Proof of Stake with an Ultra Low Interest Rate

[ttookk]

Shills incoming… yawn.

Isn't NXT basically a PoS coin without inflation? Nodes earn only transaction fees, don't they? Looks like it's working ok for them.

[Cryptotraider16]

Shills incoming… yawn.

Isn't NXT basically a PoS coin without inflation? Nodes earn only transaction fees, don't they? Looks like it's working ok for them.

i am sure that LEOcoin is still best POS coin!

[kiklo]

Shills incoming… yawn.

Isn't NXT basically a PoS coin without inflation? Nodes earn only transaction fees, don't they? Looks like it's working ok for them.

i am sure that LEOcoin is still best POS coin!

Well you're the only one, if you can't at least stay on topic don't post here.
Otherwise , I will just lock the thread because you are making it pointless with your false advertising.

Topic
Re: Proof of Stake with an Ultra Low Interest Rate


 

[kiklo]

Let say we create a Proof of Stake Coin with an Ultra Low Interest Rate

Yearly Interest Rate is only .0001% (.000001) ,

With such a low rate, many would say there is no incentive to stake.
However at such a low rate, with a little investment it's price per coin can be made very stable or pushed to new heights.

So what would make you stake such a coin?

1.  Would you accept payment in that coin on a monthly basis to maintain a node 24x7 that stakes?

2.  Would you stake just to secure the network and protect your investment while the Price per coin gets higher.
    (Blocking someone else from securing what little interest their was.)

3. Nothing at all make you stake such a coin.

Any other Ideas, what would make you stake such a coin.

Thanks.


FYI:
Just a quick note,
Users Buy & Hold BTC with 0 interest ,
if a PoS coin would increase in value, why would it not receive the same treatment?

[presstab]

Just a quick note,
Users Buy & Hold BTC with 0 interest ,
if a PoS coin would increase in value, why would it not receive the same treatment?

Because staking consumes resources. Having a utxo held by an address on bitcoin network does not, unless you are running a full node or something.

[ttookk]

Just a quick note,
Users Buy & Hold BTC with 0 interest ,
if a PoS coin would increase in value, why would it not receive the same treatment?

Because staking consumes resources. Having a utxo held by an address on bitcoin network does not, unless you are running a full node or something.

Additionally, having a staking wallet is a vulnerability. If Bitcoin turned to PoS tomorrow an I had, say, 1000 BTC, I for sure wouldn't stake them. They would be staying on their offline generated addresses.

What you COULD do, is a system, where people can stake with some means and send the coins to an offline address. But then, your staking weight couldn't reliably be the same as your wallet size.

Unless you'd create a system, in which people could stake "in the name of" a given address (with all staking rewards getting sent to that address of course), without ever proving that they hold the private key. This would make for an interesting experiment for sure.

[Lauren Smith]

That sounds pointless. What impact will such a little make ? None that's what. It will change nothing. I honestly dont see your point of this thread. Why would anyone do that ? May as well make it just a pow coin.

Its like saying what will happen if you get a hipos coin like 10000000000% which is the opposite of having it really low. It would die both ways. You need balance. Going to the extreme in either way is a bad idea.

[Loepuenkyou]

i think is very low reward
is POS coin only can get reward
Yearly Interest Rate is only .0001% (.000001) same without reward

[kiklo]

Just a quick note,
Users Buy & Hold BTC with 0 interest ,
if a PoS coin would increase in value, why would it not receive the same treatment?

Because staking consumes resources. Having a utxo held by an address on bitcoin network does not, unless you are running a full node or something.

Additionally, having a staking wallet is a vulnerability. If Bitcoin turned to PoS tomorrow an I had, say, 1000 BTC, I for sure wouldn't stake them. They would be staying on their offline generated addresses.

What you COULD do, is a system, where people can stake with some means and send the coins to an offline address. But then, your staking weight couldn't reliably be the same as your wallet size.

Unless you'd create a system, in which people could stake "in the name of" a given address (with all staking rewards getting sent to that address of course), without ever proving that they hold the private key. This would make for an interesting experiment for sure.

You'll have to explain that one, how is a staking wallet more of a  vulnerability in your opinion than a BTC Wallet?
I don't follow your logic on that one.


 

[presstab]

Just a quick note,
Users Buy & Hold BTC with 0 interest ,
if a PoS coin would increase in value, why would it not receive the same treatment?

Because staking consumes resources. Having a utxo held by an address on bitcoin network does not, unless you are running a full node or something.

Additionally, having a staking wallet is a vulnerability. If Bitcoin turned to PoS tomorrow an I had, say, 1000 BTC, I for sure wouldn't stake them. They would be staying on their offline generated addresses.

What you COULD do, is a system, where people can stake with some means and send the coins to an offline address. But then, your staking weight couldn't reliably be the same as your wallet size.

