Bitcoin Forum
October 17, 2018, 11:57:34 PM *
News: Make sure you are not using versions of Bitcoin Core other than 0.17.0 [Torrent], 0.16.3, 0.15.2, or 0.14.3. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: POW vs. POS  (Read 3054 times)
ProfessorZ
Copper Member
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 40
Merit: 1


View Profile
May 20, 2018, 09:40:15 AM
 #41

A lot of people argue that POS is better in the sense that it doesn't contribute to to making climate change worser than it is. I think both POW and POS has its ups and downs.

The problem is that there is a misconception about PoW impacting the climate on a large scale. For example, mining gold and other ores can be much more energy intensive; more insights you can get from this article (several months old): https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-04/bitcoin-vs-gold-which-ones-bubble-how-much-energy-do-they-really-consume although there are other reports with more recent information on the internet
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
ProfessorZ
Copper Member
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 40
Merit: 1


View Profile
May 20, 2018, 10:49:06 AM
 #42

I would like to bring this twitter post from Hal Finney into the discussion: https://twitter.com/halfin/status/1153096538

"Thinking about how to reduce CO2 emissions from a widespread Bitcoin implementation"

Please note the date of the tweet, 27 Jan 2009.
r1s2g3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 322
Merit: 94


View Profile
May 21, 2018, 03:21:01 PM
 #43

PoW's disadvantage is all the energy use.

I think that the advantage of PoW over PoS in large scale implementations is indeed the fact that it uses raw processing power (translated in hashpower) and electricity; this way, the coin gets a real value, being backed by the amount of energy and equiment involved in securing the blockchain, while making it more resilient to larger attackers such as nation states.

Also, when the any cryptocurrency is attacked and part of the network/miners/stakes went offline or can't reach other part of the cryptocurrency network. That would make split-chain happen, but PoW won't have any problem when part of the network went online/can reach other part of network again since the "true" chain is the chain/block with biggest hashrate while in PoS there's no way to determine which chain is "true". CMIIW.

I have some confusion, What types of attacks are getting discussed here for which it is easier to attack POS then POW (leave bitcoin network when giving example of POW).
 I think if a big miner decide than all the newly started POW coin can be easily attacked by the raw mining power.
ProfessorZ
Copper Member
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 40
Merit: 1


View Profile
May 21, 2018, 04:15:25 PM
 #44

PoW's disadvantage is all the energy use.

I think that the advantage of PoW over PoS in large scale implementations is indeed the fact that it uses raw processing power (translated in hashpower) and electricity; this way, the coin gets a real value, being backed by the amount of energy and equiment involved in securing the blockchain, while making it more resilient to larger attackers such as nation states.

Also, when the any cryptocurrency is attacked and part of the network/miners/stakes went offline or can't reach other part of the cryptocurrency network. That would make split-chain happen, but PoW won't have any problem when part of the network went online/can reach other part of network again since the "true" chain is the chain/block with biggest hashrate while in PoS there's no way to determine which chain is "true". CMIIW.

I think if a big miner decide than all the newly started POW coin can be easily attacked by the raw mining power.

A newly started PoW coin can have a different hashing algorithm implemented; for example, Bitcoin uses SHA-256d, Litecoin uses Scrypt, Ethereum uses Ethash, Dash uses X11, Zcash uses Equihash, and so on. The attack depends on your hashpower with regard to a specific hashing algorithm.
ETFbitcoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1192


Use SegWit and enjoy lower fees


View Profile WWW
May 21, 2018, 06:04:32 PM
 #45

PoW's disadvantage is all the energy use.

I think that the advantage of PoW over PoS in large scale implementations is indeed the fact that it uses raw processing power (translated in hashpower) and electricity; this way, the coin gets a real value, being backed by the amount of energy and equiment involved in securing the blockchain, while making it more resilient to larger attackers such as nation states.

Also, when the any cryptocurrency is attacked and part of the network/miners/stakes went offline or can't reach other part of the cryptocurrency network. That would make split-chain happen, but PoW won't have any problem when part of the network went online/can reach other part of network again since the "true" chain is the chain/block with biggest hashrate while in PoS there's no way to determine which chain is "true". CMIIW.

