Bitcoin Forum
September 22, 2018, 06:05:30 PM *
News: ♦♦ New info! Bitcoin Core users absolutely must upgrade to previously-announced 0.16.3 [Torrent]. All Bitcoin users should temporarily trust confirmations slightly less. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: POW vs. POS  (Read 1807 times)
cellard
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134
Merit: 1145


View Profile
August 15, 2018, 06:29:06 PM
 #81

I don't believe you can manually give people the coin supply as the developer sees best fit, hoping that is egalitarian enough that no big whales sitting on fat sticks will be formed. I think this is delusional. On a long enough timeline, elite factions of people holding massive amounts would arise, then all they have to do is sit on their ass and command and conquer.

With PoW, at least you have to work hard to keep your monopoly going. We give Jihan a lot of shit because he is a bit of a cunt, but to be frank he works hard in his business, it's very competitive out there.

In PoS the Jihan equivalent would just be able to sit and keep getting mad stacks of staked coins.

PoS just doesn't feel right, there are some interesting experiments out there trying to remove PoW from the equation but I wouldn't count my money on it for the long term.

1537639530
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1537639530

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1537639530
Reply with quote  #2

1537639530
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1537639530
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1537639530

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1537639530
Reply with quote  #2

1537639530
Report to moderator
1537639530
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1537639530

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1537639530
Reply with quote  #2

1537639530
Report to moderator
1537639530
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1537639530

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1537639530
Reply with quote  #2

1537639530
Report to moderator
d5000
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862
Merit: 1205



View Profile
August 15, 2018, 11:04:30 PM
 #82

I don't believe you can manually give people the coin supply as the developer sees best fit, hoping that is egalitarian enough that no big whales sitting on fat sticks will be formed. I think this is delusional. On a long enough timeline, elite factions of people holding massive amounts would arise, then all they have to do is sit on their ass and command and conquer.
I currently tend to agree here, and have mostly moved away from (PoS or PoW) coins that were distributed in an ICO (with very few exceptions when the concept is very interesting). That's why I consider PoS must be combined with another mechanism to distribute the currency units. Like Peercoin or Decred do with their hybrid PoW/PoS systems, and at least in Peercoin, you won't get rich or even "richer" sitting only on your coins because the PoS reward is really low (1%/year).

Proof of Burn and Proof of Capacity/Space are another two interesting algorithms to combine PoS with. Both suffer from some of the same drawbacks of PoS (both have a Nothing at Stake problem of varying degree) but they are open for validators from "outside" that don't hold a big "stake" and also don't simply reward "sitting on coins". In contrast, NEM's Proof of Importance seems to be little more than a failed PoS extension - maybe with good intentions (encourage usage) but bad consequences (potential blockchain bloat, useless transactions).

mu_enrico
Copper Member
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 266
Merit: 146


Indonesia Patrol Squad


View Profile WWW
August 16, 2018, 02:51:01 AM
 #83

<...>
<...>

Agree with the comments above. The problem with PoS is that the reward is far too high for the "work" done. I mean in PoS system, wallets with stacked coins still perform the block creation but don't require that much computation power. In this case, maybe Peercoin as d5000 said, will get away with it since the reward is very low. Hybrid PoW/PoS might work if the reward is fair between PoW and PoS validators, but usually, this tends to favor PoS. This situation may explain:

<...>
3 Hybrid POW/POS
4 POS
5 Bankrupt
<...>

Nakamoto PoW uses electricity for computation power to mine a block. It doesn't mean that the system cannot use other "work" to create a block. And in order to this "work" to be successful, users/"miners" must perceive the reward as fair. Maybe it still requires "outside" element, or not?

