NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[bithic]

Based on some of the comments in the past few pages, I'm reposting my PoS economy vs. PoW economy example. I hope this shows that the Nxt PoS forging system is as fair as it can be in a free economy, and is a big improvement over the Bitcoin PoW mining model. Wealth will always give you some advantages in any free economy, but at least in Nxt, these advantages don't come at the expense of the poor.
Pandaisftw also made some great points above regarding rich vs. poor in Nxt and Bitcoin.

"...

It seems to me that the distribution of wealth in a bitcoin economy can be altered much more easily in comparison to a 100% PoS coin economy simply because of the fact that spent coins do not somehow reappear in the wallet of the spender just because he happens to own a lot of coins.

..."

From a discussion in my FB page (I quote the other guy).
What are your thoughts?

Here's my take on it klee, complete with example economies.

That guy has some good thoughts, but he doesn't consider the fact that with PoW, due to economies-of-scale, it will always be easier for the rich to secure an increasingly greater percentage of the profit from mining. For example, the average joe will have to spend top dollar to buy one miner, but someone (or government/corporation) who has a lot of money can either buy them en-mass and receive a huge discount, or manufacture them directly at an even larger discount. This means that the little guy's slice of the PoW pie will get increasingly smaller because it will always cost him more to maintain his hash rate, while the rich who are already making a much higher ROI will always be able to maintain their advantage at a discounted cost.

In PoS the ROI is the same regardless of how much money you have. As a simple example, suppose we have a PoS network of 100 people, and they all have their accounts open for forging 100% of the time. The richest person has 5% of the total wealth, the poorest person has 0.01% of the total wealth, and everyone else has something in between. For simplicity's sake, let's assume this is a closed system and no new wealth enters the economy. Let's also assume the the richest person decides to be a "parasite to society and offer NOTHING back", i.e. he just sits on his 5% and collects fees from forging. Now, the poorest person doesn't have this option, so he decides to be industrious and starts a business that provides him a moderate amount of income that allows him to earn more than his cost of living/doing business. After one year in this economy the poorest person will still have no less than 0.01% of the total wealth thanks to the interest he earned on forging, and will in fact have gained extra wealth thanks to his successful business. Let's say he now owns 0.02% of the total wealth. Now let's look at the richest person. After one year of doing nothing except collect transaction fees from forging, he earns no more than 5% of the total interest from forging thanks to the way PoS forging works. However, he had living expenses, so we must subtract these from his earnings. Let's say he was wise and didn't exceed the amount that he earned from forging; however, when you subtract his expenses from his forging profits, his net income for the year is obviously less than 5% of all interest earned from forging that year. Since everyone else was also forging 100% of the time, this means his wealth has grown at a slower rate than even the person who earns just enough from his job to pay for his living expenses. Suppose this continues unchanged for the next 10 years. Each year the parasitic rich person's wealth grows at a slower rate than the basic forging interest rate, and each year the poorest person is able to increase his wealth at a greater than basic forging interest rate, thanks to his savings. This is just a little scenario to illustrate that in PoS, while the rich may be able to sustain their lifestyle by doing nothing but forge, their wealth will grow at a slower rate than anyone who has a job that can support their living expenses, so long as everyone is forging. Forging is a trivial task, so there is no reason why everyone shouldn't be able to forge. Who is rewarded the most in a PoS system? The industrious, just like in every other healthy economy.

Now let's take a look at a simple PoW economy. Again, let's suppose this is a network of 100 people, the richest person has 5% of the wealth and the poorest person has 0.01% of the wealth, and no new wealth enters the system. Lets be optimistic and assume everyone is committed to mining, and they all set aside 10% of their wealth to pay for mining hardware and electricity costs. The poorest person can only afford one of the newest ASIC miners, and since he is only buying one, he pays the full retail price. The richest person realizes that he can save a lot of money by manufacturing his own ASIC miners, and he can even sell some to the other members. So he sets up a nice little ASIC farm of 1000 miners for himself which he was able to finance for much less than full retail, and he pockets the money the poorest person and many of the other members gave him to buy one of his miners. So, at the end of the year, the richest person owns a large percentage of the 10% everyone set aside to pay for their mining costs,  and he was also able finance and operate his miners much more cheaply, giving him a much higher ROI. So the richest person has earned much more than 5% of all mining profits for the year, and the poorest person has earned much less than 0.01% of all mining profits for the year. The poorest person is a pretty industrious guy though, so he has his own business which has enabled him to earn a small profit, and he's doing okay, and he might just be able to justify upgrading to one of the new model of ASICs that the richest person is releasing for next year. His neighbor is not so industrious though, and he is thinking he won't be able to afford a new mining rig next year. Obviously, the richest person in this example is also industrious, because he set up an ASIC manufacturing business, but this is an opportunity that is only afforded to the rich. Lets say his neighbor, who is not quite as rich, and not as industrious, simply bought 800 ASIC miners from him at a 40% discount rate from full retail, and then sat back and did nothing all year except to be a "parasite to society and offer NOTHING back". Well, he is still receiving a MUCH higher ROI than the poorest person who could only afford one miner at full retail.

