I appreciate a lot of the commentary and I would not try to contradict anything necessarily but the discussion is about technical merit. XEM is the first altcoin I have ever taken really seriously as a possible major technical advancement.
There’s no technological advancement in terms of the PoI aspect at least. NEM’s PoI is obscured PoS.
I am still learning about it, but I am suprised there has not been more discussion of it on this thread.
I acknowledge you were humble in your post. You’re aware that you are still learning and have a lot to learn. If you study this stuff full time for 4 years as I did, you still will not know everything.
The subtle factors on understanding deeply all the issues is well beyond the capabilities and effort expended by most everyone.
n00bs need someone to explain these issues in great detail and with care to explain them in a way laymen can understand. That is an enormous undertaking. I try to do it, but get only
shit tested for doing so.
Theymos has a computer science background, but I'm presuming with high confidence that he simply does not delve into these technological issues on a full time basis. Also apparently he is only in his mid-20s, so he lacks the body of experience and knowledge that someone who has been doing computer science for 38 years has.
As I understand it, the founder admitted to using the sock puppet accounts and resigned, but I don't believe that there were thousands of them.
You have no proof. It is only your belief based on what you want to believe, because you really want to believe it is good. Based on what economic and technological fundamentals which refute the facts that have been presented?
They refused to use Facebook verification and other methods suggested to them. Why would they refuse if they wanted their coin to have some degree of trust in the distribution. Because they know fools will simply believe because the
witless want to fall in the woodchipper.
Being technically superior to Bitcoin does not guarantee adoption. But neither does centralization automatically negate technical merit.
Son you need to go to school and learn logic. The first sentence has nothing logically to do with the second. And the second sentence is not a cogent rebuttal to the mathematics and economics I have presented.
However the POI has interesting implications when considered from an economic perspective. It acta as an incentive to increase the velocity (to borrow from monetary theory terminology) or the speed at which the currency is transacted. The best way to earn XEM through harvesting is to provide a service that sees high levels of circulation.
And pay the transaction fees to yourself, because you’re the oligarchy.Thus PoI is just obfuscated PoS.
It seems though that you have invested a lot of time into refuting PoS as a viable alternative to PoW, and I don't disagree that the same shortcomings could apply to PoI. However, to keep importance high requires consistently transacting with accounts that one does not control ones self. Ultimately, this would seem to result in a net loss if one is not providing real utility to the network.
Technically incorrect. The oligarchy controls the longest-chain (else PoS doesn’t function) and thus they can pay themselves all the transactions fees which they spend from their Sybil accounts. Thus their importance is high and free to them because there is nothing-at-stake.
Note
section 7.6.1 Sybil Attack of the NEM white paper is not dealing with the case that the oligarchy spends the transaction fees to itself and is also in control of the longest chain. Their analysis is concerned with splitting accounts to fool the page rank algorithm, which is not necessary for what I am explaining.
Also the
section 7.7 Nothing-at-Stake Problem is referring to longer range attacks, which is not the issue I am explaining below.
What blockchain based forum are you referring to?
Steemit.com
IOTA can prove it doesn’t work at any time by removing the centralized servers known as the Coordinator which is otherwise enforcing the convergence of the chain.
Exactly, that's the problem. With Byteball there is a similar problem - it seems not to work without trusted "witnesses". However, there is no proof that it
doesn't work, so I give it a minimal chance.
You’re apparently not fully knowledgeable about the technology so please stop spreading incorrect information.
The witnesses of Byteball don’t have to be trusted. They can’t corrupt anything. Properly learn how stability points work. Every majority of witness actions form a quorum and identify a new stability point which advances the total ordering to include recent transactions. Nobody should trust any new spend until it is confirmed by a stability point. There is no way to undo a stability point. The only harm the witnesses can do is if 50% (or I argue it must be 67% for correct security, thus if 33%) stop responding, then the chain is stuck and stability points do not move forward. Byteball added Byzantine agreement on top of a DAG, which is clever but Byzantine agreement although 100% final suffers from liveness failure risk (per the unavoidable tradeoffs in the fundamental FLP theorem). But Byteball has other serious flaws, which are enumerated in my
shocking document.