K O N I O S        |│        The World's Most Secure Cash & Crypto Platform
[   PRE-ICO  |  DONE   ]      [ AIRDROP | DONE ]      [    ICO  |  LIVE    ]
WHITEPAPER                       TWITTER                       TELEGRAM                       ANN THREAD
byteball
Member
**
Online Online

Activity: 196
Merit: 26

The rising tide lifts all boats


View Profile
August 16, 2018, 04:13:48 AM
 #84

<snip>
That's why I consider PoS must be combined with another mechanism to distribute the currency units. Like Peercoin or Decred do with their hybrid PoW/PoS systems, and at least in Peercoin, you won't get rich or even "richer" sitting only on your coins because the PoS reward is really low (1%/year).
<snip>
I analyzed a new recently released coin Metro: the distribution seems OK but probably far from ideal (NXTers got 10% of max supply for their Jelurida license, but all premine is time-locked and released gradually with each PoW block) and there will surely be miners who got a lot of coins while the difficulty was low.
They will not be likely to become pure PoS as their sidechain idea (main application) is based on PoW contesting periods, inspired by Blockstream. At least not likely in near future. Either pure PoS or replace PoW component with something "greener".
They also have PoS block bloat since DEX will be the 1st application of sidechains, and thus PoS blocks are very frequent without pruning implemented yet.
When DEX starts, you might become richer (according to them  Wink but not by just sitting on your coins - rather you need to spend gas in Ethereum Classic and Ethereum networks and feed blockchain data in both directions (and also between whatever smart contracts can arise to prominence, e.g. Rootstock) but for that gas you get transaction fees for withdrawals, in ETC/ETH.

*byteball cooтвeтcтвyeт нopмaм и тpeбoвaниям дeмoкpaтии, тoвap cepтифициpoвaн
hv_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 952
Merit: 536

Remove The Middlemen


View Profile WWW
August 16, 2018, 09:19:14 AM
 #85

<...>
<...>

Agree with the comments above. The problem with PoS is that the reward is far too high for the "work" done. I mean in PoS system, wallets with stacked coins still perform the block creation but don't require that much computation power. In this case, maybe Peercoin as d5000 said, will get away with it since the reward is very low. Hybrid PoW/PoS might work if the reward is fair between PoW and PoS validators, but usually, this tends to favor PoS. This situation may explain:

<...>
3 Hybrid POW/POS
4 POS
5 Bankrupt
<...>

Nakamoto PoW uses electricity for computation power to mine a block. It doesn't mean that the system cannot use other "work" to create a block. And in order to this "work" to be successful, users/"miners" must perceive the reward as fair. Maybe it still requires "outside" element, or not?

Goto physiscs, if you need to define 'work' / energy.

You need work to keep order = security over time

So security is a time function, that needs energy input every second (similar to your firewall that needs work to stay secure all second / protect against hackers trying to hack you every second - their little PoW!).

PoW is THAT firewall.

PoS is 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.
cellard
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134
Merit: 1145


View Profile
August 16, 2018, 01:38:28 PM
 #86

I don't believe you can manually give people the coin supply as the developer sees best fit, hoping that is egalitarian enough that no big whales sitting on fat sticks will be formed. I think this is delusional. On a long enough timeline, elite factions of people holding massive amounts would arise, then all they have to do is sit on their ass and command and conquer.
I currently tend to agree here, and have mostly moved away from (PoS or PoW) coins that were distributed in an ICO (with very few exceptions when the concept is very interesting). That's why I consider PoS must be combined with another mechanism to distribute the currency units. Like Peercoin or Decred do with their hybrid PoW/PoS systems, and at least in Peercoin, you won't get rich or even "richer" sitting only on your coins because the PoS reward is really low (1%/year).

Proof of Burn and Proof of Capacity/Space are another two interesting algorithms to combine PoS with. Both suffer from some of the same drawbacks of PoS (both have a Nothing at Stake problem of varying degree) but they are open for validators from "outside" that don't hold a big "stake" and also don't simply reward "sitting on coins". In contrast, NEM's Proof of Importance seems to be little more than a failed PoS extension - maybe with good intentions (encourage usage) but bad consequences (potential blockchain bloat, useless transactions).

There is something that feels very cheap about having to wait for some guy in a forum deciding when to release the next batch of coins, feels like a communist on top of the pyramid.

The automated, predictable algorithm of Bitcoin is much more elegant. It's open for competition, whoever gets the most hashrate wins and this means putting in the work.

As far as PoS + something else combos, im not impressed. All of the present models can be gamed at cheaper cost than Bitcoin.