So, your guy was right in saying "the distribution of wealth in a bitcoin economy can be altered much more easily in comparison to a 100% PoS coin economy". It can be altered much more easily in favor of the rich than a purely PoS economy.

[bithic]

An account with 2 million NXT generated 28 NXT... the 50 million NXT guy generated almost 100k NXT lol

The concept is pretty flawed. Whoever gets the most coins makes most coins, how is that different from ASICs on Bitcoin? Someone care to explain?

See my above post.

[FrictionlessCoin]

Would you like to make a wager on that statement?  BitBet?  Friendly wager?  1 BTC.

What conditions? I may accept this bet.

That FrictionlessCoin will not create a Nxt clone. Pick a time bound.

Non-flawed Nxt clone by the 3rd of April, 2014. 1 BTC, escrow via Anon136, I pay for his service. He will hold 2 BTC and give them to one of us on the 4th of April. Ok?

Definition of Non-flawed?

Improved version yes,  but which flaws need fixing?  I heard that there were too many of them to fix and that it's fundamentally broken.

[NxtChg]

Guys, if you are really that bored, just post lolcats here, that would be more fun than feeding those idiots...

This is our users right now:

[bithic]

not funny
it's seems everything is built up to make fat-cat elephant
 i think after 3 years or 4 all nxt will be in few hands again.

Again, see my above post.

[FrictionlessCoin]

Based on some of the comments in the past few pages, I'm reposting my PoS economy vs. PoW economy example. I hope this shows that the Nxt PoS forging system is as fair as it can be in a free economy, and is a big improvement over the Bitcoin PoW mining model. Wealth will always give you some advantages in any free economy, but at least in Nxt, these advantages don't come at the expense of the poor.
Pandaisftw also made some great points above regarding rich vs. poor in Nxt and Bitcoin.

"...

It seems to me that the distribution of wealth in a bitcoin economy can be altered much more easily in comparison to a 100% PoS coin economy simply because of the fact that spent coins do not somehow reappear in the wallet of the spender just because he happens to own a lot of coins.

..."

From a discussion in my FB page (I quote the other guy).
What are your thoughts?

Here's my take on it klee, complete with example economies.

That guy has some good thoughts, but he doesn't consider the fact that with PoW, due to economies-of-scale, it will always be easier for the rich to secure an increasingly greater percentage of the profit from mining. For example, the average joe will have to spend top dollar to buy one miner, but someone (or government/corporation) who has a lot of money can either buy them en-mass and receive a huge discount, or manufacture them directly at an even larger discount. This means that the little guy's slice of the PoW pie will get increasingly smaller because it will always cost him more to maintain his hash rate, while the rich who are already making a much higher ROI will always be able to maintain their advantage at a discounted cost.

