First i want to say that i am not that experienced in the involved maths or economics behind CC.
That is obvious because your statement below is nonsense.
And my nickname and that this is the first posting should give you an idea that i am a 100% decred advocate. So, yeah i am a bozo butthole at its best...
It isn't my wish for you to remain ignorant, but only you can decide whether to put in the effort.
I know it comes as an unpleasant shock to naive fanboiz that what you thought could be the next big thing, is in fact a dud. Therefor, your psychological reaction is to want to blame your mistake on me, somehow coming to the incorrect conclusion that I am all about ego or a corrupted vested interest.
Thanks for your mathematical proof of that if you control a majority of stake you need a less fraction of pow to control the network.
The conclusion comes down to something like:
Bad News: If someone owns the network - they can own the network!
I am impressed what a mathematical genius you must be to come to that conclusion! Wow! I am wondering what the fuck you are doing here at crypto at all... please tell us some more news we did not knew before your appearance!
So you need a majority of +75% of staketickets to pull of your attack.
Additionaly you need a good amount of PoW under your control.
You did not read carefully the upthread discussion. The following example was only with 1/3 control of the stake, the attacker would only need 6% of the hashrate. In other words, combining PoW and PoS makes the system less secure.
There is no way you will keep any where near 50% of the users online and participating in staking.
So run the numbers with a more realistic participation percentage and you can see that this design can't possibly scale up to mass adoption. In the power-law distribution only about 33% of the wealth will be serious owners and of them many are not going to bother staking since that will end up pretty much an unprofitable activity due to competition. So in reality the math is going to look more like:
((1/0.33 - 1) × 0.20)3 = 0.06Where the attacking whales only need 6% of the hashrate to double-spend. And I didn't even get into the math of selfish-mining attacks which are much much more damning. The security is absolute dogshit. The selfish mining is going to be much worse and quickly centralized the PoW control of the coin (even though nobody can detect this).
The only way this design makes any sense is for a very centralized stake where we trust that overlord. Which is precisely what you guys are counting on and you damn well know it. Else you are really really bozos if you can't do some simple math.
Whales can profitably attack their own coin by shorting it before they do. They can turn the price into a yoyo, going long and short as they know the timing. Centralized shit is a clusterfuck.
I hope you are proud to work on this shit.
Even with only 25% of the stake, the attacker only needs 22% of the hashrate when only 20% of the stake is online (and
again it is all much worse than this once you factor in selfish-mining strategies):
((1/0.25 - 1) × 0.20)3 = 0.22So where in the above math is the majority ownership of the network which you insinuate?
The Decred community manager pointed out that users MUST stake through pools (else their tokens are effectively debased) with lockup durations of 42 - 142 days, and I replied that delegating to pools is a form of centralized control.
Tangentially, considering that staking (buying tickets) is a fungible, highly competitive activity with no competitive advantage, then the marginal profit from doing so will trend to 0 unless there is some advantage due to economies-of-scale. In any system where the profit is 0, then the participation rate should fall to near 0%. So actually the security of this dogshit is horrendous:
((1/0.10 - 1) × 0.01)3 ≈ 0You are forced to stake in a pool not because of any competitive advantage in mining (the entire thing is just a farce to obscure that whales control everything and extract the maximum that the market will bear), but because they are debasing everyone who doesn't delegate staking to pools. Thus it is just another scheme that forces the float towards 0 to make the price go up by highly disincentivizing trading. So this is Steem's model of locking up tokens. What happens is then you can't sell when the peak is reached (go look at Steem dropping from $4 to $0.10).
So lets keep on analyzing your abuse of charlie lee, the btcsuite developers and everyone involved in decred....
Have you not seen that I have
been pushing hard on buying Litecoin. And I even dropped
a suggestion for Charlie to rename the coin unit of Litecoin to ecoin.
And upthread I stated that I come to understand that Decred is probably a backup plan for Charlie if the Scrypt miners on Litecoin don't activate certain necessary improvements such as SegWit for Lightning Networks.
My commentary seems to be fairly supportive of Charlie, although I must say that he needs to stop shilling dogshit technology because he is causing me to doubt his competence (his respectability will decline if doesn't disown this Decred dogshit).
That would enable you to pull of an attack that will burn your investment, which have to be locked into tickets to pull that attack of
Incorrect. Re-read the quote above of what I had written upthread. And pay attention to the part about shorting your own token.
I mean, thanks, this is a pinky & the brains wet dream at its best! Have fun achieving this you economic genius.
Only those who are too fucking dumb to read and think, agree with your nonsense misinterpretation of the facts.
people don't realise there's a hard cap of 20 tickets per block accepted so it's almost impossible to flood the pool unless the price is very high and then, of course, you run into capital restrictions.
That has nothing to do with why delegating to pools is a form of centralized control.
Man you guy is just a joke on cocaine... thats a impression someone gets of your genius conclusions you get!
Retards do often think that very smart people are talking nonsense, because the smart people communicate on a level that the retards can't assimilate. Thus to the retard such as yourself, the smart person appears to be stupid. This is known as the
Dunning-Kruger effect:
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability as much higher than it really is. Psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive incapacity, on the part of those with low ability, to recognize their ineptitude and evaluate their competence accurately. Their research also suggests corollaries: high-ability individuals may underestimate their relative competence and may erroneously assume that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others.[1]
Dunning and Kruger have postulated that the effect is the result of internal illusion in those of low ability, and external misperception in those of high ability: "The miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others.