It is entirely illogical to argue that the onus is on us to prove that IOTA will work if they will remove the Coordinator and let it run decentralized.
The onus is on IOTA to stop running a centralized cryptocurrency, because centralized is absolutely meaningless for us.
And I guarantee you it will blow up if they remove the Coordinator, unless they can earn enough money from the scam to dominate the transactions with a centralized Sybil attack in order to force a longest-chain using only their oligarchy controlled transactions. Again this will just be another oligarchy in control.
@Traxo is sleeping. Mods leave @Traxo out of this, he is a real person who is not me. He is Europe and I am in Asia. He is just trying to help the readers understand, but really I’m telling him to just let BCT remain ignorant. So I will sacrifice this BCT account. I can come back any time I want, but it doesn’t mean I want to come back to this shit hole forum where snobbish idiots think they (or Blockstream idiots) know it all. Academics
such as this one don’t usually produce correct results!
Traxo, I know the Nothing at Stake problem and that PoS is not "objective" in the sense that there is, at every moment, a "longest chain" that all participants can identify. What you quoted from your chat is basically what Andrew Poelstra wrote in his well known essay: "
On Stake and Consensus" (page 9 and 10, if you want to re-read it).
I have read it, cited it and Vitalik’s blogs numerous times. And you are still not understanding.
Even Poelstra does not object that:
However, proponents argue that since for an honestly-created history, long stretches of blocktime correspond to long stretches of real time, any revision of so much history is sure to contradict the history as remembered by participants in the system. Thus such an attack would be detected, recognized as an attack…
rejected.
"Coordination" is only necessary to avoid new nodes (or some that have been offline for a long time) being lured into an attack chain. That is done normally by frequent hard-coded checkpoints in every new minor version that don't differ from Bitcoin's checkpoints included in the Bitcoin versions.
You’re referring to longer range nothing-at-stake attacks. Whereas, I’m referring you to the fact that in the short-term there is no objectivity either. It has nothing to do with the fact that offline clients coming online have no objectivity. Rather the point that is being made to you is that even clients which are online have no objectivity, because all of the near-term (even a chain of a single block divergent) forks are potentially valid. And there is nothing burned thus there is no penalty cost to force a winning chain to emerge naturally via random action. The only mathematical way a longest chain converges is if one coordinated group of stake which has more stake than any other group (i.e. an oligarchy), coordinates on which chain it will forge on. Coordination requires trust. Coordination is what PoW purports to solve in a trustless manner. Coordination that has control is the definition an oligarchy. Lack of coordination in PoS is divergent. Thus PoS accomplishes nothing that isn’t attainable with centralization of control, other than obfuscating this fact from witless n00bs.
Andrew Poelstra
failed to note that penalizing for signing multiple histories doesn’t resolve the power vacuum that no unique near-term history is distinguished from all the others in the absence of coordination and thus definitionally an oligarchy:
This scarcity may be recoverable by punishing stakeholders who sign multiple histories. For example, if they use Schnorr or ECDSA signatures and are constrained to a specific choice of nonce, they must sign two messages with the same (key, nonce) pair in order to sign multiple histories, and this allows anyone to algebraically solve for their private key.
Also if you refer back to the quote of my document which @Traxo provided, research published in 2016 modelled and simulated that the game theory (incentives incompatibility) of that all block rewards come from transaction fees requires it must be an oligarchy, same as for PoW when the inflationary block reward declines. My document explains this is more detail in the part that wasn’t quoted for you.
I’m teaching you. Or if everyone prefers irrationality here, then so be it.
This forum is a centralized shit hole and all the cryptocurrencies are also.
Edit: even if you (incoherently and incorrectly) think that
for example as `t` increases that a single, unique forger will be identified first, it couldn‘t be objectively proven that forger propagated soon enough. Asynchronous networks are the necessarily presumption of the fundamental FLP impossibility theorem which Andrew Poelstra even pointed out in his
section 3.4 No Universal Time (the FLP impossibility theorem which btw even Andrew Poelstra originally neglected and was pointed out to him as he noted in a footnote
on page 1).