In PoS the ROI is the same regardless of how much money you have. As a simple example, suppose we have a PoS network of 100 people, and they all have their accounts open for forging 100% of the time. The richest person has 5% of the total wealth, the poorest person has 0.01% of the total wealth, and everyone else has something in between. For simplicity's sake, let's assume this is a closed system and no new wealth enters the economy. Let's also assume the the richest person decides to be a "parasite to society and offer NOTHING back", i.e. he just sits on his 5% and collects fees from forging. Now, the poorest person doesn't have this option, so he decides to be industrious and starts a business that provides him a moderate amount of income that allows him to earn more than his cost of living/doing business. After one year in this economy the poorest person will still have no less than 0.01% of the total wealth thanks to the interest he earned on forging, and will in fact have gained extra wealth thanks to his successful business. Let's say he now owns 0.02% of the total wealth. Now let's look at the richest person. After one year of doing nothing except collect transaction fees from forging, he earns no more than 5% of the total interest from forging thanks to the way PoS forging works. However, he had living expenses, so we must subtract these from his earnings. Let's say he was wise and didn't exceed the amount that he earned from forging; however, when you subtract his expenses from his forging profits, his net income for the year is obviously less than 5% of all interest earned from forging that year. Since everyone else was also forging 100% of the time, this means his wealth has grown at a slower rate than even the person who earns just enough from his job to pay for his living expenses. Suppose this continues unchanged for the next 10 years. Each year the parasitic rich person's wealth grows at a slower rate than the basic forging interest rate, and each year the poorest person is able to increase his wealth at a greater than basic forging interest rate, thanks to his savings. This is just a little scenario to illustrate that in PoS, while the rich may be able to sustain their lifestyle by doing nothing but forge, their wealth will grow at a slower rate than anyone who has a job that can support their living expenses, so long as everyone is forging. Forging is a trivial task, so there is no reason why everyone shouldn't be able to forge. Who is rewarded the most in a PoS system? The industrious, just like in every other healthy economy.

Now let's take a look at a simple PoW economy. Again, let's suppose this is a network of 100 people, the richest person has 5% of the wealth and the poorest person has 0.01% of the wealth, and no new wealth enters the system. Lets be optimistic and assume everyone is committed to mining, and they all set aside 10% of their wealth to pay for mining hardware and electricity costs. The poorest person can only afford one of the newest ASIC miners, and since he is only buying one, he pays the full retail price. The richest person realizes that he can save a lot of money by manufacturing his own ASIC miners, and he can even sell some to the other members. So he sets up a nice little ASIC farm of 1000 miners for himself which he was able to finance for much less than full retail, and he pockets the money the poorest person and many of the other members gave him to buy one of his miners. So, at the end of the year, the richest person owns a large percentage of the 10% everyone set aside to pay for their mining costs,  and he was also able finance and operate his miners much more cheaply, giving him a much higher ROI. So the richest person has earned much more than 5% of all mining profits for the year, and the poorest person has earned much less than 0.01% of all mining profits for the year. The poorest person is a pretty industrious guy though, so he has his own business which has enabled him to earn a small profit, and he's doing okay, and he might just be able to justify upgrading to one of the new model of ASICs that the richest person is releasing for next year. His neighbor is not so industrious though, and he is thinking he won't be able to afford a new mining rig next year. Obviously, the richest person in this example is also industrious, because he set up an ASIC manufacturing business, but this is an opportunity that is only afforded to the rich. Lets say his neighbor, who is not quite as rich, and not as industrious, simply bought 800 ASIC miners from him at a 40% discount rate from full retail, and then sat back and did nothing all year except to be a "parasite to society and offer NOTHING back". Well, he is still receiving a MUCH higher ROI than the poorest person who could only afford one miner at full retail.

So, your guy was right in saying "the distribution of wealth in a bitcoin economy can be altered much more easily in comparison to a 100% PoS coin economy". It can be altered much more easily in favor of the rich than a purely PoS economy.

I have to quote this... looks really long.. but important to read.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Definition of Non-flawed?

It's obvious, isn't it? For example, if someone is able to spend someone else coins then it's a flawed cryptocoin.

[EvilDave]

I dont think nxt could get sued. Theres no one to sue? No official body? And all were doin is making lego nxt more viewers

The conye guys got sued.  So they can sue any exchange that holds Nxt.  

Theres a big difference between coincidentally choosing the same name as a product in an entirely seperate market (Lego NXT, for the slow thinkers among us...hi, FC!) and choosing to use the parodic image of a legally savvy celebrity.  Guess which one will get u the most trouble ?

Since I appear to be on the FCs ignore list, maybe we could subtly suggest to him that he renames nex to.......PrinceCoin.

[FrictionlessCoin]

Definition of Non-flawed?

It's obvious, isn't it? For example, if someone is able to spend someone else coins then it's a flawed cryptocoin.

By April,  I will have a Nxt clone that uses a database and does not have the idiotic 'secret phrase' security.

How about that,  very specific,   1 BTC wager?

