Which Proof of Stake System is the Most Viable

[cybnate26]

All PoS coins are backed up misinformation, hiding facts and trolls.

Unlike bitcoin which clearly states all the attack vectors and problems on the wiki. I would prefer fiat than current PoS coins.

 If you must choose one choose the one with most trolls and hype.

Not sure where you get your information from. There are multiple threads on peercointalk.org about attack vectors, weaknesses and potential solutions for Peercoin.
As other posters have mentioned the PoW threats Bitcoin and other PoW coins face may be more devastating for the value of the coin than the PoS threats which are already temporarily mitigated with checkpoints.

[1714859066]

1714859066

[1714859066]

1714859066

[1714859066]

1714859066

[1714859066]

1714859066

[valarmg]

All PoS coins are backed up misinformation, hiding facts and trolls.

Unlike bitcoin which clearly states all the attack vectors and problems on the wiki. I would prefer fiat than current PoS coins.

 If you must choose one choose the one with most trolls and hype.

For Nxt. Here you go: http://wiki.nxtcrypto.org/ Everything is out in the open. Code is all open source. Nothing is hidden. New developments are being worked on to improve how it works at a core level (economic clustering, transparent forging etc.).

As the poster below me said, there's also lots of analysis of possible weaknesses about Peercoin on peercointalk as well, and lots of work towards fixing them.

The blackcoin dev is also working on strengthening that PoS algorithm.

[ThePurplePlanet]

All PoS coins are backed up misinformation, hiding facts and trolls.

Unlike bitcoin which clearly states all the attack vectors and problems on the wiki. I would prefer fiat than current PoS coins.

 If you must choose one choose the one with most trolls and hype.

For Nxt. Here you go: http://wiki.nxtcrypto.org/ Everything is out in the open. Code is all open source. Nothing is hidden. New developments are being worked on to improve how it works at a core level (economic clustering, transparent forging etc.).

This looks more like infomercial. No description of possible attack vectors at all like bitcoin does. NXT in particular has been all promoting but no honest discussion about the algo problems.

[ChuckOne]

Feel free to start threads about attacks on Nxt.

[ThePurplePlanet]

Feel free to start threads about attacks on Nxt.

Will you pay me?

[ChuckOne]

Feel free to start threads about attacks on Nxt.

Will you pay me?

You cry for attack vectors, provide some as everybody here does. Nobody will pay before of that. If they will find your contribution worthwhile, they will donate to you.

Btw. that is how the Nxt community grew strong.

[sumantso]

Would somebody be so kind as to explain to me what the difference is between Transparent Forging and DPoS?

Very little difference. DPOS puts a hard cap on the amount of stake that can be delegated to an address, and you can also delegate your stake *against* an address.

IMO, the hard cap is very important which others doesn't seem to find a key feature. I would pick DPoS over Transparent Forging just because of that.

Wonder if it is at all possible to modify the Transparent Forging scheme to implement a limit.

[sumantso]

All PoS coins are backed up misinformation, hiding facts and trolls.

Unlike bitcoin which clearly states all the attack vectors and problems on the wiki. I would prefer fiat than current PoS coins.

 If you must choose one choose the one with most trolls and hype.

Just stating attack vectors without any solution is hardly useful. How would you solve the problem of Bitcoin being controlled by 10 or so miners?

[ThePurplePlanet]

All PoS coins are backed up misinformation, hiding facts and trolls.

Unlike bitcoin which clearly states all the attack vectors and problems on the wiki. I would prefer fiat than current PoS coins.

 If you must choose one choose the one with most trolls and hype.

Just stating attack vectors without any solution is hardly useful. How would you solve the problem of Bitcoin being controlled by 10 or so miners?

Why is hardly useful? It is very useful. I may not be smart enough to find solutions or may not exist without compromising on decentralization. Decentralization is tough and I m sure has limits.

Not sure where you get your info but recently I read somewhere there are 55000 miners. (I think it was in the recent bitcoin conference in one of the videos)  Is this what you mean? https://blockchain.info/pools?timespan=24hrs  If yes these are pools and pools are not miners and pooling will happen with both PoS and PoW. If not can you point me to your sources? I would be interested..