I remain open minded when it comes to something new and groundbreaking but for now anyone thinking any of these coins can flip Bitcoin is insane.

d5000
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862
Merit: 1205



View Profile
August 16, 2018, 02:38:02 PM
 #87

As far as PoS + something else combos, im not impressed. All of the present models can be gamed at cheaper cost than Bitcoin.
That applies to all altcoins, including big PoW ones like Ethereum Wink

A PoW/PoS combination has the advantage that while the "predictable attack cost" is bound to the PoW hashrate, there is a "plus" of security coming from the proof-of-stake algorithm which doesn't cost additional energy consumption. The hard part is to quantify this "additional" attack cost - PoS coins are more vulnerable to social engineering, bribing and similar attack strategies, which normally should be expensive, but there is no way to calculate an attack cost based really on "hard facts".

Quote
I remain open minded when it comes to something new and groundbreaking but for now anyone thinking any of these coins can flip Bitcoin is insane.
I don't believe that any coin - neither PoW or PoS - will "flip" Bitcoin in the short to mid term. But nobody knows what can happen in 10 or 20 years. In theory, Bitcoin can also "enrich" its security algorithm with PoS, PoC, or PoB - but this would need the approval of miners and/or big economic nodes.

cellard
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134
Merit: 1145


View Profile
August 16, 2018, 03:00:16 PM
 #88

As far as PoS + something else combos, im not impressed. All of the present models can be gamed at cheaper cost than Bitcoin.
That applies to all altcoins, including big PoW ones like Ethereum Wink

A PoW/PoS combination has the advantage that while the "predictable attack cost" is bound to the PoW hashrate, there is a "plus" of security coming from the proof-of-stake algorithm which doesn't cost additional energy consumption. The hard part is to quantify this "additional" attack cost - PoS coins are more vulnerable to social engineering, bribing and similar attack strategies, which normally should be expensive, but there is no way to calculate an attack cost based really on "hard facts".

Quote
I remain open minded when it comes to something new and groundbreaking but for now anyone thinking any of these coins can flip Bitcoin is insane.
I don't believe that any coin - neither PoW or PoS - will "flip" Bitcoin in the short to mid term. But nobody knows what can happen in 10 or 20 years. In theory, Bitcoin can also "enrich" its security algorithm with PoS, PoC, or PoB - but this would need the approval of miners and/or big economic nodes.

Yes, I included altcoins that are PoW too. We have had many PoW coins being 51%'ed lately. Bitcoin Gold included. Then Verge and some others. The next one is Bitcoin Cash. I believe we will see something interesting happening in september with the spam attack that Bitpico has planned for BCash. If they are legit and not paid by Roger Ver to simulate a failure of the attack, then it should work and BCash should collapse somehow, who knows if some funds get moved against owner's will.

No matter what algo are you using, electricity is limited, and most of it will go to Bitcoin. Then non PoW models or combinations of it don't make me feel any more secure. They usually involve "delegates" and stuff like that which is a big red mark for me. The net result isn't more protection that I can see.

aliashraf
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Activity: 574
Merit: 327


View Profile
August 16, 2018, 06:07:13 PM
 #89


No matter what algo are you using, electricity is limited, and most of it will go to Bitcoin. Then non PoW models or combinations of it don't make me feel any more secure. They usually involve "delegates" and stuff like that which is a big red mark for me. The net result isn't more protection that I can see.
PoS options (including hybrid forms) are off the table for obvious reasons but PoW itself should be treated cautiously as well. I understand it has been a long time and centralized mining apparently bitcoin has not been destroyed because of it but taking a deeper look at recent events with so-called scaling debate and the delay in adoption of SW which I believe damaged the reputation of bitcoin, pools are to be blamed.

I go even further and suggest the situation with mining pools to be the most fundamental factor behind the definite slow down in bitcoin and cryptocurrency adoption.

So, I believe it is not about how PoW is better than PoS. Rather it is about how PoW could be better than bitcoin.
evilsign
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 51

It's Not Me, It's Algorithms || Come Back Is REAL


View Profile WWW
August 18, 2018, 02:11:46 PM
 #90

So, I believe it is not about how PoW is better than PoS. Rather it is about how PoW could be better than bitcoin.

Sorry, I still don't understand your words. How can you say PoW is better than bitcoin while bitcoin itself uses the PoW protocol?