I have some confusion, What types of attacks are getting discussed here for which it is easier to attack POS then POW (leave bitcoin network when giving example of POW).
 I think if a big miner decide than all the newly started POW coin can be easily attacked by the raw mining power.

I already mentioned the type of attack which is Nodes in some areas/country can't connect to Nodes from different area/country/region/continent which could be done with intentional attack from government & natural disaster or failure which prevent ISP connect to different country for some time.

When those nodes connect again, there would be 2 different chain because they were disconnected for some time. In PoW, the nodes simply choose chain with biggest PoW while PoS can't determine which chain to be chosen, at least without human intervention.

███           ▄▄▄                          ███
███           ███    ▄█                    ███
███ ▄▄▄▄▄▄          ▄██▄▄▄▄      ▄▄▄▄▄     ███        ▄██▄    ▄▄▄         ▄▄▄
███████████▄  ███ ▐████████  ██▄███████▄   ███       ██████    ███       ███▀
███▀    ▀███▌ ███   ███      ███▀    ▀███  ███      ████████    ███     ███▀
███      ▐██▌ ███   ███      ███      ███  ███     ██▀    ▀██    ███   ███▀
███      ▐██▌ ███   ███      ███      ███  ███    ███      ███    ███ ███▀
███▄    ▄███▌ ███   ███▄     ███▄    ▄███  ███   ████▄    ▄████    █████▀
███████████▀  ███   ▀██████  ███████████▀  ███  ████████████████    ███▀
▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀    ▀▀▀     ▀▀▀▀▀  ███ ▀▀▀▀▀▀    ▀▀▀   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀    ███▀
                             ███       ▄▄▄ ▄   ▄  ▄ ▄▄▄          ▄███▀
                             ███      █    █   █  █ █▄▄▀      █████▀
                             ▀▀▀      ▀▄▄▄ █▄▄ ▀▄▄▀ █▄▄█      ▀▀▀















❱❱
❰❰

big_daddy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 153


....:to the moon:....


View Profile WWW
May 22, 2018, 08:40:53 AM
 #46

I will suggest to talk about in this way

POW vs. POW asic vs. POS

cause, for me, the real POW, decentralized is not asic, but the rest

               ♦      GΞMΞRA      ♦     Crypto-Token Backed by Colombian Emeralds     [  WHITEPAPER  ]               
     ▬▬▬    PRE-SALE  ▶  Sep 10th - Oct 24th     JOIN NOW & get 20% BONUS!    ▬▬▬     
♦          TELEGRAM        TWITTER        FACEBOOK        YOUTUBE         MEDIUM         GITHUB         LINKEDIN          ♦
r1s2g3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 322
Merit: 94


View Profile
May 23, 2018, 12:55:10 PM
 #47


I already mentioned the type of attack which is Nodes in some areas/country can't connect to Nodes from different area/country/region/continent which could be done with intentional attack from government & natural disaster or failure which prevent ISP connect to different country for some time.

When those nodes connect again, there would be 2 different chain because they were disconnected for some time. In PoW, the nodes simply choose chain with biggest PoW while PoS can't determine which chain to be chosen, at least without human intervention.

I agree, this type of attack is feasible. Even POW takes the longest chain automatically then what will happen to transactions in other chain?

Are they will be automatically reverted because longest chain do not have any information about another chain so for it they never happened.

If chain fork automatically due to these circumstances then it will be blow to that crypto currency  because the transaction are non reversible and it will mean Merchant on other chain sell their goods for free.
ranochigo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1568
Merit: 1094

Somewhat inactive.


View Profile WWW
May 23, 2018, 01:04:50 PM
 #48

I agree, this type of attack is feasible. Even POW takes the longest chain automatically then what will happen to transactions in other chain?

Are they will be automatically reverted because longest chain do not have any information about another chain so for it they never happened.
Transactions CANNOT be reverted under any circumstances. If they are broadcasted, they would eventually be confirmed or invalid (if the inputs gets used in another transaction). Obviously, it won't disappear or anything; else no one would be using Bitcoin.

When the client sees another chain with a longer proof of work, they take the transactions in the orphaned chain and put them back into the mempool. For miners, they will include the transactions in their block. They are treated like a normal transaction.

