The Lunacy of BTU Supporters

[X7]

A lot are paid off shills, some are miss lead and don't research things for themselves, others are just angry and support those who scream louder than they do.

Ultimately if you are willing to support a centralised idea controlled by 2 individuals who use social engineering and fear to drive their agenda, with bad code. You need to reassess how you see the world.

[1714486671]

1714486671

[1714486671]

1714486671

[franky1]

Ultimately if you are willing to support a centralised idea controlled by 2 individuals who use social engineering and fear to drive their agenda, with bad code. You need to reassess how you see the world.

oh your talking about barry silbert and adam back..

[becoin]

This is not about Bitcoin Core or BU anymore...

It has never been. BU psychopaths just don't care about Bitcoin or BU success, or XT, or Classic, or whatever will come after BU is gone. They only wish Bitcoin Core to be destroyed. Things are really simple. Out of 100 core devs there are couple of devs that feel insulted that they are not among 5 core devs hired by Blockstream. Just imagine what will some people say if Blockstream hired more core devs?

[thejaytiesto]

BUcoin will die and become a marginal coin, but make no mistake, the impact on bitcoin's network effect will be severely damaged after this, which is what state-funded Jihan Wu and Roger Ver want if they aren't stupid enough to naively think Emergent Consensus and so on works.

This is a direct attack into bitcoin. Bitcoin chinese mining centralization was always a problem, we should have never allowed ASICs to happen. The only solution I see now is to change the PoW algo into something else that invalidates Jihan's ridiculous monopoly, but then again, who is to say new ASIC-like technologies will not arise causing the monopoly all over again?

PoS coins aren't safe as well, im not wasting time with those.

[FiendCoin]

Also interesting that you are all so stupid that you don't realize that segwit & LN gives Blockstream complete control of BTC
by allowing them the Power to LOCK every single BTC in place onchain where no onchain transactions could take place for those coins and deny the transactions fee to the miners, ergo forcing them out of business. (Which is a stated Goal of keeping all transactions offline, if you read the LN Whitepaper.)

I'll be honest, I have no clue WTF you're talking about? Lock coins on the main chain so miners can't mine? Can you provide some proof? This sounds ridiculous.

Edit: BTW I'm against BTU for the stated reasons I have made, I don't care about the technicals, I care about the centralization in China. I am neutral towards Segwit, leaning towards being against it too and Core if they can't get their shit together. Honestly, I am against any small group getting control of Bitcoin and centralization anywhere.

[kiklo]

I've researched this extensively.  Nothing at Stake issue is real and a huge problem for any PoS to scale big imo. 

Then we have a disagreement,

Here
PoS nothing at stake is just another lie made up by G.Maxwell to fool the stupid. (He is very good at tricking the below 115 IQs.)
I cover why it is a lie and a non issue for PoS coins
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1709776.msg17135430#msg17135430
and
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1709776.msg17136990#msg17136990

The above were 2 examples of how Gmaxwell Lie was supposed to work and I refuted it in both cases and went into detail why both were wrong.

So you have to explain to me why my analysis was incorrect or show another 3rd example of how the so called nothing at stake works.
Until then , sorry it is just Bullshit,
So after looking at my two links are you thinking it is one of those or do you have a 3rd scenario for me to lay waste to. 

 

FYI:
One irritating thing all of you that believe the noting at stake lie, all reference a different way it works , there is no cohesion in your example.
No cohesion is a standard sign of a falsehood or a false belief.

[bettercrypto]

Not sure if this is an essay or rant 

Now do one on Blockstream supporters lol

Would love to read one for the Blockstream supporters LOL.  Anyway it is obvious that once we support one faction , we believe on its rule and more likely think that it is better and even accept facts give to us.  I think same applies to Blockstream supporters too.  I see no difference between the two LOL.  This is like pot calling the kettle black.

[dinofelis]

That none of you seem to realize,
that ALL PoW coins are SUBJECT to 51% Control by its miners,
Guess none of you ever bothered to read Satochi's WhitePaper on BTC.  