Unless you'd create a system, in which people could stake "in the name of" a given address (with all staking rewards getting sent to that address of course), without ever proving that they hold the private key. This would make for an interesting experiment for sure.

You'll have to explain that one, how is a staking wallet more of a  vulnerability in your opinion than a BTC Wallet?
I don't follow your logic on that one.


 

In the case that in the future there is some type of computation attack that will be able to solve a privkey based on previous signed transactions. The more you stake from one address, the more vulnerable it would be. It has been a long while since I read about that one, but I do beleive it was one of the reasons that change addresses are used in bitcoin.

[kiklo]

In the case that in the future there is some type of computation attack that will be able to solve a privkey based on previous signed transactions. The more you stake from one address, the more vulnerable it would be. It has been a long while since I read about that one, but I do believe it was one of the reasons that change addresses are used in bitcoin.

Hmm,

From the sound of his post he made it seem like it was something specific to only Staking wallets, but after seeing your reply ,
would it not be more accurate the number of transactions signed is what they are worried about , otherwise why would BTC  a non staking coin care?

 

[kiklo]

Interesting article On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward
http://randomwalker.info/publications/mining_CCS.pdf

What could go wrong? The mining gap
Without a block reward, immediately after a block is  found  there  is  zero  expected  reward  for  mining but nonzero electricity cost,
making it unprofitable for any miner to mine.

Which is why Proof of Stake will succeed Proof of Work,
because an the end of the day , it will cost abundantly less to keep a coin network running with PoS verses PoW.

The Problem is the mindset , that PoS is supposed to pay interest like a Bank,
instead of just the fact it is the most economical way to run a coin network.


 

[ttookk]

Just a quick note,
Users Buy & Hold BTC with 0 interest ,
if a PoS coin would increase in value, why would it not receive the same treatment?

Because staking consumes resources. Having a utxo held by an address on bitcoin network does not, unless you are running a full node or something.

Additionally, having a staking wallet is a vulnerability. If Bitcoin turned to PoS tomorrow an I had, say, 1000 BTC, I for sure wouldn't stake them. They would be staying on their offline generated addresses.

What you COULD do, is a system, where people can stake with some means and send the coins to an offline address. But then, your staking weight couldn't reliably be the same as your wallet size.

Unless you'd create a system, in which people could stake "in the name of" a given address (with all staking rewards getting sent to that address of course), without ever proving that they hold the private key. This would make for an interesting experiment for sure.

You'll have to explain that one, how is a staking wallet more of a  vulnerability in your opinion than a BTC Wallet?
I don't follow your logic on that one.


 

In the case that in the future there is some type of computation attack that will be able to solve a privkey based on previous signed transactions. The more you stake from one address, the more vulnerable it would be. It has been a long while since I read about that one, but I do beleive it was one of the reasons that change addresses are used in bitcoin.

My point was more that you can, or at least should not be a 100% sure, that a device you are online with hasn't a  vulnerability. It is good and common practice to keep big amounts of coins on offline wallets to keep them safe.

That doesn't work if the wallets you use are staking.

That sounds pointless. What impact will such a little make ? None that's what. It will change nothing. I honestly dont see your point of this thread. Why would anyone do that ? May as well make it just a pow coin.

Its like saying what will happen if you get a hipos coin like 10000000000% which is the opposite of having it really low. It would die both ways. You need balance. Going to the extreme in either way is a bad idea.

AFAIK, NXT has 0% interest and is still a PoS coin.

[kiklo]

My point was more that you can, or at least should not be a 100% sure, that a device you are online with hasn't a  vulnerability. It is good and common practice to keep big amounts of coins on offline wallets to keep them safe.

That doesn't work if the wallets you use are staking.

Hmm,
Ok your reference is more to the security issues of all Online Devices, (which would be a danger to PoW or PoS equally.)

You can use paper wallets with either staking or non-staking coins.  

And with an ultra low rate staking coin, there is not much incentive to stake, so you could store them all offline if you wished.

Incentives to stake , is what I am mainly looking for.
I have discovered that many would agreed to accepting payment in the Ultra low inflation coin to Stake 24x7 to secure the network.
Only problem with it , is the payment for the incentive will come out of my pocket for the 1st year or 2.  
By the 3rd year all of the Incentives need to come from the amount of transaction fees and constant increases in the Coin Value verse Fiat & BTC.
Which due to PoS low economic costs may become profitable somewhere in that time frame.


 

FYI:
By the way Decred has an Offline Cold Staking for Proof of Stake coins like what you mentioned in your earlier post.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1290358.0
Cold staking and decentralized stake pooling - The ability to generate new coins without the risk of having your coins online when PoS mining. The PoS mining system has also been engineered with distributed, decentralized stake pooling in mind, so that even those with small amounts of stake can participate in network validation.