Virtual miner
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630
Merit: 251



View Profile
May 27, 2018, 01:32:56 PM
 #49

I agree, this type of attack is feasible. Even POW takes the longest chain automatically then what will happen to transactions in other chain?

Are they will be automatically reverted because longest chain do not have any information about another chain so for it they never happened.
Transactions CANNOT be reverted under any circumstances. If they are broadcasted, they would eventually be confirmed or invalid (if the inputs gets used in another transaction). Obviously, it won't disappear or anything; else no one would be using Bitcoin.

When the client sees another chain with a longer proof of work, they take the transactions in the orphaned chain and put them back into the mempool. For miners, they will include the transactions in their block. They are treated like a normal transaction.
POW provides complete decentralization of power and control over the distribution and implementation of major technical and economic changes in the network. But investment is more in this system. And energy consumption is also high.
POS If the Proof-of-work is based on mining and computing power, the Proof-of-stake derives from actual holdings of the cryptocurrency. It has high speed, less time consuming and less costly

  

 
        █████   █████     █████   █████  
        █████   █████     █████   █████  
        █████   █████     █████   █████  
        █████   █████     █████   █████ 
        █████   █████     █████   █████ 
        █████   █████     █████   █████ 
█████   █████                     █████   █████               
█████   █████                     █████   █████ 
█████   █████                     █████   █████ 
█████   █████                     █████   █████ 
█████   █████                     █████   █████        
  
   MAKE MONEY WITH YOUR CAR
---------_>    BlocVehicle    <_---------
 

                   ▄▄████
              ▄▄████████▌
         ▄▄█████████▀███
    ▄▄██████████▀▀ ▄███▌
▄████████████▀▀  ▄█████
▀▀▀███████▀   ▄███████▌
      ██    ▄█████████
       █  ▄██████████▌
       █  ███████████
       █ ██▀ ▀██████▌
       ██▀     ▀████
                 ▀█▌
 

█▄▄              █▄▄
█████▄▄         ██████▄▄
████████       ████████ █
████████ ██   ████████ ██
████████ ███ ████████ ███
████████ ████ ██████ ████
████████ █████ ████ █████
████████ ▀█████ ██ ██████
████████    ▀▀██  ███████
▀███████         ▀███████
   ▀▀███            ▀▀███
       ▀                ▀


             ▄████▄▄   ▄
█▄          ██████████▀▄
███        ███████████▀
▐████▄     ██████████▌
▄▄██████▄▄▄▄█████████▌
▀████████████████████
  ▀█████████████████
  ▄▄███████████████
   ▀█████████████▀
    ▄▄█████████▀
▀▀██████████▀
    ▀▀▀▀▀
 

    ▄█████
   ████▀▀▀
   ████
   ████
██████████
▀▀▀████▀▀
   ████
   ████
   ████
   ████
   ████
   ▀▀▀▀
 

             █▀▀▀▄▄▄██▄
             █     ▀██▀
            █
         ▄▄▄█▄▄▄
 ████▄▄███████████▄▄████
▐██████▀▀███████▀▀██████▌
 ▀████    █████    ████▀
  ████▄  ▄█████▄  ▄████
  ▀███████████████████▀
   ▀████▄▀█████▀▄████▀
     ▀▀███▄▄▄▄▄███▀▀
         ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

ranochigo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1568
Merit: 1094

Somewhat inactive.


View Profile WWW
May 27, 2018, 01:44:26 PM
 #50

POW provides complete decentralization of power and control over the distribution and implementation of major technical and economic changes in the network. But investment is more in this system. And energy consumption is also high.
Surprise, surprise. POW does not provide decentralisation of power and control. The power and control of anything can still be centralised with a few entities, if they have sufficient resources. POW is merely a way to distribute coins and to secure the network. POW does not make it such that everyone has to follow what the miner says.
POS If the Proof-of-work is based on mining and computing power, the Proof-of-stake derives from actual holdings of the cryptocurrency. It has high speed, less time consuming and less costly
The speed for POS and POW is the same, if the parameters of the coins are the same. You forgot to list the disadvantages of POS. Did you even read the thread?

ETFbitcoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1192


Use SegWit and enjoy lower fees


View Profile WWW
May 27, 2018, 03:19:26 PM
 #51


I already mentioned the type of attack which is Nodes in some areas/country can't connect to Nodes from different area/country/region/continent which could be done with intentional attack from government & natural disaster or failure which prevent ISP connect to different country for some time.

When those nodes connect again, there would be 2 different chain because they were disconnected for some time. In PoW, the nodes simply choose chain with biggest PoW while PoS can't determine which chain to be chosen, at least without human intervention.

I agree, this type of attack is feasible. Even POW takes the longest chain automatically then what will happen to transactions in other chain?

Are they will be automatically reverted because longest chain do not have any information about another chain so for it they never happened.

If chain fork automatically due to these circumstances then it will be blow to that crypto currency  because the transaction are non reversible and it will mean Merchant on other chain sell their goods for free.

1. The other chain simply ignored
2. Rebroadcast the transaction from another chain usually fix the problem, unless the input already spend
3. The circumstances i mentioned rarely happen if the internet connection always maintained and to do this attack is extremely difficult and also damage many things. When this rare circumstances happen, merchant shouldn't accept Bitcoin as payment method for a while.

POW provides complete decentralization of power and control over the distribution and implementation of major technical and economic changes in the network. But investment is more in this system. And energy consumption is also high.
Surprise, surprise. POW does not provide decentralisation of power and control. The power and control of anything can still be centralised with a few entities, if they have sufficient resources. POW is merely a way to distribute coins and to secure the network. POW does not make it such that everyone has to follow what the miner says.

True, but additionally PoS is more risky if the founder/developer have majority of the coin supply.

███           ▄▄▄                          ███
███           ███    ▄█                    ███
███ ▄▄▄▄▄▄          ▄██▄▄▄▄      ▄▄▄▄▄     ███        ▄██▄    ▄▄▄         ▄▄▄
███████████▄  ███ ▐████████  ██▄███████▄   ███       ██████    ███       ███▀
███▀    ▀███▌ ███   ███      ███▀    ▀███  ███      ████████    ███     ███▀
███      ▐██▌ ███   ███      ███      ███  ███     ██▀    ▀██    ███   ███▀
███      ▐██▌ ███   ███      ███      ███  ███    ███      ███    ███ ███▀
███▄    ▄███▌ ███   ███▄     ███▄    ▄███  ███   ████▄    ▄████    █████▀
███████████▀  ███   ▀██████  ███████████▀  ███  ████████████████    ███▀
▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀    ▀▀▀     ▀▀▀▀▀  ███ ▀▀▀▀▀▀    ▀▀▀   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀    ███▀
                             ███       ▄▄▄ ▄   ▄  ▄ ▄▄▄          ▄███▀
                             ███      █    █   █  █ █▄▄▀      █████▀
                             ▀▀▀      ▀▄▄▄ █▄▄ ▀▄▄▀ █▄▄█      ▀▀▀















❱❱
❰❰

goddog
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 38

8426 2618 9F5F C7BF 22BD E814 763A 57A1 AA19 E681


View Profile
May 27, 2018, 04:50:29 PM
 #52

POS: You have to proof you hodl
POW: You have to proof you worked

POS: is a try to create a cost/opportunity from nothing . You can generate infinite parallel chain for free.

In example, there is a conflict between history A and history B, with POW you CAN'T confirm both histories, you have to choose one. So the longest history win.
with POS you can confirm both histories at the same time at not cost.
so to solve this you need a social meta-consensus making POS not necesary  at all.


POS security is based on some kind of punishment making it more similar to LN than blockchain. With the difference that LN fail only affect a local environment, a POS fail affect all the global environment.


thank you for taking time to read my post.
AlisaWhishie
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 280
Merit: 18


View Profile WWW
May 27, 2018, 08:29:15 PM
 #53

The problem is that there is a misconception about PoW impacting the climate on a large scale. For example, mining gold and other ores can be much more energy intensive; more insights you can get from this article (several months old): https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-04/bitcoin-vs-gold-which-ones-bubble-how-much-energy-do-they-really-consume although there are other reports with more recent information on the internet

Of course, there are things that affect the enviroment more then miners, but it doesn't mean that this is not a problem at all. Why should we turn the whole planet into one huge mining farm, if we talk about mass adoption of crypto? I know PoS also has so many cons, but now we actually see a new proof-of-anything algorythm in every other project, so we shouldn't look a PoW and PoS as at two polar opposites, like black and white.