The "shocking document" you cite is much more superficial than Poelstra's and Buterin's documents (and the linked Bitfury document, which is also mostly correct) and completely ignores "altruism-prime", which in my opinion is the most important mechanism why PoS works: because for honest stakers it's more important to keep the value of the coin (in simple terms, "forks are bearish") than to win a bit more transaction fees or block rewards by minting on multiple chains.
My “shocking document” refers to “altruistic prime” more than once and cites Vitalik. But you seem to not understand that Vitalik’s argument is that altruistic prime is an undersupplied good, meaning that defection is the Schelling point. Re-read Vitalik’s blog more carefully. Or read the shocking document as it is also explains this. Here again you assert yet another claim (about superficiality) without any proof. My document is substantial and detailed. You can say anything you want, but words must have meaning in order for anyone who is not a fool (which unfortunately is most people) to take you seriously. The fools always end up in the same crab bucket together drowning each other.
Moreover, you are entirely missing the point. Unlike in PoW, the stakers (aka forgers) for all their “altruistic prime” good intentions can’t mathematically
autonomously choose which of the forged chain possibilities is the coordinated one without coordination.
Really son, you haven’t thought this out well, yet you adamantly inject condescending remarks about the superficiality of your teacher. I was trying to be respectful of you, but are you being sufficiently humble and wary of your mistakes?
In some currencies like in NXT, a concept named "TaPoS" or "Economic Clustering" is used, that allows a new user to rapidly check if his node is on the same chain than his friends or his service providers (exchanges etc.).
Transactions as Proof-of-Stake (TaPoS) isn’t a solution to this near-term forking divergence issue. “Economic Clustering” if coordinated is a coordinate oligarchy. If uncoordinated, then it doesn’t address the near-term issue. It is true that TaPoS is effective against the longer range reorganization attacks, but that is not the issue I’m teaching about.
The superficial nature of the "shocking document" can be proven that they have not only repeated the 73 founder myth of Nxt without some kind of comment…
The economics and mathematical facts have been explained to you that PoS does not function without an oligarchy. If you want to remain in denial, that is your problem.
…but also are citing an instamined Proof of Work currency (Steem) that uses no proof of stake at all!
You’re mistaken yet again because Steem is
delegated PoS.
Sneaky insta- or quickly mined PoW as my document stated. And
delegated PoS as the ongoing consensus algorithm as my document stated. My document also explains why DPoS is always an oligarchy.
You’re all mistakes with hubris. Typical BCT slobbering. Don’t worry, @mprep will come to your rescue, so that all you fools can continue to slobber on each other and feel good about your circle-jerk.
What is your proof it is a myth?
I've followed the ICO in 2013 and even invested a few satoshis there. Those that participated all were given their "stake".
I can't prove that "BCNext" didn't participate, but my point is that from these 73 founders, a lot were respected forum members. Maybe 10 or 20 could have been collaborators of BCNext and CfB and/or sockpuppets, but that is not the point I wanted to make.
You have proven nothing. You have not made any cogent rebuttal to the fact that the economic power vacuum insures that the insiders will take most of the stake. You have made no cogent rebuttal to the mathematical fact that PoS must be coordinated by an oligarchy else it diverges away from consensus. So if a PoS is functioning, we know it is an oligarchy.
CoinoUSD is an IOU like Tether, while NuBits is/was (it still exists but is totally irrelevant) a totally flawed model. I was talking about BitUSD.
You’re apparently incapable of analyzing how BitUSD and SBD suffer the same analogous flaws as NuBits at the generative essence level of analysis. This requires a level of IQ for abstraction which you may not have. There are
hints here.
If you want to get spanked, come debate BitUSD and SBD with me where I am where everything is saved on a blockchain and nothing can be censored. You know damn well I am banned/censored from this forum. You’ll never get accurate information when I am not here.
Or simply ignore me, until you can’t ignore me anymore because I win. Because I’m correct, and Blockstream and all of you are incorrect. Because I analyse this stuff deeply. Much more deeply than any of you or they do.
Of course this post and the entire thread is archived. Censor the facts as you wish on your BCT circle-jerk.
Readers be advised that I will not likely be allowed to continue to reply. So nonsense will follow this post. Besides I have work to do and do not have time for this.