And you think that PoS coins are amazing and flawless? What about "nothing at stake attack"? PoS is essentially flawed by this.
I guess that community/miners might start to regret now, that they ditched SegWit, we could have easy and safe upgrade.
Because of FUD caused by hard fork drama price of bitcoin is crumbling.

PoS nothing at stake is just another lie made up by G.Maxwell to fool the stupid. (He is very good at tricking the below 115 IQs.)
I cover why it is a lie and a non issue for PoS coins
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1709776.msg17135430#msg17135430
and
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1709776.msg17136990#msg17136990

I think you misunderstood the problem of nothing at stake.  It is not a matter of good guy and bad guy.  It is a matter of not reaching agreement on the past (no consensus).

I take your example again:

Joe: 50  Jack: 10  Alice: 10
Jake: 50 coins ; Zoe 50 coins


Jack makes block A and wins 1 coin.

Alice makes block B and also wins 1 coin.

Joe now makes block C (on top of A) and wins 5 coins in that chain ;
Joe also makes block D (on top of B) and wins 5 coins on that chain ;

Jake now makes block E (on top of C) and wins 5 coins on that chain ;
Jake also makes block F (on top of D) and wins 5 coins on that chain ;

Zoe now makes a block G (on top of E) and wins 5 coins ;
Zoe now makes a block H (on top of F) and wins 5 coins ;


....
 

What is now the good chain ?  A C E G or B D F H ?

There's no way to solve the riddle, until, 5000 blocks later, someone liking Jack and hating Alice, (Maybe Jack himself) doesn't add a block on chain 2.

[kiklo]

Also interesting that you are all so stupid that you don't realize that segwit & LN gives Blockstream complete control of BTC
by allowing them the Power to LOCK every single BTC in place onchain where no onchain transactions could take place for those coins and deny the transactions fee to the miners, ergo forcing them out of business. (Which is a stated Goal of keeping all transactions offline, if you read the LN Whitepaper.)

I'll be honest, I have no clue WTF you're talking about? Lock coins on the main chain so miners can't mine? Can you provide some proof? This sounds ridiculous.

Edit: BTW I'm against BTU for the stated reasons I have made, I don't care about the technicals, I care about the centralization in China. I am neutral towards Segwit, leaning towards being against it too and Core if they can't get their shit together. Honestly, I am against any small group getting control of Bitcoin and centralization anywhere.

Read the LN WhitePaper, You have to be able to understand it or you will be forever lost in this discussion.

Here is a link to a short reference on it.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1831643.msg18260156#msg18260156


FYI:
BTC core could have fixed the unconfirmed transaction problem by just increasing blocksize or a faster blockspeed.
Their failure to lead and Blockstream instead trying a hostile takeover over the entire network itself has caused the BTC internal conflict.
(Which BTU is Winning , because they are actually trying to fix BTC without a corrupt takeover of the network itself, that is why the majority of miners are supporting it.)

[Xester]

Your whole write-up is good but there are just things that I would like to comment. The flaw that I have seen was the relation of BTU and core developers to the voters of America. That is quite a troublesome analogy, cryptocurrency is not politics thus its better if we stick to the current bitcoin issue than comparing it to the election mentality of the people. You have made a good point on taking up the bad side of Bitcoin Unlimited but the people behind it are not dumb and they are not the only ones who are trying to make bitcoin centralized but also the core developers. Both parties are doing it and thus nobody is going to let go of their pride and adopt a solution.

The problem is politics have crept into Bitcoin and so has power centralizing in the hands of an elite few. I'm not advocating core but if I had to chose between them I would pick core over BTU any day. Personally, I'd rather see another solution everyone could get behind and the lead Devs not be affiliated with a company that could cause conflicts of interest.