BTW, the OP may want to check this for more technical details: https://bitfury.com/content/downloads/pos-vs-pow-1.0.2.pdf

ATLANT●ICO
NEW TAKE ON MEDICAL SERVICE
ANN  ● Telegramwww.atlantico-network.ioTwitterFacebook
Zin-Zang
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 266
Merit: 2


View Profile
July 27, 2018, 02:57:54 AM
 #54

POS: You have to proof you hodl
POW: You have to proof you worked

POS: is a try to create a cost/opportunity from nothing . You can generate infinite parallel chain for free.
    
In example, there is a conflict between history A and history B, with POW you CAN'T confirm both histories, you have to choose one. So the longest history win.
with POS you can confirm both histories at the same time at not cost.
so to solve this you need a social meta-consensus making POS not necesary  at all.

POS security is based on some kind of punishment making it more similar to LN than blockchain. With the difference that LN fail only affect a local environment, a POS fail affect all the global environment.


Hmm, you seem to be confused and think the nothing at stake mythology is a real problem.
Standard PoS wallets don't Multi-stake, meaning your n@s myth can't currently even be attempted.

If someone did waste their time and make a multi-staking wallet, it would do nothing but waste endless amounts of ram and processing power and energy attempting to stake multiple chains versions simultaneously, essentially becoming closer to a wasteful proof of work than an energy efficient proof of stake.
Example: The more blocks you try and run in parallel the more resources you waste.
Their is zero benefit to even attempting it, which is probably why no one has even bothered to write a multi-staking PoS client, years after the myth was spread

Additional examples:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1709776.msg17135430#msg17135430
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1709776.msg17136990#msg17136990
 

https://www.reddit.com/r/NXT/comments/2sewhu/nothing_at_stake_attack_researched_and_deemed_not/
Quote
3. Nothing-at-stake attack - not possible at the moment! Will be possible when a lot of forgers will use multiple-branch forging to increase profits.
Then attacker can contribute to all the chains(some of them e.g. containing a transaction) then start to contribute to one chain only behind the best(containing no transaction) making it winner. Previous statements on N@S attack made with assumption it costs nothing to contribute to an each fork possible and that makes N@S attack a disaster.
In fact, it's not possible at all to contribute to each fork possible, as number of forks growing exponentially with time.
So the only strategy for a multibranch forger is to contribute to N best forks.
In such scenario attack is possible only within short-range e.g. with 25 confirmations needed 10% attacker can't make an attack.
And attack is pretty random in nature, it's impossible to predict whether 2 forks will be within N best forks(from exponentially growing set) for k confirmations.
So from our point of view the importance of the attack is pretty overblown.

FYI:
The Longest Chain with the Highest Difficulty wins in Proof of Stake as well.
With Proof of Stake , however the number of coins per block and the target speed help determine the true difficulty for a Proof of Stake coin.
hashProofOfStake <= [Coin-age] x [Target]   
[Coin-age] = [amount of coins] x [days in stake]   
   
Target is the difficulty adjusted # to make sure the coin meets it's rated block speed.
More blocks staking means higher Target #s.

PoS coins that removed coin age are
hashProofOfStake <= [amount of coins] x [Target]   


FYI2:
Your Comparison of Proof of Stake to Lightning network is flawed.
Lightning network is nothing more than an offchain payment system, ie: LN Notes/IOUs for redemption of segwit coins or basically Centralized Banking 2.0
(Any Coin that activated segwit could work on LN, such as litecoin or groestlcoin. Like most offchain systems LN is not limited to bitcoin.)

Proof of Stake is a energy efficient Consensus Method for determining the next block chosen.


ZEITCOIN is the Future! (http://www.zeit-coin.net)
Energy Efficient / Decentralized / Ultra Low Inflation  / More Cost Effective than LN
kjfngkleoi
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 31
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 27, 2018, 07:58:17 AM
 #55

it's correct, but:

The core of the POW <proof of work> algorithm is the computer power resource. More energy is needed for the computer system to get the best answer. If you look at the ecological aspects this is not at all beneficial. Mine workers use too much energy and cause bad effects on the environment.

