again PoS is centralized, because power-law distribution of stake matters on the governance of the coin and forks. PoW doesn't need to be, especially after mining is made unprofitable.

[kiklo]

Funny how trolls who've never written a line of code in their life become so emboldened by their ignorance.

Funny , how you are so stupid that you think your assumptions are accurate.
Do I call myself a dev or programmer,
No I don't, But I have written code, before your dumb ass was even born.


 

[iamnotback]

Who wrote code before 1965.   Not many people.

[kiklo]

Checkpoints in the client s/w are entirely optional. Someone could run a client without them. If many users did that with PoS, they'd be taking on a huge risk. If they did that with Bitcoin, the risk is ~0.

But yet they use Checkpoints, they must know something you Don't ASSHAT.

The risk of the entire country of China overtly attacking Bitcoin is ~0. The China oligarchy is instead doing insideous 51% attacks such as delaying the block size increase in order to gain more pricing power with transaction fees.

Again I intend to end China's control by making PoW unprofitable.

Again PoS is centralized, because power-law distribution of stake matters on the governance of the coin and forks. PoW doesn't need to be, especially after mining is made unprofitable.

BTC is one of the most centralized coins out there at the moment over 70% controlled by 1 country.
It is Profitable for the Chinese.

You keep talking about your Fart Bubble coin like it is real,
put out the coin of STFU about it , Mr. VaporWare.


 

[kiklo]

Who wrote code before 1965.   Not many people.

All of these Languages existed before 1965.
Punch cards were a pain in the ass, especially if you dropped the damn things and lost the order.

    1951 – Regional Assembly Language
    1952 – Autocode
    1954 – IPL (forerunner to LISP)
    1955 – FLOW-MATIC (led to COBOL)
    1957 – FORTRAN (First compiler)
    1957 – COMTRAN (precursor to COBOL)
    1958 – LISP
    1958 – ALGOL 58
    1959 – FACT (forerunner to COBOL)
    1959 – COBOL                                                    
    1959 – RPG
    1962 – APL
    1962 – Simula
    1962 – SNOBOL
    1963 – CPL (forerunner to C)
    1964 – Speakeasy (computational environment)
    1964 – BASIC
    1964 – PL/I

 

[iamnotback]

Some assholes I would willingly go to jail just so I could beat them into a pulp if I could come across them in real life.

Somebody needs an ass whooping.

Unfortunately I must lock the topic, because the troll won't be reasonable.

Apparently kiklo is suffering the angry old man syndrome.

[kiklo]

Some assholes I would willingly go to jail just so I could beat them into a pulp if I could come across them in real life.

Somebody needs an ass whooping.

Unfortunately I must lock the topic, because the troll won't be reasonable.

I kick your ass from my wheelchair.

 

[iamnotback]

You all may continue the discussion in the following thread:

Getting fired from Ethereum is a blessing in disguise.

I'll quote you instead of the troll who insists on spamming every thread with blue text (which in Internet etiquette is the same as shouting with ALL CAPS).

He wasn't fired. Per his own explanation, an approximate summary is he founded the company and when his ideas for the funding of the development and governance were at odds with Vitalik at al, they mutually decided he would resign in the best interests of not having ongoing stifling dissension or that Charles could not allow himself to be a party to the lack of governance. Reading between the lines, I am under the impression that the boys wanted all the control and they didn't want their budget to be under strict scrutiny by a governance model similar to a board of directors.

Charles is a very good speaker, conceptualizer, and organizer. His IOHK attempting to do important research and development in block chain technology and models. That he was involved in the early stages of Bitshares and Ethereum is not objectively a correlation to what those projects became after he was gone. And those projects have not been entirely a waste (and it is not 100% certain/objective they've failed), as some important knowledge has come out of them.

To those who have no respect at all for what Charles is doing, then I think you have no respect at all for a meritocracy (and you're probably a jealous asshat, lol). Although some might feel jaded that he gained some wealth on the residual tokens he may have held from those two major projects, it is not clear to me that Charles was the one driving the stages of those projects (even in a derivative sense) that some might disagree with.

I was actually quite impressed with this recent video because Charles explained he is very rational on the issue of trustless decentralization. The only issue I had with the video is him talking down to Mark Lamb, calling him 'son' when it was clear that Mark had a strong point that at least deserved mutual respect while being debated. Perhaps Charles had a counter point also, but I think the debate needed more calm interaction to get more clarity. At one point Charles did offer Mark the choice that seemed to fit Mark's model, but somehow both of them veered away from the opportunity to form an agreement and spiraled off into a shouting match. That was unfortunate but these misunderstandings can happen in the heat of the moment. Nobody is immune.

I was also impressed with his use of the vocabulary word 'extemporaneous'. Caused me to remember my father the attorney. Charles appears to have a sharp mind and cross-discipline (polymathy) ability. I can't make any judgement yet about his skills in actual coding or the coordination thereof, because I don't have enough interaction and data.

That Charles has he claims amassed and is coordinating a development group of 27 experts, is a potentially very valuable resource for block chain research and development. I say 'potentially' because I have very limited interaction with his company so far (only the messages on this forum and including some with kushti), so I can't really form any judgement one way or the other.

No one is perfectly skilled in all areas, and most certainly including myself. We learn how to complement each others' skill set. Perhaps the most valuable trait, is the ability to learn from our mistakes and admit them to ourself. It is hard to do, but it the most productive. I am thinking specifically of some mistakes I've made in past months on these forums in terms of forming rash judgements out of frustration. It is much easier to have an open constructive mind when not being continually frustrated by the medium and/or circumstances. I bet even a troll could benefit from this, if he/she hasn't shattered his/her mirror. Mutually respectful, cordial, and not disingenuous disagreement/debate can be a constructive activity.

disingenuous
 adjective dis·in·gen·u·ous \ˌdis-in-ˈjen-yə-wəs, -yü-əs-\
: not truly honest or sincere : giving the false appearance of being honest or sincere

In the context of a technical debate, disingenuous means to not be sincere in acknowledging the valid technical points of the other side. It means using trolling tactics to pretend the other side hasn't made any valid point whatsoever. It often is objectively visible when the troll is SHOUTING that all the experts are wrong and unable to make an absolutely convincing argument to justify such an unlikely slamdunk. Typically someone who knows confidently that all the experts are wrong, will not feel a need to shout and will be quite smug and content with simply stating their case calmly once (and let time do the job of teaching). It can also be a side-effect of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome.


P.S. when professional athletes become too old to compete and become a liability to their team, they retire. When old programmers become too old to code, perhaps we should also retire and not hang on as frustrated trolls. Linus said, "talk is cheap, show me the code". In this context, I am thinking that if one has stopped coding, they too far removed from the details. Being productive producing code has a way of satiating one's sense of accomplishment, eliminating the need to say something when one really had nothing to say of value.