Well in that line of thought choosing core over BTU is also the kind of choice I have to make. Right now it is very clear that BU will be separated to bitcoin and will be creating their own version of bitcoin which is XBU or BTU. The safest thing to do is to stick to the original form of bitcoin and that is with the core developers. Possibly by the coming months we can already witness the separation between BTC and BTU.

[kiklo]

That none of you seem to realize,
that ALL PoW coins are SUBJECT to 51% Control by its miners,
Guess none of you ever bothered to read Satochi's WhitePaper on BTC.  

And you think that PoS coins are amazing and flawless? What about "nothing at stake attack"? PoS is essentially flawed by this.
I guess that community/miners might start to regret now, that they ditched SegWit, we could have easy and safe upgrade.
Because of FUD caused by hard fork drama price of bitcoin is crumbling.

PoS nothing at stake is just another lie made up by G.Maxwell to fool the stupid. (He is very good at tricking the below 115 IQs.)
I cover why it is a lie and a non issue for PoS coins
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1709776.msg17135430#msg17135430
and
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1709776.msg17136990#msg17136990

I think you misunderstood the problem of nothing at stake.  It is not a matter of good guy and bad guy.  It is a matter of not reaching agreement on the past (no consensus).

I take your example again:

Joe: 50  Jack: 10  Alice: 10
Jake: 50 coins ; Zoe 50 coins


Jack makes block A and wins 1 coin.

Alice makes block B and also wins 1 coin.

Joe now makes block C (on top of A) and wins 5 coins in that chain ;
Joe also makes block D (on top of B) and wins 5 coins on that chain ;

Jake now makes block E (on top of C) and wins 5 coins on that chain ;
Jake also makes block F (on top of D) and wins 5 coins on that chain ;

Zoe now makes a block G (on top of E) and wins 5 coins ;
Zoe now makes a block H (on top of F) and wins 5 coins ;


....
 

What is now the good chain ?  A C E G or B D F H ?

There's no way to solve the riddle, until, 5000 blocks later, someone liking Jack and hating Alice, (Maybe Jack himself) doesn't add a block on chain 2.

Joe: 50  Jack: 10  Alice: 10
Jake: 50 coins ; Zoe 50 coins

Jack [10] block A  wins 1 coin  
Joe  [50] block C  wins 5 coin
Jake [50] block E  wins 5 coin
Zoe  [50] block G wins 5 coins

Alice [10] block B  wins 1 coin.
Joe   [50]  block D  wins 5 coin
Jake [50]  block F  wins 5 coin
Zoe  [50]  block H wins 5 coins


Ok, I now know which example you believe.
You believe this one : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1709776.msg17135430#msg17135430

1. You are assuming that almost every user is mining on multiple chains at the exact same time , so that there is an endless chain conflict.
    1st reason that is a lie:  Standard PoS wallets don't Multi-stake, you would have to code one yourself from scratch.
 
2.  Just to play devil's advocate, let's say this Multistake PoS Wallet does exist  
     By playing both sides of a chain, all you do is Negate your Staking Power!
     Lets say one Honest Guy [1] stakes Block I on Alice's chain , he determines the longest chain and it is him and him alone that determines the chain path.
     (This example assumes the impossible that Alice & Jack's Blocks were the exact same coin age & coin amount per block.)
        
3.  It is apparent the people that spread this nothing at stake myth, don't use PoS coins.
     Because if you did you would recognize , that even if the exact same amounts were in each block,
     The amounts are not the only factor , Time /Coin Age is a Factor, meaning if Jack's Block of coins was 10 seconds older than Alice, then Jack's Chain would have
     the higher CoinAge/Weight and be the chosen chain.  
     Matching Amounts are easy to have , Matching Coin Age , matching down to the microsecond , let's just say that is Damn Impossible on a Consistent Basis,
     you have an easier time wining the lottery every week.
     So whichever honest user has the oldest created block will be the winner and that chain of blocks chosen.  


Questions or does that explain another one of G.Maxwell's Lies.  