Regarding this PoW and PoS, I feel that I have their own advantages, and even though PoS is a newer protocol than PoW, it cannot replace it completely. Then regarding this PoS, I am very interested because there are many systems, one of which is the master nodes. Maybe I should discuss it in another thread.

Twitter | Facebook | Telegram | Whitepaper
▶▷> KryptoSEA <◁◀
▶▷Your everyday crypto◀
aliashraf
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Activity: 574
Merit: 327


View Profile
August 18, 2018, 08:01:41 PM
 #91

So, I believe it is not about how PoW is better than PoS. Rather it is about how PoW could be better than bitcoin.

Sorry, I still don't understand your words. How can you say PoW is better than bitcoin while bitcoin itself uses the PoW protocol?

Simple! Bitcoin implementation of PoW, is the first version, an experiment and a proof of concept as far as I can understand.

I mean, come on! How is it possible at all, a complete revolution just with one shot  Huh

The unfortunate coincidence of bitcoin getting popular and becoming a high stake game with Satoshi's disappearance  caused it to become rigid and resist evolution, obviously, but it doesn't change the fact that it is nothing more than a beta version of a proof of concept for PoW.

Proof of concept for PoW, not for cryptocurrency I have to emphasis as I see most people are not used to re-think everything and just follow the media.

According to their story: 1-Bitcoin is the ultimate form of PoW, 2- PoS is an alternative, much modern approach to cryptocurrency as a decentralized, public and permissionless system.

Both claims are void:
1- Bitcoin is not the end but a beginning for PoW, 2- PoS is nothing new, it has been around as reputation systems and has failed its mission because of its subjective nature. There is no way to publish money, a justifiable legitimate way I mean, so it doesn't deserve to be considered neither an alternative nor a modern approach to cryptocurrency.

Zin-Zang
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 1


View Profile
August 19, 2018, 10:44:03 AM
 #92

So, I believe it is not about how PoW is better than PoS. Rather it is about how PoW could be better than bitcoin.

Sorry, I still don't understand your words. How can you say PoW is better than bitcoin while bitcoin itself uses the PoW protocol?

Simple! Bitcoin implementation of PoW, is the first version, an experiment and a proof of concept as far as I can understand.

I mean, come on! How is it possible at all, a complete revolution just with one shot  Huh

The unfortunate coincidence of bitcoin getting popular and becoming a high stake game with Satoshi's disappearance  caused it to become rigid and resist evolution, obviously, but it doesn't change the fact that it is nothing more than a beta version of a proof of concept for PoW.

Proof of concept for PoW, not for cryptocurrency I have to emphasis as I see most people are not used to re-think everything and just follow the media.

According to their story: 1-Bitcoin is the ultimate form of PoW, 2- PoS is an alternative, much modern approach to cryptocurrency as a decentralized, public and permissionless system.

Both claims are void:
1- Bitcoin is not the end but a beginning for PoW, 2- PoS is nothing new, it has been around as reputation systems and has failed its mission because of its subjective nature. There is no way to publish money, a justifiable legitimate way I mean, so it doesn't deserve to be considered neither an alternative nor a modern approach to cryptocurrency.



Actually due to the energy wasting failures of PoW , Bitcoin is doomed within 5 years as the energy requirements are growing exponentially.
Your belief that Proof of Stake is failing is just plain wrong.
Currently it is the only one not draining the energy resources of the planet for wasteful attempts at being a global payment system.

The only real problem with Proof of Stake system is the ones that inflation rate is just too high.
That issue is easily mitigated by going to a ultra low inflation rate.
Like gold, the reason it value held over time was the expense/ hardship of getting the ore limiting the new amount, therefore keeping a low inflation rate,
by moving a PoS system to an ultra low inflation rate, we mimic that process.


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

Activity: 574
Merit: 327


View Profile
August 19, 2018, 01:22:16 PM
 #93

So, I believe it is not about how PoW is better than PoS. Rather it is about how PoW could be better than bitcoin.

Sorry, I still don't understand your words. How can you say PoW is better than bitcoin while bitcoin itself uses the PoW protocol?

Simple! Bitcoin implementation of PoW, is the first version, an experiment and a proof of concept as far as I can understand.