[Eadeqa]

Would you like to make a wager on that statement?  BitBet?  Friendly wager?  1 BTC.

What conditions? I may accept this bet.

That FrictionlessCoin will not create a Nxt clone. Pick a time bound.

Non-flawed Nxt clone by the 3rd of April, 2014. 1 BTC, escrow via Anon136, I pay for his service. He will hold 2 BTC and give them to one of us on the 4th of April. Ok?

"Non-flawe" part needs exact definition to be a valid bet

[Come-from-Beyond]

Definition of Non-flawed?

It's obvious, isn't it? For example, if someone is able to spend someone else coins then it's a flawed cryptocoin.

By April,  I will have a Nxt clone that uses a database and does not have the idiotic 'secret phrase' security.

How about that,  very specific,   1 BTC wager?

No. Non-flawed condition is MUST.

[Come-from-Beyond]

"Non-flawe" part needs exact definition to be a valid bet

It doesn't, use common sense.

[FrictionlessCoin]

Would you like to make a wager on that statement?  BitBet?  Friendly wager?  1 BTC.

What conditions? I may accept this bet.

That FrictionlessCoin will not create a Nxt clone. Pick a time bound.

Non-flawed Nxt clone by the 3rd of April, 2014. 1 BTC, escrow via Anon136, I pay for his service. He will hold 2 BTC and give them to one of us on the 4th of April. Ok?

"Non-flawe" part needs exact definition to be a valid bet

Exactly... needs to be something that can be validated.

[bithic]

...

I have to quote this... looks really long.. but important to read.

  For one, it shows why what you say here is a problem for poor miners but not for rich:

That's right.   With Bitcoin early miners have their ASIC equipment depreciate.  Furthermore,  to keep up with the mining they have to consume power, do maintenance and acquire new rigs.

[wesleyh]

Definition of Non-flawed?

It's obvious, isn't it? For example, if someone is able to spend someone else coins then it's a flawed cryptocoin.

By April,  I will have a Nxt clone that uses a database and does not have the idiotic 'secret phrase' security.

How about that,  very specific,   1 BTC wager?

Well obviously, since 0.6.0 will have a database...

[FrictionlessCoin]

"Non-flawe" part needs exact definition to be a valid bet

It doesn't, use common sense.

Maybe you have a test to verify if something is flawed or not?

Does, Nxt today have a flaw?  If it does not,  then a clone would be sufficient?

Want to take the bet on the premise that Nxt has no flaws as it exists today?

1 BTC... not much... not asking you to sell your house.

[Damelon]

I dont think nxt could get sued. Theres no one to sue? No official body? And all were doin is making lego nxt more viewers

The conye guys got sued.  So they can sue any exchange that holds Nxt.  

You have apparently no knowledge of branding law.
Branding law only applies if there is a possibility of confusion between brands, or if there is malice involved.
Neither applies to Lego or WWF.

Get some education.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Maybe you have a test to verify if something is flawed or not?

Does, Nxt today have a flaw?  If it does not,  then a clone would be sufficient?

Want to take the bet on the premise that Nxt has no flaws as it exists today?

1 BTC... not much... not asking you to sell your house.

For me it's obvious what can be called flawed and what not. Forget about the bet, I see u r trying to avoid it.

[FrictionlessCoin]

Maybe you have a test to verify if something is flawed or not?

Does, Nxt today have a flaw?  If it does not,  then a clone would be sufficient?

Want to take the bet on the premise that Nxt has no flaws as it exists today?

1 BTC... not much... not asking you to sell your house.

For me it's obvious what can be called flawed and what not. Forget about the bet, I believe u r trying to avoid it.

Nah... I'm not avoiding it...  Any bet needs be verifiable.  

If Nxt has no flaws ( according to you ) , then a Nxt clone is sufficient.

If Nxt indeed has flaws,  the we need a test on how to verify if the flaw exists of not.

Sounds pretty fair to me.

1 BTC?  (I need funds for development)

[rickyjames]

I opened a new account for the first two times with 5.10 a few hours ago.  I just upgraded to 5.11 and reopened it just now to try and get the alias after James sent it some NXT.  It is showing zero balance with block 55052 as the last block with a 1 hr plus gap between 55052 and 55051.  I have tried the usual bump-up-the-bak files trick.  Suggestions?