     

[dinofelis]

Joe: 50  Jack: 10  Alice: 10
Jake: 50 coins ; Zoe 50 coins

Jack [10] block A  wins 1 coin  
Joe  [50] block C  wins 5 coin
Jake [50] block E  wins 5 coin
Zoe  [50] block G wins 5 coins

Alice [10] block B  wins 1 coin.
Joe   [50]  block D  wins 5 coin
Jake [50]  block F  wins 5 coin
Zoe  [50]  block H wins 5 coins


Ok, I now know which example you believe.
You believe this one : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1709776.msg17135430#msg17135430

Yes, of course.  What's wrong with it ?

1. You are assuming that every user is mining on multiple chains at the exact same time , so that there is an endless chain conflict.
    1st reason that is a lie:  Standard PoS wallets don't Multi-stake, you would have to code one your self.

The behaviour of a piece of software will of course not stop anyone from using another piece of software if that is more advantageous to him.  Otherwise, there wouldn't be any consensus problem at all: "just use the right software" is not a trustless decentralized consensus mechanism.  

The reason why everybody HAS to stake on every chain it can, is that as long as both chains are in competition, you don't know which one will win, so the optimal strategy is to stake on both, to win with 100% certainty.  With PoW, this costs money, you can't, and you are betting on one or the other one (or dividing your influence).  But with PoS, you stake everywhere you can stake, of course.
 

2.  Just to play devil's advocate, let's say this Multistake PoS does exist  
     By playing both sides of a chain, all you do is Negate your Staking Power!
     Lets say one Honest Guy [1] stakes Block I on Alice's chain , he determines the longest chain and it is him and him alone that determines the chain path.

Why would he forego his staking reward if ever it is the other chain that wins ?  If he receives both chains, why prefer one over the other ?  
  

     
3.  It is apparent the people that spread this nothing at stake myth, don't use PoS coins.
     Because if you did you would recognize , that even if the exact same amounts were  in each block,
     The amounts are not the only factor , Time /Coin Age is a Factor, meaning if Jack's Block of coins was 10 seconds older than Alice, then Jack's Chain would have
     the higher difficulty and be the chosen chain.  

What is 10 seconds more for Joe can be 10 seconds less for Jack, because of network propagation delays.  Even if they are "honest". Joe has to take into account that his preferred chain may lose against Jack's if it is propagated faster.

You see, it is not a matter of honesty.  It is a matter of not being able to reach consensus, because there are two equally valid histories, and you are now saying that their priority depends on the speed at which they propagate.  But that is not the same for all paths through a P2P network.  So the chain that is "winning" for you, is maybe losing for another part of the network *and there is locally no way to know who will win*.

[kiklo]

Ok, I now know which example you believe.
You believe this one : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1709776.msg17135430#msg17135430

Yes, of course.  What's wrong with it ?

There is more than one nothing at stake lie, which proves you did not even bother to read the 2 links, I placed.

1. You are assuming that every user is mining on multiple chains at the exact same time , so that there is an endless chain conflict.
    1st reason that is a lie:  Standard PoS wallets don't Multi-stake, you would have to code one your self.

The behaviour of a piece of software will of course not stop anyone from using another piece of software if that is more advantageous to him.  Otherwise, there wouldn't be any consensus problem at all: "just use the right software" is not a trustless decentralized consensus mechanism.  

The reason why everybody HAS to stake on every chain it can, is that as long as both chains are in competition, you don't know which one will win, so the optimal strategy is to stake on both, to win with 100% certainty.  With PoW, this costs money, you can't, and you are betting on one or the other one (or dividing your influence).  But with PoS, you stake everywhere you can stake, of course.

If your block was strong enough to stake on both forks, it would have been included in the longest chain, not waiting for someone with barely any coins to determine it.
It is just stupid because IT NEGATES YOUR STAKING POWER TO DETERMINE THE LONGEST CHAIN!
And running a Multistaking wallet will increase the memory & CPU requirements and energy needed.
Exactly how much , no one can answer , because no one has written one to my knowledge, because it is a waste of time.
Smarter move is to increase the # of coins as that directly translates into your ability to be included.

