Bitcoin Forum
November 22, 2017, 03:32:43 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 [3]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Curecoin to beat Litecoin!  (Read 3740 times)
ThePurplePlanet
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 144


View Profile
May 28, 2014, 09:43:21 PM
 #41

What do you guys think about Nxt?

NXT and the rest of Proof of Stake vaporware cannot be decentralized... People are too easy in buying junk they know nothing about

Proof of stake is the less important thing in nxt, if you don't understand what nxt is, I'm sorry for you, you seem to stay in the group of people which you are talking about.
I don't know what's you interpretation of decentraliced, but one of us should be wrong
Nxt is the first ecosystem which will allow a full economic system over it, it leaves bitcoin completely obsolete and when people realize and starts to understand nxt it will surpass bitcoin easily.
And for all of those which are complaining about distribution, with the same money invested into nxt as in bitcoin, you will earn around 200 times bigger percentague of total coin supply, I mean, for new investors, they always will have less proportion of bitcoin than nxt if they decide to invest in one of them. Bitcoin have even poor distribution "or similar" to nxt, the only problem is that this forum is full of miners which only can process "mine->dump->profit" and everything which isn't earned magically with their gpus is bad, am I wrong?

So tell us what is the most important then... If the blockchain cannot come into consensus because of POS .... then the rest of the features are useless...
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
lopalcar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 304


View Profile
May 29, 2014, 07:46:59 AM
 #42

So tell us what is the most important then... If the blockchain cannot come into consensus because of POS .... then the rest of the features are useless...
I mean, it's irrelevant if nxt is POW or POS, me, personally, see POS more secure, is in the holders interest to protect the network, and if an attacker want to kill the network will have to invest many more than to attack any POW coin. Would you have a different opinion about nxt if you can mine it with gpu? Give me some convincing argument against nxt which isn't a problem too in any other crypto.

PD: Sorry for the offtopics in this thread, but I feel the need to discuss with people criticizing the innovation
ThePurplePlanet
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 144


View Profile
May 29, 2014, 10:14:31 AM
 #43

So tell us what is the most important then... If the blockchain cannot come into consensus because of POS .... then the rest of the features are useless...
I mean, it's irrelevant if nxt is POW or POS, me, personally, see POS more secure, is in the holders interest to protect the network, and if an attacker want to kill the network will have to invest many more than to attack any POW coin. Would you have a different opinion about nxt if you can mine it with gpu? Give me some convincing argument against nxt which isn't a problem too in any other crypto.

PD: Sorry for the offtopics in this thread, but I feel the need to discuss with people criticizing the innovation

For me it is very relevant that is POS. If it was PoW I would be ok and I would support it.

My issue is that is actually not secure at all..

In PoS, you use your stake to determine the longest chain thus total cumulative stake on a chain is the one to make other clients follow that chain.
Say currently 5% of the stake is used to secure the network. An early adopter/exchange/group of people/stake pool with more stake (more than 5%) at some point in the coins history (the people might have sold long time back) can create a parallel  chain and reverse the current chain by showing more cumulative stake. How do you get the current chain with this decision mechanism? It cannot be decentralized... No matter what  the approach is the attackers can repeat the steps of any PoS approach...  

You only need to own the keys at some point in the past. For example, a person who deposits/withdraws multiple times from exchanges (think of exchanges using multiple addresses and withdrawing money from different accounts) can get the keys for a lot of stake ownership in the blockchain history and use it to create an alternate chain. Exchanges own a lot of stake in their history... Pools do the same.... and many other services...

The system will always be dependent on past stake ownership and this is a bad solution to propose to the world who dont understand much. From centralized banks to centralized devs decision making.

I feel that you guys hype something not sound at the base to make money. Focus on innovation but on a solid basis

TL;DR I support innovation but not at the cost of centralization. Past stakeholder will always control the fate of the coin unless you have human intervention aka checkpoints.
lopalcar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 304


View Profile
May 29, 2014, 02:05:46 PM
 #44


For me it is very relevant that is POS. If it was PoW I would be ok and I would support it.

My issue is that is actually not secure at all..

In PoS, you use your stake to determine the longest chain thus total cumulative stake on a chain is the one to make other clients follow that chain.
Say currently 5% of the stake is used to secure the network. An early adopter/exchange/group of people/stake pool with more stake (more than 5%) at some point in the coins history (the people might have sold long time back) can create a parallel  chain and reverse the current chain by showing more cumulative stake. How do you get the current chain with this decision mechanism? It cannot be decentralized... No matter what  the approach is the attackers can repeat the steps of any PoS approach...  

You only need to own the keys at some point in the past. For example, a person who deposits/withdraws multiple times from exchanges (think of exchanges using multiple addresses and withdrawing money from different accounts) can get the keys for a lot of stake ownership in the blockchain history and use it to create an alternate chain. Exchanges own a lot of stake in their history... Pools do the same.... and many other services...

The system will always be dependent on past stake ownership and this is a bad solution to propose to the world who dont understand much. From centralized banks to centralized devs decision making.

I feel that you guys hype something not sound at the base to make money. Focus on innovation but on a solid basis

TL;DR I support innovation but not at the cost of centralization. Past stakeholder will always control the fate of the coin unless you have human intervention aka checkpoints.

I don't want to blunder here "cause lack of knowlodge about the math in POS", but I think this is being talked here: https://nxtforum.org/general/how-does-nxt-fix-the-nothing-at-stake-problem/ and seems that this problem is solved or is very very difficult to reach cause cumlative difficulty, take a look and feel free to discuss it there, constructive disscussion is always good Smiley
In addition, now, with leased forging, there are much more stake forging, so I think you approach is even harder to succed
Anyways, if you are convinced you could bid for that account https://nxtforum.org/general/how-does-nxt-fix-the-nothing-at-stake-problem/msg26169/#msg26169
SOEHARTO
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28


View Profile
May 29, 2014, 02:22:55 PM
 #45

wow i would like to try this one now Cheesy
want investing for future

Want to be Millioner
Snail2
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288



View Profile
May 29, 2014, 02:54:04 PM
 #46

I wouldn't agree with OP even if CureCoin would be the only "mine for good" coin. There are primecoin, gridcoin, and now curecoin. Neither primecoin nor gridcoin was able to beat LTC. All three would deserve that as these coins doing something useful, but LTC has too much investment, too big hashrate, too big "installed base" to be beaten easily. Certainly it's possible to hype and pump it "to da moon" (as we seen in the case of auroracoin) but I'm afraid that won't last long.
sumantso
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile
May 29, 2014, 03:55:09 PM
 #47

We get it, you're a bagholder of curecoin...

Actually I don't have nearly as big of a stake as I do in other currencies.

Lets hope it works out for you. But I don't see any economic basis for it to be rewarding.

Pages: « 1 2 [3]  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!