I mean, come on! How is it possible at all, a complete revolution just with one shot  Huh

The unfortunate coincidence of bitcoin getting popular and becoming a high stake game with Satoshi's disappearance  caused it to become rigid and resist evolution, obviously, but it doesn't change the fact that it is nothing more than a beta version of a proof of concept for PoW.

Proof of concept for PoW, not for cryptocurrency I have to emphasis as I see most people are not used to re-think everything and just follow the media.

According to their story: 1-Bitcoin is the ultimate form of PoW, 2- PoS is an alternative, much modern approach to cryptocurrency as a decentralized, public and permissionless system.

Both claims are void:
1- Bitcoin is not the end but a beginning for PoW, 2- PoS is nothing new, it has been around as reputation systems and has failed its mission because of its subjective nature. There is no way to publish money, a justifiable legitimate way I mean, so it doesn't deserve to be considered neither an alternative nor a modern approach to cryptocurrency.



Actually due to the energy wasting failures of PoW , Bitcoin is doomed within 5 years as the energy requirements are growing exponentially.
Your belief that Proof of Stake is failing is just plain wrong.
Currently it is the only one not draining the energy resources of the planet for wasteful attempts at being a global payment system.
I'm aware that you are a fan of PoS, an enthusiast, but this "energy wasting" argument won't help your faith, believe me.

First of all, energy is not wasted in PoW, it is the only objective way to keep a system secure and the way I look at it, the energy that network consumes now, is one of the most decent use cases for electricity ever:
setting people free from feds, preparation phase for such a freedom, at least.
I prefer not to use my car rather than turning my miner off when it comes to conserving energy because of its environmental consequences. Remember, the most reckless move  against the planet was Trump withdrawal from Kyoto Protocol. Defending the planet is a political movement with bitcoin in its heart.

Secondly, your speculative argument about energy demand of bitcoin "growing exponentially" is absolutely wrong. Bitcoin demand for energy has reached to its pick growth rate and it won't go much further in mid-term and will decline in long term because of a few important factors:
1- Moore law that is promising for more efficient devices.
2- Halving that de-incentivizes wild increases in hashpower. Unlike bitcoin-as-gold proponents, I believe transaction fees won't go that high, to put it more correctly, I think we should improve to have both tr fees and block reward very low.
3- Economics, that proves any exponential growth in the society is temporary and reaches its equilibrium state very soon as there is not enough resource to satisfy such a growth anyway.
4-... you say.

Quote
The only real problem with Proof of Stake system is the ones that inflation rate is just too high.
That issue is easily mitigated by going to a ultra low inflation rate.
Like gold, the reason it value held over time was the expense/ hardship of getting the ore limiting the new amount, therefore keeping a low inflation rate,
by moving a PoS system to an ultra low inflation rate, we mimic that process.

There are again a few more real problems with PoS:

1- It has no measure to tell us who deserves how much stake and why?

2- It is eventually a computerized version of fiat currencies, banks, interest rates, ... with obvious lack of Resistance Axiom, which is the main driving force behind cryptocurrency movement.

3- Its consensus algorithm (any variant), is basically subjective, based on a compromise between people about the distribution of stakes. It is inherently defective because of this subjectivity. Historically we had this idea in reputation systems before bitcoin and with no significant outcome.

4- ... I can say more.
byteball
Member
**
Online Online

Activity: 196
Merit: 26

The rising tide lifts all boats


View Profile
August 19, 2018, 02:29:17 PM
 #94

The energy deficit is subjective.
Let me remind you how the futurists of XVIII century were projecting forward the growth of cities: that as a result, streets will be thickly covered in horse manure.
This carbon dioxyde argument against technical progress sounds very familiar, isn't it?
The Earth will be heated a bit more during next 10 or 20 years due to reduced solar activity (as it's inversely correlated to the climate warmth) but then we will start to cool down. So why not have Bitcoin and PoW for another 30 years just to keep today's temperatures around.

And no, carbon dioxyde is not the primary cause of "greenhouse effect" - the primary cause is methane, which we produce a lot because of our derelict habit of eating meat.