 

2.  Just to play devil's advocate, let's say this Multistake PoS does exist  
     By playing both sides of a chain, all you do is Negate your Staking Power!
     Lets say one Honest Guy [1] stakes Block I on Alice's chain , he determines the longest chain and it is him and him alone that determines the chain path.

Why would he forego his staking reward if ever it is the other chain that wins ?  If he receives both chains, why prefer one over the other ?  

I suggest you pick a PoS coin at least 3 years old and attempt to write a Multistaking wallet,
so you can learn 1st hand you are wasting your time.
Also when you are done , you can post the differences in hardware resources used verses a single wallet version.
Multistaker will require more resources, depending on the ram & cpu requirements.
But what you will find out at the end of the month is the single chain client makes just as much money as the multistaker while requiring less resources.
Also is your Multistaker going to be able to run on 2 forks or 4 forks or 8 forks at the same time.
Looking forward to watching you attempt it. 


  

     
3.  It is apparent the people that spread this nothing at stake myth, don't use PoS coins.
     Because if you did you would recognize , that even if the exact same amounts were  in each block,
     The amounts are not the only factor , Time /Coin Age is a Factor, meaning if Jack's Block of coins was 10 seconds older than Alice, then Jack's Chain would have
     the higher difficulty and be the chosen chain.  

What is 10 seconds more for Joe can be 10 seconds less for Jack, because of network propagation delays.  Even if they are "honest". Joe has to take into account that his preferred chain may lose against Jack's if it is propagated faster.

You see, it is not a matter of honesty.  It is a matter of not being able to reach consensus, because there are two equally valid histories, and you are now saying that their priority depends on the speed at which they propagate.  But that is not the same for all paths through a P2P network.  So the chain that is "winning" for you, is maybe losing for another part of the network *and there is locally no way to know who will win*.

The Block is Chosen by the CoinAGE not the amount of coins.
[Coin-age] = [amount of coins] x [days in stake]   

The Nothing at Stake Lie Completely Ignores this FACT!
Just because two users have the same amount of coins per block, does not mean the CoinAge will Match.
The CoinAge Factor is excluded because it destroys the LIE.

   

 

[dinofelis]

If your block was strong enough to stake on both forks, it would have been included in the longest chain, not waiting for someone with barely any coins to determine it.

I honestly don't understand what this means.  There are different PoS mechanisms, but I was thinking of just any mechanism where "randomly" someone can stake, and nobody else, and that the probability of it to be you, is proportional to your stake ; I don't want to go into details of how this is done (there are different ways).  The idea was simply that at this point in chain and time, it was Joe's turn to stake.  And then Jack's turn to stake.  And then....

It is just stupid because IT NEGATES YOUR STAKING POWER TO DETERMINE THE LONGEST CHAIN!

But you don't care about that "power to decide".  You only care about reaping in the reward.  We were thinking about otherwise "honest" stakers, that do not want to double spend or anything.  Just reap in staking rewards (minting).  You mint wherever you can, because that's why you are staking in the first place.  Not to impose any decision you don't care about.

And running a Multistaking wallet will increase the memory & CPU requirements and energy needed.

This very very small "proof of work" doesn't compensate the possible loss of a minting reward if ever your chain doesn't win because of propagation delays in the network, or because of an orphaning 5000 blocks from now.

I suggest you pick a PoS coin at least 3 years old and attempt to write a Multistaking wallet,
so you can learn 1st hand you are wasting your time.
Also when you are done , you can post the differences in hardware resources used verses a single wallet version.
Multistaker will require more resources, depending on the ram & cpu requirements.

So your PoS is in fact PoW ?

But what you will find out at the end of the month is the single chain client makes just as much money as the multistaker while requiring less resources.