[Brangdon]

What is interesting to me is that in the (IMO very unlikely) event that Nxt has technical promise, then as soon as the code is open-source it will be possible to create Nxt-clone using the spin-off mechanism and immediately bootstrap the clone with a more efficient distribution than Nxt-original.  

As I understand it, the Nxt code is modular. The core, including the PoS stuff, will be open-source, but some of the services built on top will not be. The Nxt devs believe a lot of their value is in the services - things like the Asset Exchange. So the clone won't include all of Nxt.

Asset Exchange is in the core and is open source.

Third party services (like muiltisig gateway for othjer cryptos)  may or maynot.

Thanks for the correction.

[lalakies23]

Peercoin of course. What kind of phony poll is this?

[ChuckOne]

IMO, the hard cap is very important which others doesn't seem to find a key feature. [...]

Point is, why?

Wonder if it is at all possible to modify the Transparent Forging scheme to implement a limit.

Sure, if you explain the why.

[mhps]

There would be no penalty.  Lets look at the case of a majority and minority attacker separately.  

An attacker with a minority of the stake will optimally support ALL chains including the main chain.  
...  There is nothing at risk precisely because he can support all chains in parallel simultaneously.

I think this is over simplifying. To support all chains one *will* run out of resource (RAM or CPU cycles or fan speed or electricity bill... the whole *POW* cost) soon because the number of forks increases exponentially if you start to tend all of them. Althought the cost per fork looks low, it might just be enough to overwhelm the tiny probability adjusted benefit (e.g. you have to double spend several million PPCs to make it profitable after trying it so long). I posted something here but like to hear feedbacks from others before going further. I think a simulation is needed to find out how exactly profitable this business is.

[sumantso]

All PoS coins are backed up misinformation, hiding facts and trolls.

Unlike bitcoin which clearly states all the attack vectors and problems on the wiki. I would prefer fiat than current PoS coins.

 If you must choose one choose the one with most trolls and hype.

Just stating attack vectors without any solution is hardly useful. How would you solve the problem of Bitcoin being controlled by 10 or so miners?

Why is hardly useful? It is very useful. I may not be smart enough to find solutions or may not exist without compromising on decentralization. Decentralization is tough and I m sure has limits.

Not sure where you get your info but recently I read somewhere there are 55000 miners. (I think it was in the recent bitcoin conference in one of the videos)  Is this what you mean? https://blockchain.info/pools?timespan=24hrs  If yes these are pools and pools are not miners and pooling will happen with both PoS and PoW. If not can you point me to your sources? I would be interested..

Miner is the one who decides what transaction to include or exclude. In effect it is controlled by 10 or so miners. 55k or whatever running their machines is immaterial. I guess you can see the problem now.

Pooling won't happen with DPoS. Sure, somebody can set up multiple delegates and keep his identity hidden, but pooling as such directly is not possible.

Besides in DPoS, anybody transacting is playing is part in securing. So in effect the shareholders has a direct say. In PoW like Bitcoin, the users don't have any say.

[ThePurplePlanet]

Miner is the one who decides what transaction to include or exclude. In effect it is controlled by 10 or so miners. 55k or whatever running their machines is immaterial. I guess you can see the problem now.

Pooling won't happen with DPoS. Sure, somebody can set up multiple delegates and keep his identity hidden, but pooling as such directly is not possible.

Besides in DPoS, anybody transacting is playing is part in securing. So in effect the shareholders has a direct say. In PoW like Bitcoin, the users don't have any say.

You need just one miner to include the transaction in block.. You may wait more though...

Dont understand DPoS (I ll have a look) but the rest of PoS are flawed in the core idea and will be controlled by the rich of the coin always... Can the hard cap idea of DPoS fight the total control of the rich over the coin? What is the advantage?

[jonald_fyookball]

There would be no penalty.  Lets look at the case of a majority and minority attacker separately.  

An attacker with a minority of the stake will optimally support ALL chains including the main chain.  
...  There is nothing at risk precisely because he can support all chains in parallel simultaneously.

I think this is over simplifying. To support all chains one *will* run out of resource (RAM or CPU cycles or fan speed or electricity bill... the whole *POW* cost) soon because the number of forks increases exponentially if you start to tend all of them. Althought the cost per fork looks low, it might just be enough to overwhelm the tiny probability adjusted benefit (e.g. you have to double spend several million PPCs to make it profitable after trying it so long). I posted something here but like to hear feedbacks from others before going further. I think a simulation is needed to find out how exactly profitable this business is.