[presstab]

In the case that in the future there is some type of computation attack that will be able to solve a privkey based on previous signed transactions. The more you stake from one address, the more vulnerable it would be. It has been a long while since I read about that one, but I do believe it was one of the reasons that change addresses are used in bitcoin.

Hmm,

From the sound of his post he made it seem like it was something specific to only Staking wallets, but after seeing your reply ,
would it not be more accurate the number of transactions signed is what they are worried about , otherwise why would BTC  a non staking coin care?

 

Yes it is number of transactions signed. So if you have a wallet that has been staking and signing lots of transactions, it would be more susceptible to that type of attack.

[ttookk]

Why would you need any kind of PoS reward (other than transaction fees) really? Couldn't you keep a PoS blockchain running with transaction fees alone? Maybe have an ultra high interest phase at the beginning for initial distribution.

This would mean, that less people would stake, because there wouldn't be a lot to gain from it. This is contraproductive in decentralization terms, but if, let's say, a high two digit number can still stake with profit, we can assume that the network is going to be safe.

[kiklo]

you should Keep in mind that PoS was designed to secure the blockchain and confirm Transaction
as some Kind of energy efficience method ...  compared to Mining via PoW.

and not for generating coins or giving x% interest per year as Marketing idea.

You are right and this is a big problem with PoS-coins:

- If the interest rate is too low, people will go to some other coin, where it is higher.
- If it's too high, the coin will die at some point.

Finding the sweet spot seems like an almost impossible task. Here's a crazy idea: what would happen, if users could vote on interest rate regularly, let's say, quarterly? You take all numbers proposed and find the median. Some will state crazy high rates, others zero, hopefully, a lot of people would be sensible enough to realize that choosing the right amount secures the future of their coin, so maybe, it would be a way to apply "collective wisdom" (I'm not necessarily a big fan of that concept in general) to this problem.

Problem is people are not sensible , the higher % will always be choosen by the short sighted , Higher Interest Rate even at the destruction of the coin.
Just look at Sprouts and Tekcoin, for verification of the above statement.

 

[kiklo]

In the case that in the future there is some type of computation attack that will be able to solve a privkey based on previous signed transactions. The more you stake from one address, the more vulnerable it would be. It has been a long while since I read about that one, but I do believe it was one of the reasons that change addresses are used in bitcoin.

Hmm,

From the sound of his post he made it seem like it was something specific to only Staking wallets, but after seeing your reply ,
would it not be more accurate the number of transactions signed is what they are worried about , otherwise why would BTC  a non staking coin care?

 

Yes it is number of transactions signed. So if you have a wallet that has been staking and signing lots of transactions, it would be more susceptible to that type of attack.

Say I run a Business where I have hundreds of BTC transactions sent out everyday, would this address not also be susceptible?


 

 

[presstab]

In the case that in the future there is some type of computation attack that will be able to solve a privkey based on previous signed transactions. The more you stake from one address, the more vulnerable it would be. It has been a long while since I read about that one, but I do believe it was one of the reasons that change addresses are used in bitcoin.

Hmm,

From the sound of his post he made it seem like it was something specific to only Staking wallets, but after seeing your reply ,
would it not be more accurate the number of transactions signed is what they are worried about , otherwise why would BTC  a non staking coin care?

 

Yes it is number of transactions signed. So if you have a wallet that has been staking and signing lots of transactions, it would be more susceptible to that type of attack.

Say I run a Business where I have hundreds of BTC transactions sent out everyday, would this address not also be susceptible?


 

That is why change addresses are used, at least on of the reasons why. And yes it would if it accumulates lots of transactions. Not sure what you aren't understanding here, for this particular attack, the more tx on an address the more susceptible. Its that simple. Absolutely nothing complicated about it. Some of my staking wallets have upwards of 50k tx's. I have seen staking wallets with over 100k. This is one of the fundamental problems about how lots of us manage our wallets.

That being said, this is not an attack that is really possible with today's computation.

[kiklo]

That is why change addresses are used, at least on of the reasons why. And yes it would if it accumulates lots of transactions. Not sure what you aren't understanding here, for this particular attack, the more tx on an address the more susceptible. Its that simple. Absolutely nothing complicated about it. Some of my staking wallets have upwards of 50k tx's. I have seen staking wallets with over 100k. This is one of the fundamental problems about how lots of us manage our wallets.

That being said, this is not an attack that is really possible with today's computation.

Never said it was hard to understand, just wanted the point made it ,
that either PoW or PoS can be affected, as it is number of transactions and not a direct staking only issue.
And you helped me accomplish that. 

Like you, I don't really see it being a problem for the foreseeable future.