If nobody is multistaking then 1) you cannot know and 2) then the consensus is just imposed by randomness (which is good), but you are not protected against multistaking.  That's the point.  As long as people only run official "random selection" staking algorithms, indeed, PoS will find a consensus.  But it is vulnerable to multistaking and having no possibility to come to consensus.  It's most probably because PoS is only used on rather small chains with not much at stake, that nobody has been implementing multi stake algorithms.

Also is your Multistaker going to be able to run on 2 forks or 4 forks or 8 forks at the same time.
Looking forward to watching you attempt it. 

Of course, that is exactly the divergence of consensus that is the "nothing at stake" problem.  If, however, people are so gentle as to adhere all to a random selection algorithm and not multistake, then by definition, this divergence cannot happen.  That is similar to saying that if nobody is attempting a 51% attack on a PoW system, then the chain is secure with PoW.

The Block is Chosen by the CoinAGE not the amount of coins.
[Coin-age] = [amount of coins] x [days in stake]   

Huh ?  But what if you have 2 identical blocks, where only one single transaction is different:
Block A: Mary has spend 10 coins that are 517 blocks old to Joe
Block B: Mary has spend the same 10 coins that are 571 blocks old to, Janice.

Block A and block B are identical except for this double spend.  (this is the ONLY case where consensus is necessary).

Now, Alice receives block A at 12:00:02 and mints block C on top of it.  However, it only gets to Joe at 12:01:00, but gets it at Jake at 12:00:30.
Alice receives block B at 12:00:08.

Bob receives block A at 12:00:09, but received block B at 12:00:05, and mints an IDENTICAL BLOCK D = C on top of it.  Bob gets it at Jake at 12:00:45 and at Joe at 12:00:45.

So now Jake receives Alice's chain before Bob's and Joe receives Bob's chain before Alice's.

So Jake will build block E identical to block F on top of Alice's chain
Joe will build block F identical on top of Bob's chain.

Everybody is honest here.  But at the end of the day, after I don't know how many identical blocks containing identical transactions, there will be a difference, orphaning one of both.  As long as all stakers include all the transactions in the common mem pool, their blocks are identical according to your criterium, and the double spend by Mary is not resolved by consensus on both prongs.

Just because two users have the same amount of coins per block, does not mean the CoinAge will Match.
The CoinAge Factor is excluded because it destroys the LIE.

If the transactions are identical, yes.  And you stake for sake of the minting, not because you want to decide something.

[kiklo]

If your block was strong enough to stake on both forks, it would have been included in the longest chain, not waiting for someone with barely any coins to determine it.

I honestly don't understand what this means.  There are different PoS mechanisms, but I was thinking of just any mechanism where "randomly" someone can stake, and nobody else, and that the probability of it to be you, is proportional to your stake ; I don't want to go into details of how this is done (there are different ways).  The idea was simply that at this point in chain and time, it was Joe's turn to stake.  And then Jack's turn to stake.  And then....

If you look at the example, you used.
The coinage was strong enough that the blocks were included in both forks at the ~ same time, if the users say ZOE, had only staked on one chain,
she would have determined the longest chain. Not been waiting for someone else to come along and determine it.
PoS staking is not random , at least not ZEIT, it is determined by the mathematical calculations of a coin age.
Age of a Block is in flux , the more it ages the Stronger it becomes.
So you can have a block with 10 coins that is 20 days old, has a coin age of 200
and another block with 190 coins that is only 1 day old, with a coin age of 190
The Block with only 10 coins will stake before the block of 190 coins, because it have a higher coin age.
Whenever a block stakes , it resets the time to 0 and starts over.

It is just stupid because IT NEGATES YOUR STAKING POWER TO DETERMINE THE LONGEST CHAIN!

But you don't care about that "power to decide".  You only care about reaping in the reward.  We were thinking about otherwise "honest" stakers, that do not want to double spend or anything.  Just reap in staking rewards (minting).  You mint wherever you can, because that's why you are staking in the first place.  Not to impose any decision you don't care about.

Your block was strong enough to stake on both forks, you would get the exact same reward if you only stake on only one fork, because you actually made one fork stronger than the other. Because 1 fork will be canceled out.

