Which Proof of Stake System is the Most Viable

[sumantso]

I've heard that PeerCoin's version of POS is more vulnerable because it calculates the size of the stake using the number of days the coins have been held. This supposedly makes it more vulnerable to attack, but I can't find the post where this was discussed. come-from-beyond mentioned it on the NXT forum (I think).

I love them all. POW is doomed eventually, but it might be a few years off yet.

I think you can only build up 90 coin days at most.

[pgbit]

Peercoin POS is not user-friendly, in my opinion. To, mint, the wallet gets unlocked, and at that stage is the wallet secure? Information and security of the minting process is limited. Plus, having set up the minting process perfectly OK on other coins, not managed to get any POS from PPC, ever, despite going through the process and waiting months, following all instructions etc. Seems that other people find the instructions hard to understand:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=187714.100

The new DPOS from Bitshares sounds very carefully thought out, and promises to be faster - its not released yet though. I hope its fairer than PPC.

[sumantso]

The new DPOS from Bitshares sounds very carefully thought out, and promises to be faster - its not released yet though. I hope its fairer than PPC.

To me it sounds almost ideal, and I am very excited to see it work. I hope there is no huge overlooked flaw in it.

[jonald_fyookball]

The new DPOS from Bitshares sounds very carefully thought out, and promises to be faster - its not released yet though. I hope its fairer than PPC.

To me it sounds almost ideal, and I am very excited to see it work. I hope there is no huge overlooked flaw in it.

The huge overlooked flaw is that it's not really distributed consensus.

[clout]

The new DPOS from Bitshares sounds very carefully thought out, and promises to be faster - its not released yet though. I hope its fairer than PPC.

To me it sounds almost ideal, and I am very excited to see it work. I hope there is no huge overlooked flaw in it.

The huge overlooked flaw is that it's not really distributed consensus.

how is it not?

[jonald_fyookball]

The new DPOS from Bitshares sounds very carefully thought out, and promises to be faster - its not released yet though. I hope its fairer than PPC.

To me it sounds almost ideal, and I am very excited to see it work. I hope there is no huge overlooked flaw in it.

The huge overlooked flaw is that it's not really distributed consensus.

how is it not?

Well, it could be argued that it is. 

But to me its not a good system because you have to trust the
supernode you voted for, etc.  You get into the whole trust
thing, almost like voting for politicians to represent your interests.
I would much prefer the whole thing be trustless and governed
by math and protocols like Bitcoin.

[sumantso]

The new DPOS from Bitshares sounds very carefully thought out, and promises to be faster - its not released yet though. I hope its fairer than PPC.

To me it sounds almost ideal, and I am very excited to see it work. I hope there is no huge overlooked flaw in it.

The huge overlooked flaw is that it's not really distributed consensus.

how is it not?

Well, it could be argued that it is. 

But to me its not a good system because you have to trust the
supernode you voted for, etc.  You get into the whole trust
thing, almost like voting for politicians to represent your interests.
I would much prefer the whole thing be trustless and governed
by math and protocols like Bitcoin.

I was initially thinking the same and was against anything of that sort; but the process is very different and simple. The client keeps voting for delegates with good track record, which is producing blocks on time and including transactions, and doesn't let it overvote.

Its actually very nifty solution. How it works in practice remains to be seen, though.

[clout]

The new DPOS from Bitshares sounds very carefully thought out, and promises to be faster - its not released yet though. I hope its fairer than PPC.

To me it sounds almost ideal, and I am very excited to see it work. I hope there is no huge overlooked flaw in it.

The huge overlooked flaw is that it's not really distributed consensus.

how is it not?

Well, it could be argued that it is. 

But to me its not a good system because you have to trust the
supernode you voted for, etc.  You get into the whole trust
thing, almost like voting for politicians to represent your interests.
I would much prefer the whole thing be trustless and governed
by math and protocols like Bitcoin.

Do you really think bitcoin is a trustless system...?

[jonald_fyookball]

Generally, yes. 

What do you want to nitpick about?