*byteball cooтвeтcтвyeт нopмaм и тpeбoвaниям дeмoкpaтии, тoвap cepтифициpoвaн
aliashraf
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Activity: 574
Merit: 327


View Profile
August 19, 2018, 03:42:10 PM
 #95

And no, carbon dioxyde is not the primary cause of "greenhouse effect" - the primary cause is methane, which we produce a lot because of our derelict habit of eating meat.
People like Trump who do not care, typically eat meat too much as well. Just look at his fans.  Wink
Methane or de-oxide carbon production and emission is what humanity should take care and control of, it is indisputable.

Bitcoin energy consumption is not the primary target for energy conservation tho, we have a LOT more fields to conserve electricity in.
byteball
Member
**
Online Online

Activity: 196
Merit: 26

The rising tide lifts all boats


View Profile
August 19, 2018, 05:49:54 PM
 #96

Bitcoin energy consumption is not the primary target for energy conservation tho, we have a LOT more fields to conserve electricity in.
Amen to that!

Unfortunately, Trump cannot set a good example of conservationism.
USSR had this historical chance to force vegetarianism or even veganism (it only needed to borrow it from India properly,
with spices and science of ayurveda - which of course was counter to the state ideology!) on its population.
Alas, we had Khruschev who did his PR by promising "catching up and getting ahead of America in production of meat and milk" (how stupid...)
As the result, late Soviet Union had de-facto veganism with people surviving on potatos and pasta without spices or ayurveda or beans or nuts etc. which was ugly as hell. I remember those times with shudder of disgust.

*byteball cooтвeтcтвyeт нopмaм и тpeбoвaниям дeмoкpaтии, тoвap cepтифициpoвaн
Zin-Zang
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 1


View Profile
August 20, 2018, 03:12:05 AM
 #97

I'm aware that you are a fan of PoS, an enthusiast, but this "energy wasting" argument won't help your faith, believe me.

First of all, energy is not wasted in PoW, it is the only objective way to keep a system secure and the way I look at it, the energy that network consumes now, is one of the most decent use cases for electricity ever:


LOL, you confuse faith with Logic.

Your conclusion is false, the energy waste has not secured bitcoin it is dooming it.
1.  The Chinese Mining Pools have had a ~70% domination of bitcoin for years now.
     The only security in bitcoin is what they grant you nothing more.
    
2.  The energy waste means that future miners have to request permission from government regulators to allow them to increase capacity.
     If the Governments approve these energy requests of miners, they can use that as a way to coerce their approval or disapproval of transactions.
     Making bitcoin another government minion no different than banks.

Just to clarify Bitcoin Security is provided by the Chinese Miners Collusion not the energy waste.


There are again a few more real problems with PoS:

1- It has no measure to tell us who deserves how much stake and why?

2- It is eventually a computerized version of fiat currencies, banks, interest rates, ... with obvious lack of Resistance Axiom, which is the main driving force behind cryptocurrency movement.

3- Its consensus algorithm (any variant), is basically subjective, based on a compromise between people about the distribution of stakes. It is inherently defective because of this subjectivity. Historically we had this idea in reputation systems before bitcoin and with no significant outcome.

Answer to 1.
The amount one owns of the coin and the original code defines how much they stake and who earns.
And hopefully one research that code before buying.

Answer to 2.
All blockchain crypto is a general ledger that is the only thing they have in common,
Fiat is controlled by governments, PoS Crypto are defined by the code and therefore outside the control of those government elite.
Banks make up money out of thin air based on debt which they worsen with fractional reserve nonsense,
Crypto has a defined amount, with a defined growth, with ZERO DEBT built into it and No fractional reserve shenanigans.

FYI:  Wink (Excluding Tether of course since Tether is running a fraction reserve scam claiming 1 to 1 with the US$)

Answer to 3:
The only thing we agree on is PoS is a method of consensus.  Smiley
Ownership of everything is subjective to personal & group compromise, why this bothers you is strange.
IE:
You own apples and the guy down the road owns oranges,
You both exchange apples and oranges with each other , but the exchange rate is defined by the community preferences of which they favored more at the time of exchange. That is what you have to live with if there is more in the community than just you.
The value of any item is defined by how much others are willing to pay for it.
  