And running a Multistaking wallet will increase the memory & CPU requirements and energy needed.

This very very small "proof of work" doesn't compensate the possible loss of a minting reward if ever your chain doesn't win because of propagation delays in the network, or because of an orphaning 5000 blocks from now.

Minting reward based on % automatically compensates you for any difference in time.
Meaning if you take longer to stake, your stake amount will be a little higher.
(This is only not true for fixed rate rewards.)

I suggest you pick a PoS coin at least 3 years old and attempt to write a Multistaking wallet,
so you can learn 1st hand you are wasting your time.
Also when you are done , you can post the differences in hardware resources used verses a single wallet version.
Multistaker will require more resources, depending on the ram & cpu requirements.

So your PoS is in fact PoW ?

What I am saying to you is PoS coins do have growing hardware requirements over time.
This gets ignored, but many coins over 3 years old require 2 gig or more of ram just for the client running only 1 mempool, and they use CPU % for every block they are trying to stake. So if you multiply the number of forks you multiply the mempools and Blocks and maybe even the blockchain data you have to keep active, this may be a multiple of the # of forks you are running. So 2 forks double your requirements and 3 forks could triple. Unknown as no one has written one yet how much memory or cpu consolidation is possible if any.
Example: One guy was trying to run just 3 Different PoS coins in 1 app, all a few years old, the memory requirements were such a problem, he never even released it.
So just because a $10,000 asics is not needed, does not mean more resources will not be required.

But what you will find out at the end of the month is the single chain client makes just as much money as the multistaker while requiring less resources.

If nobody is multistaking then 1) you cannot know and 2) then the consensus is just imposed by randomness (which is good), but you are not protected against multistaking.  That's the point.  As long as people only run official "random selection" staking algorithms, indeed, PoS will find a consensus.  But it is vulnerable to multistaking and having no possibility to come to consensus.  It's most probably because PoS is only used on rather small chains with not much at stake, that nobody has been implementing multi stake algorithms.

Staking is not a Random Act, it is based on a Mathematical Formula for CoinAge.
Number of coins and Age of coins in the block matter more than anything else.

The Block is Chosen by the CoinAGE not the amount of coins.
[Coin-age] = [amount of coins] x [days in stake]   

Huh ?  But what if you have 2 identical blocks, where only one single transaction is different:
Block A: Mary has spend 10 coins that are 517 blocks old to Joe
Block B: Mary has spend the same 10 coins that are 571 blocks old to, Janice.

I already answered that type of scenario ,
Here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1709776.msg17136990#msg17136990

Just because two users have the same amount of coins per block, does not mean the CoinAge will Match.
The CoinAge Factor is excluded because it destroys the LIE.

If the transactions are identical, yes.  And you stake for sake of the minting, not because you want to decide something.

Dino, PoS coins have a blockspeed that adjusts the difficulty to maintain only 1 block at a certain time interval.
I suggest you watch some of the PoS coin Block Explorers, if you want personal confirmation.
Achieving the same coinage with the exact same amount of coins is pretty impossible , because the odds of staking 2 blocks with the same amount of coins at the exact same time is immense.
And if they do , odds are 1 will orphan, (the younger one).

 

[dinofelis]

I already answered that type of scenario ,
Here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1709776.msg17136990#msg17136990

But that is entirely wrong !
The "bad guy" can most of the time not stake directly (it is not his turn to stake).  So this "third block only on the second chain by the bad buy" can come maybe only 500 blocks later, when both chains have been accumulating identical blocks for all this time.

I don't see why you think it is impossible.  Each staker will empty the (identical) mem pool in his block he is staking.  And especially when there is multistaking, all transactions will end up in both chains, and hence add identical amounts of coin-lost-days in both prongs.  Yes, sometimes one will be in advance to the other, but within an error margin that multistakers are not going to waste, because somewhere else on the network, a stronger chain may be propagating that they didn't receive yet.