[anonerd]

don't waste your power (prepare for major release on monday):
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=623761.new#new

[DeathAndTaxes]

None as they don't resolve the "nothing at stake" problem.  It may be possible that some future PoS resolves this.  Yes NXT claims to resolve it via secret magical code in TF but until open source and peer reviewed it is just a claim. 

[jonald_fyookball]

Isn't another issue is you need your wallet open to "forge/mint"...
That seems bad for security.  Not sure if that's an issue
with just NXT, or applies to Peercoin and DPOS as well.

[gentlemand]

Has there been a clear run down of what NEM's proof of importance system consists of?

[clout]

Generally, yes. 

What do you want to nitpick about?

You have to understand that cryptography secures your wallet not the network. The network is secured via consensus. Bitcoin as with all proof of whatever systems is a resource democracy. It is the natural structure for decision making of all distributed organizations throughout history. If you have 51% of the capital in the world you run it. This is the same phenomena with bitcoin proof of work. Your say over the network is proportional to your share of the designated resource, with bitcoin that is hashing power. Miners delegate there hashing powers to mining pools and those are the people you effectively trust to run the network. They are like the board of directors of the company that is bitcoin.

Every resource democracy works the same and is subject to the same 51% attack. The problem with bitcoin in particularly is that the capital intensive nature of mining disproportionately advantages those with economies of scale and ultimately centralizing the decision making powers. These are not trustless systems, rather you are distributing  trust amongst your peers with hopes that at the very least 51% of them are trustworthy. Regardless of the system, you are not trusting math you are trusting people.

[clout]

Isn't another issue is you need your wallet open to "forge/mint"...
That seems bad for security.  Not sure if that's an issue
with just NXT, or applies to Peercoin and DPOS as well.

It is an issue with peercoin not dpos.

[Brangdon]

Isn't another issue is you need your wallet open to "forge/mint"...
That seems bad for security.  Not sure if that's an issue
with just NXT, or applies to Peercoin and DPOS as well.

Nxt doesn't require you have to your wallet open to forge.

[jonald_fyookball]

Generally, yes.  

What do you want to nitpick about?

You have to understand that cryptography secures your wallet not the network. The network is secured via consensus. Bitcoin as with all proof of whatever systems is a resource democracy. It is the natural structure for decision making of all distributed organizations throughout history. If you have 51% of the capital in the world you run it. This is the same phenomena with bitcoin proof of work. Your say over the network is proportional to your share of the designated resource, with bitcoin that is hashing power. Miners delegate there hashing powers to mining pools and those are the people you effectively trust to run the network. They are like the board of directors of the company that is bitcoin.

Every resource democracy works the same and is subject to the same 51% attack. The problem with bitcoin in particularly is that the capital intensive nature of mining disproportionately advantages those with economies of scale and ultimately centralizing the decision making powers. These are not trustless systems, rather you are distributing  trust amongst your peers with hopes that at the very least 51% of them are trustworthy. Regardless of the system, you are not trusting math you are trusting people.

Agree about the 51% thing... it applies to every system.

Disagree about the economies of scale being a problem though. ASICS and hashing power are likely becoming increasingly commoditized, scalable, and distributed.  

[jonald_fyookball]

Isn't another issue is you need your wallet open to "forge/mint"...
That seems bad for security.  Not sure if that's an issue
with just NXT, or applies to Peercoin and DPOS as well.

Nxt doesn't require you have to your wallet open to forge.

Website says this

What do I need to start forging?
A client and some NXT. Once you have unlocked your wallet with your passphrase you are able to forge.

[Brangdon]

Isn't another issue is you need your wallet open to "forge/mint"...
That seems bad for security.  Not sure if that's an issue
with just NXT, or applies to Peercoin and DPOS as well.

Nxt doesn't require you have to your wallet open to forge.

Website says this

What do I need to start forging?
A client and some NXT. Once you have unlocked your wallet with your passphrase you are able to forge.

That's one way to forge, but there are others. Specifically, you can lease your forging power to a pool, then it will forge on your behalf and you don't need to keep your wallet open.

[ecoinspro]

I would vote for NXT but I am not allowed
it seems it is well built but the distribution is not so great !!
oh well so is BITCOIN ;-)