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

Activity: 196
Merit: 26

The rising tide lifts all boats


View Profile
August 20, 2018, 06:21:39 AM
 #98

The only real problem with Proof of Stake system is the ones that inflation rate is just too high.
That issue is easily mitigated by going to a ultra low inflation rate.
Like gold, the reason it value held over time was the expense/ hardship of getting the ore limiting the new amount, therefore keeping a low inflation rate,
by moving a PoS system to an ultra low inflation rate, we mimic that process.
Hmm didn't know there is inflation in PoS coins - I thought once they leave the hybrid phase, tokens are just redistributed in transaction fees
like in Next.
What is Zeitcoin based on? I didn't find the source code on their website.

*byteball cooтвeтcтвyeт нopмaм и тpeбoвaниям дeмoкpaтии, тoвap cepтифициpoвaн
Zin-Zang
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 1


View Profile
August 20, 2018, 06:56:42 AM
 #99

The only real problem with Proof of Stake system is the ones that inflation rate is just too high.
That issue is easily mitigated by going to a ultra low inflation rate.
Like gold, the reason it value held over time was the expense/ hardship of getting the ore limiting the new amount, therefore keeping a low inflation rate,
by moving a PoS system to an ultra low inflation rate, we mimic that process.
Hmm didn't know there is inflation in PoS coins - I thought once they leave the hybrid phase, tokens are just redistributed in transaction fees
like in Next.
What is Zeitcoin based on? I didn't find the source code on their website.


The interest generated acts as inflation,
by forever increasing the quantity of coins it always guarantees their will eventually be a lowering of value per coin,
if the quantity consumed does not exceed the quanity of new coin, the price per coin will eventually fall.

Most PoS devs give a coin 5% or higher , trying to mimic old saving account rates,
the problem with that is the bank were able to do so by giving loans at higher rates on that savings in the form of credit cards & other loans at over double or triple the savings rate. When a Crypto coin gives out a rate, they have nothing but consumer demand to try to nullify the increase, which over time can't sustain high rates forever, and then the price drops begin.
Which is why Satoshi built in bitcoin a forever decreasing number of coins generated per block every 4 years, until the miners no longer created new blocks but only make money by processing transaction fees only.
Which causes further problems : http://randomwalker.info/publications/mining_CCS.pdf


https://github.com/zeitcoin/zeitcoin
ZEITCOIN is based on peercoin originally, peercoin is still a hybrid running PoW & PoS.  https://github.com/peercoin
ZEITCOIN dropped PoW after the 1st two months.
Peercoin PoS design destroys all transaction fees as a way to offset their inflation from staking.


Last year Zeitcoin moved to an Ultra Low Inflation rate of .0005% yearly, even if the entire network were staking less than 500 new coins could be created daily.
So our Proof of Stake is purely for consensus at the present time and all of the transaction fees are currently burned.
The plan is in the next few years to no longer burn the fees but grant them to the block staker in addition to the ULI.
That is some ways off and for now the fees will continued to be burned.
* To offset the concerns raised in the pdf on randomwalker on transaction only coins, our coin will always and forever have the ULI reward.*

Due to the extremely low energy cost needed to run a Proof of Stake network ,
ZEITCOIN can run a network that outperforms bitcoin in transaction capacity , transaction fee prices , and speed, at a fraction of their input costs.
It is only a matter of time before the public becomes award of these improvements and acts according.
If you want more info
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=487814.0
  
FYI:
Nxt was a custom PoS implementation, including the ability to create other tokens on their network .
the normal standard of the majority of PoS coins is based on peercoin,
the developer of peercoin Sunny King was one of the original creators of Proof of Stake as a consensus method.
https://cointelegraph.com/news/the-history-and-evolution-of-proof-of-stake

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

Activity: 196
Merit: 26

The rising tide lifts all boats


View Profile
August 20, 2018, 07:59:18 AM
 #100

The problem with new systems is reaching the critical mass.
Only the largest PoS by capitalization will be considered secure, or most secure (similar to PoW in terms of hashrate).
But hashrate is physical, whereas exchange rates are subjective and can be manipulated
(that is the reason why capitalization needs to be big).
People will also look into distribution - and if they see 80% belonging to founders
(as is often the case) they will let such opportunity (to buy those coins) pass.

*byteball cooтвeтcтвyeт нopмaм и тpeбoвaниям дeмoкpaтии, тoвap cepтифициpoвaн
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 »  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!