Why Bitcoin Could be Beat.

[EFFV]

A picture speaks a thousand words. NEM.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/10ZVrzuS_krjRF5rMvt5oKl3IS3VOhF_qnn2faZb7KZQ/edit?pli=1

[1714108323]

1714108323

[1714108323]

1714108323

[1714108323]

1714108323

[1714108323]

1714108323

[1714108323]

1714108323

[EFFV]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=426303.4720

[salsacz]

or use existing Nxt crypto platform:



one click to get to the Nxt testnet: http://nxtra.org/nxt-client/

http://justpaste.it/nxt-introduction-4-journalists

50.000 posts https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=345619.0

and since it's not just about the pictures..

• Nxt's architecture is leaner and faster than Bitcoin's. The proof of stake mechanism is lightweight and block generation is 10 times faster. Nxt also doesn't support scripts/predicates, so transaction processing is easier as well.
• Everything built on top of Bitcoin must inherit Bitcoin's speed, its proof-of-work legacy of waste, and its transaction processing model. Nxt has none of these, so everything built in top of Nxt is lighter, cheaper, more energy efficient, and faster.
• Since anything being built on top of Bitcoin can also be built on top of Nxt, Nxt is the obvious choice.

[VolanicEruptor]

Hello!  Are you ok?

[btcpay86]

he is ok, i think

[jabo38]

That looks amazing.  It is clear that 2.0 is coming!!!

mining PoW is so 2012-2013

[franky1]

just another altcoin advertisment... Yawn.......
....moving on

[waldox]

if a government expresses to kill and acquire the pos cyrptocurrency then they can kill it by people panic selling to the government, until the govt holds 51%

in a pos
the rich keeps getting richer... its not really a fair way to distribute and acquire new users

if you have a lot of pos shares then you have less incentive to spend vs hoard thus mining more by hoarding

these are very strong weaknesses with pos compared to pow

[Come-from-Beyond]

these are very strong weaknesses with pos compared to pow

Tell this to owners of PoW coins that were 51% attacked. R u able to recall a PoS coin that was 51% bought?

[evanxxx]

if you have a lot of pos shares then you have less incentive to spend vs hoard thus mining more by hoarding

forging/mining income for PoS is only comparable to bank interest. how much incentive do you think bank interest gives people to hoard instead of spending?

[kelsey]

these are very strong weaknesses with pos compared to pow

Tell this to owners of PoW coins that were 51% attacked. R u able to recall a PoS coin that was 51% bought?

The misconception is that you actually need 51% of the coins in order to do a 51% attack on a POS

[Come-from-Beyond]

The misconception is that you actually need 51% of the coins in order to do a 51% attack on a POS

True. In Nxt u must buy 90% to attack it.

[LeChatNoir]

I'm very interested in PoW VS PoS debate as i'm sure PoW will have to face a lot of hard issues in the future.

From reddit http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1oi7su/criticisms_of_proofofstake/ccsd6rm:

I think Andrew Miller put it best: "The trouble with Proof-of-stake is that there is nothing at stake."

Consider the basic function of proof-of-work and the blockchain: together, they let the network come to a consensus when there are two (or more) different, competing chains.

Miners must decide to dedicate their hashing power to just one chain-- they cannot "bet on" more than one. So their best strategy is to work on the chain that they think most other miners are working on, and that quickly drives the system to a consensus on a single, best chain.

The trouble with proof-of-stake is there is no natural incentive stopping a miner from assigning their stake to multiple, competing chains. If you try to create such a system, you "go meta" -- you started by trying to solve the transaction double-spend problem (which proof-of-work and the blockchain handle nicely), and end up trying to solve a proof-of-stake double-spend problem.

How do NEM or NXT address this problem?

[Come-from-Beyond]

I'm very interested in PoW VS PoS debate as i'm sure PoW will have to face a lot of hard issues in the future.

From reddit http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1oi7su/criticisms_of_proofofstake/ccsd6rm:

I think Andrew Miller put it best: "The trouble with Proof-of-stake is that there is nothing at stake."

Consider the basic function of proof-of-work and the blockchain: together, they let the network come to a consensus when there are two (or more) different, competing chains.

Miners must decide to dedicate their hashing power to just one chain-- they cannot "bet on" more than one. So their best strategy is to work on the chain that they think most other miners are working on, and that quickly drives the system to a consensus on a single, best chain.

The trouble with proof-of-stake is there is no natural incentive stopping a miner from assigning their stake to multiple, competing chains. If you try to create such a system, you "go meta" -- you started by trying to solve the transaction double-spend problem (which proof-of-work and the blockchain handle nicely), and end up trying to solve a proof-of-stake double-spend problem.

How do NEM or NXT address this problem?

Nxt uses Transparent Forging to counteract malicious miners who mine multiple chains. As a result such weak point as ability to mine multiple chains becomes a strong one. Legit miners get chance to mine legit parallel chains and this leads to insane performance optimization.

[zhuaihdd]

Hello!  Are you ok?

I think he should be very good now

[department]

I don't know much about Bitcoin though I read the whitepaper. I only used it to buy Nxt.  Wink

Edit: Hardcoded well-known nodes lead to centralization. This is just another one of the cases where Nxt is more decentralizing than Bitcoin.

[LeChatNoir]

I'm very interested in PoW VS PoS debate as i'm sure PoW will have to face a lot of hard issues in the future.

From reddit http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1oi7su/criticisms_of_proofofstake/ccsd6rm:

I think Andrew Miller put it best: "The trouble with Proof-of-stake is that there is nothing at stake."

Consider the basic function of proof-of-work and the blockchain: together, they let the network come to a consensus when there are two (or more) different, competing chains.

Miners must decide to dedicate their hashing power to just one chain-- they cannot "bet on" more than one. So their best strategy is to work on the chain that they think most other miners are working on, and that quickly drives the system to a consensus on a single, best chain.

The trouble with proof-of-stake is there is no natural incentive stopping a miner from assigning their stake to multiple, competing chains. If you try to create such a system, you "go meta" -- you started by trying to solve the transaction double-spend problem (which proof-of-work and the blockchain handle nicely), and end up trying to solve a proof-of-stake double-spend problem.

How do NEM or NXT address this problem?

Nxt uses Transparent Forging to counteract malicious miners who mine multiple chains. As a result such weak point as ability to mine multiple chains becomes a strong one. Legit miners get chance to mine legit parallel chains and this leads to insane performance optimization.

Interesting TY

[Ix]

Nxt uses Transparent Forging to counteract malicious miners who mine multiple chains. As a result such weak point as ability to mine multiple chains becomes a strong one. Legit miners get chance to mine legit parallel chains and this leads to insane performance optimization.

I don't really see how calling a bug a feature makes it a feature. In what way does transparent forging counteract malicious miners? And why does having multiple consensus chains lead to performance optimizations? (That seems quite counter-intuitive.) How is consensus eventually achieved?

[Come-from-Beyond]

I don't really see how calling a bug a feature makes it a feature. In what way does transparent forging counteract malicious miners? And why does having multiple consensus chains lead to performance optimizations? (That seems quite counter-intuitive.) How is consensus eventually achieved?

Oh, troll much, such cute.

[Ix]

Oh, troll much, such cute.

You completely evaded the question and promoted what should be a critical failure (allowing double spends and providing no real means of consensus) as some feature of the currency. I'd say you're the one trolling.