POS <proof of stake> is considered to be a fairer system than proof-of-work when everyone can become a miner. No matter large or small, the scale of exploitation will be linearly proportional to the number of shares held. This encourages the community to engage in transactional verification, increasing decentralization and democracy.
mu_enrico
Copper Member
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 229


#GGMU


View Profile WWW
July 27, 2018, 10:11:14 PM
 #56

Is this debate still going?

PoW is more secure than PoS;
PoS is faster and cheaper than PoW;
Since PoW is very expensive, there will be an only small amount of PoW coins;
There is no PoW vs PoS, each has a different purpose.

Anyway, PoS "nothing at stake" and "long-range attack" are real problems, not a myth.
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22nothing+at+stake%22&pws=0
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22long+range+attack%22&pws=0

Just like PoW "51% attack"
https://www.google.com/search?q=51%25+attack&pws=0

Zin-Zang
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 266
Merit: 2


View Profile
July 27, 2018, 11:14:56 PM
 #57

Anyway, PoS "nothing at stake" and "long-range attack" are real problems, not a myth.
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22nothing+at+stake%22&pws=0
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22long+range+attack%22&pws=0

Exactly why do you think a Nothing at Stake is an issue.
Exactly what damage do you think it can do, so I can tell you why you are mistaken.

(You apparently did not bother to read : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3789535.msg42945673#msg42945673 )
Only a few posts above your misinformed post.

There are NO Multistaking Proof of Stake clients.


So without that it is literally a MYTH!
Sorry to have to break this to you , Your Imagination is not Reality.

Reading is really not your strong suit, you did not even read the 5th link in your own google post above.   Cheesy
Which States: Nothing Considered: A look at Nothing at Stake Vulnerability for Cryptocurrencies
https://pivx.org/nothing-considered-a-look-at-nothing-at-stake-vulnerability-for-cryptocurrencies/
Quote
presstab, Core Developer, Pivx

Abstract—Nothing at stake is a routine argument launched against any and all Proof of Stake proof systems.
Although the argument has some interesting components to it, it is should be seen as something of very little concern for a Proof of Stake based cryptocurrency.
A wide distribution of staking power as well as a wide distribution of honest nodes will easily prevent any line of attack from the nothing at stake scenario.
Quote
CONCLUSION
For both cases of fork with honest nodes and cases of forks with malicious actors, there is in fact “something at stake”.
For the particular arguments presented against Proof of Stake,
it can be said that Proof of Stake may actu­ally have more robust incentives for its peers and proof holders to stay on the main chain than does the Proof of Work system.
What is worth more, a person’s entire coin holdings for Proof of Stake miners or a few minutes of electricity consumption for Proof of Work miners?




PoW is more secure than PoS;
PoS is faster and cheaper than PoW;
Since PoW is very expensive, there will be an only small amount of PoW coins;
There is no PoW vs PoS, each has a different purpose.

There is no proof PoW is more secure , only more wasteful of electricity.
Chinese Mining Pools had ~70% dominance for over 2 years now in bitcoin,
they could 51% attack bitcoin at any time (still can), they choose not to, but that was not security, just greed that stopped them.

Speed and price of a coin are not determined by whether they are PoS or PoW.
Speed is determined by coded blockspeed, and price is determined by markets.

The code decides how many coins their are , not the consensus method.
example
Diamond PoS coin has less than 5 million coins.
NewYorkCoin PoW coin has over 134 Billion coins.  

* Bitcoin 21 million coin limit is nothing more than a number in the code of when to no longer give more block rewards.*
* Developers could change it at a moments notice and if people updated , it would become reality. *

ZEITCOIN is the Future! (http://www.zeit-coin.net)
Energy Efficient / Decentralized / Ultra Low Inflation  / More Cost Effective than LN
aliashraf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 368


View Profile
July 28, 2018, 08:13:46 AM
 #58

Anyway, PoS "nothing at stake" and "long-range attack" are real problems, not a myth.
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22nothing+at+stake%22&pws=0
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22long+range+attack%22&pws=0

Exactly why do you think a Nothing at Stake is an issue.
Exactly what damage do you think it can do, so I can tell you why you are mistaken.