[kiklo]

I already answered that type of scenario ,
Here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1709776.msg17136990#msg17136990

But that is entirely wrong !
The "bad guy" can most of the time not stake directly (it is not his turn to stake).  So this "third block only on the second chain by the bad buy" can come maybe only 500 blocks later, when both chains have been accumulating identical blocks for all this time.

I don't see why you think it is impossible.  Each staker will empty the (identical) mem pool in his block he is staking.  And especially when there is multistaking, all transactions will end up in both chains, and hence add identical amounts of coin-lost-days in both prongs.  Yes, sometimes one will be in advance to the other, but within an error margin that multistakers are not going to waste, because somewhere else on the network, a stronger chain may be propagating that they didn't receive yet.

Dino, 
You really don't know what you are talking about.
If I hold a block with a very large amount of coins and let it reach an extremely high coin age, I can pretty much stake that block whenever I feel like it.
Because the staking process is not Random, like you think it is. (But by Doing so I lose compound interest.)

Multistakers are not going to have the advantages you think they are,
They are going to tie up more Memory & CPU & more bandwidth trying to game the system, for exactly the same reward if they had just used a standard client.
The Nothing at Stake Lie, is really quite pathetic.

If someone tried a double spend if a person waits the required confirmations, they will know their transaction was not included, so that is a non issue.
This holds true for PoS or PoW
Longest chain with the most difficulty wins , just wait the recommend # of confirmations and all zero confirmation attacks fail.


 

[JanpriX]

This topic has been brought up every day and from the information that I gathered and read, both parties are not ready to make any compromise and they just wanted to drag this issue to who knows when. With the way that they are acting right now, they are not providing any solution at all. They are just making things worse. I also can't believe that BTU are trying to make BTC centralized while badmouthing the core dev team.

[jonald_fyookball]

I already answered that type of scenario ,
Here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1709776.msg17136990#msg17136990

But that is entirely wrong !
The "bad guy" can most of the time not stake directly (it is not his turn to stake).  So this "third block only on the second chain by the bad buy" can come maybe only 500 blocks later, when both chains have been accumulating identical blocks for all this time.

I don't see why you think it is impossible.  Each staker will empty the (identical) mem pool in his block he is staking.  And especially when there is multistaking, all transactions will end up in both chains, and hence add identical amounts of coin-lost-days in both prongs.  Yes, sometimes one will be in advance to the other, but within an error margin that multistakers are not going to waste, because somewhere else on the network, a stronger chain may be propagating that they didn't receive yet.

Dino, 
You really don't know what you are talking about.
If I hold a block with a very large amount of coins and let it reach an extremely high coin age, I can pretty much stake that block whenever I feel like it.
Because the staking process is not Random, like you think it is. (But by Doing so I lose compound interest.)

Multistakers are not going to have the advantages you think they are,
They are going to tie up more Memory & CPU & more bandwidth trying to game the system, for exactly the same reward if they had just used a standard client.
The Nothing at Stake Lie, is really quite pathetic.

If someone tried a double spend if a person waits the required confirmations, they will know their transaction was not included, so that is a non issue.
This holds true for PoS or PoW
Longest chain with the most difficulty wins , just wait the recommend # of confirmations and all zero confirmation attacks fail.


 

I debated many people a few years ago about PoS and NaS. 

NaS never been solved, sorry.  In practical terms might be hard to execute but theoretically a risk.

[kiklo]

I debated many people a few years ago about PoS and NaS.  

NaS never been solved, sorry.  In practical terms might be hard to execute but theoretically a risk.

You never Debated me,  there is nothing to solve.
Here are my responses again,
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1709776.msg17135430#msg17135430
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1709776.msg17136990#msg17136990

In theory a black hole might appear in your living room, I doubt that keeps you from using your living room.  



 


FYI:
The fact is if someone pissed off the combined 67% of Chinese Mining Pools,
they could 51% attack the BTC chain all day, and that is not theory, but the reality we live in.