An attacker only needs to support the main chain and his own attack chains. I believe that is the meaning here.

[sumantso]

Miner is the one who decides what transaction to include or exclude. In effect it is controlled by 10 or so miners. 55k or whatever running their machines is immaterial. I guess you can see the problem now.

Pooling won't happen with DPoS. Sure, somebody can set up multiple delegates and keep his identity hidden, but pooling as such directly is not possible.

Besides in DPoS, anybody transacting is playing is part in securing. So in effect the shareholders has a direct say. In PoW like Bitcoin, the users don't have any say.

You need just one miner to include the transaction in block.. You may wait more though...

Dont understand DPoS (I ll have a look) but the rest of PoS are flawed in the core idea and will be controlled by the rich of the coin always... Can the hard cap idea of DPoS fight the total control of the rich over the coin? What is the advantage?

You're missing the entire point. Effectively 10 people have the power to choose what types of transactions to include. For instance tomorrow Ghash and 2 others may decide to leave out all Counterparty transactions, which means they are screwed. Do you, as a Bitcoin user, have any say in it?

[DeathAndTaxes]

Miner is the one who decides what transaction to include or exclude. In effect it is controlled by 10 or so miners. 55k or whatever running their machines is immaterial. I guess you can see the problem now.

Pooling won't happen with DPoS. Sure, somebody can set up multiple delegates and keep his identity hidden, but pooling as such directly is not possible.

Besides in DPoS, anybody transacting is playing is part in securing. So in effect the shareholders has a direct say. In PoW like Bitcoin, the users don't have any say.

You need just one miner to include the transaction in block.. You may wait more though...

Dont understand DPoS (I ll have a look) but the rest of PoS are flawed in the core idea and will be controlled by the rich of the coin always... Can the hard cap idea of DPoS fight the total control of the rich over the coin? What is the advantage?

You're missing the entire point. Effectively 10 people have the power to choose what types of transactions to include. For instance tomorrow Ghash and 2 others may decide to leave out all Counterparty transactions, which means they are screwed. Do you, as a Bitcoin user, have any say in it?

They aren't screwed.  The tx will still be included in blocks by other miners.   Also the excluding miners will lose the tx fees and that will make them less competitive relative to other pools and if the actual miners disagree with that loss they will leave and the pool (and pool operator's profits) will shrink.   Today fees are relatively small but as a % of total miner compensation they will only grow.

[ChuckOne]

There would be no penalty.  Lets look at the case of a majority and minority attacker separately.  

An attacker with a minority of the stake will optimally support ALL chains including the main chain.  
...  There is nothing at risk precisely because he can support all chains in parallel simultaneously.

I think this is over simplifying. To support all chains one *will* run out of resource (RAM or CPU cycles or fan speed or electricity bill... the whole *POW* cost) soon because the number of forks increases exponentially if you start to tend all of them. Althought the cost per fork looks low, it might just be enough to overwhelm the tiny probability adjusted benefit (e.g. you have to double spend several million PPCs to make it profitable after trying it so long). I posted something here but like to hear feedbacks from others before going further. I think a simulation is needed to find out how exactly profitable this business is.

Interesting.

[ChuckOne]

There would be no penalty.  Lets look at the case of a majority and minority attacker separately.  

An attacker with a minority of the stake will optimally support ALL chains including the main chain.  
...  There is nothing at risk precisely because he can support all chains in parallel simultaneously.

I think this is over simplifying. To support all chains one *will* run out of resource (RAM or CPU cycles or fan speed or electricity bill... the whole *POW* cost) soon because the number of forks increases exponentially if you start to tend all of them. Althought the cost per fork looks low, it might just be enough to overwhelm the tiny probability adjusted benefit (e.g. you have to double spend several million PPCs to make it profitable after trying it so long). I posted something here but like to hear feedbacks from others before going further. I think a simulation is needed to find out how exactly profitable this business is.

An attacker only needs to support the main chain and his own attack chains. I believe that is the meaning here.

Sure. The point of mhps is that the number of "own attack chains" can get really big in order to create the best chain.