(You apparently did not bother to read : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3789535.msg42945673#msg42945673 )
Only a few posts above your misinformed post.

There are NO Multistaking Proof of Stake clients.


So without that it is literally a MYTH!
Sorry to have to break this to you , Your Imagination is not Reality.
It is not how we discuss attacks (in this forum at least), we don't say this or that vulnerability is imaginary because it has not been carried out by a hacker or an adversary. A protocol should maintain its consistency against any hypothetical attack.

Quote
Reading is really not your strong suit, you did not even read the 5th link in your own google post above.   Cheesy
Which States: Nothing Considered: A look at Nothing at Stake Vulnerability for Cryptocurrencies
https://pivx.org/nothing-considered-a-look-at-nothing-at-stake-vulnerability-for-cryptocurrencies/
Quote
presstab, Core Developer, Pivx

Abstract—Nothing at stake is a routine argument launched against any and all Proof of Stake proof systems.
Although the argument has some interesting components to it, it is should be seen as something of very little concern for a Proof of Stake based cryptocurrency.
A wide distribution of staking power as well as a wide distribution of honest nodes will easily prevent any line of attack from the nothing at stake scenario.
Really? This is what you and your bible got? A 'wide distribution' of staking power? And how is it possible to have such a distribution? There is no guarantee.
Actually socio-economics suggests pyramid like distributions of wealth and power in which top 1% of stake holders own +30% of the total wealth and top 20% control 80%, ...

PoS is not a new idea. We have PoS in its ultimate (and failed) form right now:
Traditional banking systems and fiat currencies are PoS based, they resemble what PoS is going to offer: a subjective store of value, centralized in shards  of big stake/money holders (banks) which are coordinated by a central entity in charge of clearing inter-shard transactions and inflation.



Zin-Zang
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 266
Merit: 2


View Profile
July 28, 2018, 09:44:56 AM
 #59

It is not how we discuss attacks (in this forum at least), we don't say this or that vulnerability is imaginary because it has not been carried out by a hacker or an adversary. A protocol should maintain its consistency against any hypothetical attack.

Look here aliashraf , to even attempt said attack, requires a Multistaking PoS client.
There are none!
Therefore a N@S attack is pure imagined theory , with no basis for concern in the real world.

Tell me what is it you fear so much about a theoretical N@S attack, and I tell you why you have nothing to fear.

Because I explored it as a threat and every time it came up as a non-event.
It either negated itself or had no real effect during every scenario people threw out.

So what is it exactly you think an imagined N@S attack could do?





PoS is not a new idea. We have PoS in its ultimate (and failed) form right now:
Traditional banking systems and fiat currencies are PoS based, they resemble what PoS is going to offer: a subjective store of value, centralized in shards  of big stake/money holders (banks) which are coordinated by a central entity in charge of clearing inter-shard transactions and inflation.

Your confusion is sad.

Proof of Stake is a Consensus method.

Banks make money by growing debt and loaning out money they don't have, therefore using debt as money creation.

Proof of Stake does not use Debt, it is more like an agricultural product, you need some to grow more. There is no debt in the system.

The Banks use fractional reserves to rip off the masses,

In Proof of Stake you either own a coin or you don't , there is no debt and their is no fractional reserve shenanigans.

You might want to study up on the Goldsmiths that became the 1st banks, to end your personal confusion.  Wink


ZEITCOIN is the Future! (http://www.zeit-coin.net)
Energy Efficient / Decentralized / Ultra Low Inflation  / More Cost Effective than LN
hv_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 536

Remove The Middlemen


View Profile WWW
July 28, 2018, 03:33:22 PM
 #60

Muh,

If you want some reward > work for! PoW


Meh

If you already have too much wealth, let it work for you and get richer.  PoS



Why on earth Vitalik wants the latter, now he is fucking rich?


PoW has just too many unforeseen external risks, nahh, he does not want to get decentralized by these again...


PoS = proof of shit

Carpe diem  -  cut the down side  -  be anti-fragile - don't dillute Bitcoin!
Memo: 1AHUYNJKPfY7PjVK1hNQFo5LrdGixuiybw
The simple way is the genius way - in Moore and Satoshi we trust.
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!