Quark investors - Quark information on cycles and the push to move towards PoS.

[DeathAndTaxes]

if PoS provides for more security how come advanced check-pointing was conceived with PoS only?

Because it isn't. PoS suffers from a "nothing at risk" problem.  An attacker can use coins they no longer have but did have at one point in the past to attack the network.  Actually there is no reason to not do this.  If the attacker is unsucessful well they lose nothing in the attempt and if they are successful they get all their coins "back" (that they may have lost, had stolen, or sold).  Checkpoints limit how far back the chain can be reorged but they don't solve the nothing at stake problem, only limit the extent of the damage.

Please tell us which PoS coin has been attacked by so called "nothing at risk" problem.

None definitively although more than one POS coin has been 51% attacked.  Many of them have stake requirements which are negligible so often cheap attack is easier than a more sophisticated nothing at stake attack.  No POS coin has extensive history in the field other than PPC and it avoids an attack by using 100% centralized checkpoints.   Still you don't really believe that "hasn't happened" = "can't happen"?  Bitcoin has never been 51% attacked therefore you believe an attack is impossible?

[BitRock]

if PoS provides for more security how come advanced check-pointing was conceived with PoS only?

Because it isn't. PoS suffers from a "nothing at risk" problem.  An attacker can use coins they no longer have but did have at one point in the past to attack the network.  Actually there is no reason to not do this.  If the attacker is unsucessful well they lose nothing in the attempt and if they are successful they get all their coins "back" (that they may have lost, had stolen, or sold).  Checkpoints limit how far back the chain can be reorged but they don't solve the nothing at stake problem, only limit the extent of the damage.

Please tell us which PoS coin has been attacked by so called "nothing at risk" problem.

None definitively although more than one POS coin has been 51% attacked.  Many of them have stake requirements which are negligible so often cheap attack is easier than a more sophisticated nothing at stake attack.  No POS coin has extensive history in the field other than PPC and it avoids an attack by using 100% centralized checkpoints.   Still you don't really believe that "hasn't happened" = "can't happen"?  Bitcoin has never been 51% attacked therefore you believe an attack is impossible?

Could you provide any other theoretical evidence to support your claim if it had never happened in practice?

[ThePurplePlanet]

if PoS provides for more security how come advanced check-pointing was conceived with PoS only?

Because it isn't. PoS suffers from a "nothing at risk" problem.  An attacker can use coins they no longer have but did have at one point in the past to attack the network.  Actually there is no reason to not do this.  If the attacker is unsucessful well they lose nothing in the attempt and if they are successful they get all their coins "back" (that they may have lost, had stolen, or sold).  Checkpoints limit how far back the chain can be reorged but they don't solve the nothing at stake problem, only limit the extent of the damage.

Please tell us which PoS coin has been attacked by so called "nothing at risk" problem.

None definitively although more than one POS coin has been 51% attacked.  Many of them have stake requirements which are negligible so often cheap attack is easier than a more sophisticated nothing at stake attack.  No POS coin has extensive history in the field other than PPC and it avoids an attack by using 100% centralized checkpoints.   Still you don't really believe that "hasn't happened" = "can't happen"?  Bitcoin has never been 51% attacked therefore you believe an attack is impossible?

Could you provide any other theoretical evidence to support your claim if it had never happened in practice?

In PoS, you use your stake to determine the longest chain thus total cumulative stake on a chain is the one to make nodes 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 secret chain and reverse the current chain by showing more cumulative stake. How do you get the current chain with this decision mechanism? Cannot be decentralized... No matter what is the approach the attackers can repeat the steps of any PoS approach...  Does it make sense?

[BitRock]

if PoS provides for more security how come advanced check-pointing was conceived with PoS only?

Because it isn't. PoS suffers from a "nothing at risk" problem.  An attacker can use coins they no longer have but did have at one point in the past to attack the network.  Actually there is no reason to not do this.  If the attacker is unsucessful well they lose nothing in the attempt and if they are successful they get all their coins "back" (that they may have lost, had stolen, or sold).  Checkpoints limit how far back the chain can be reorged but they don't solve the nothing at stake problem, only limit the extent of the damage.

Please tell us which PoS coin has been attacked by so called "nothing at risk" problem.

None definitively although more than one POS coin has been 51% attacked.  Many of them have stake requirements which are negligible so often cheap attack is easier than a more sophisticated nothing at stake attack.  No POS coin has extensive history in the field other than PPC and it avoids an attack by using 100% centralized checkpoints.   Still you don't really believe that "hasn't happened" = "can't happen"?  Bitcoin has never been 51% attacked therefore you believe an attack is impossible?

Could you provide any other theoretical evidence to support your claim if it had never happened in practice?

In PoS, you use your stake to determine the longest chain thus total cumulative stake on a chain is the one to make nodes 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 secret chain and reverse the current chain by showing more cumulative stake. How do you get the current chain with this decision mechanism? Cannot be decentralized... No matter what is the approach the attackers can repeat the steps of the PoS approach...  Does it make sense?

It doesn't make sense at all. To do this kind of attack, you need generate a parallel secret chain using your 5% coin first. To sell your 5% coin on exchange you need to synchronize to the publick blockchain. Then your blockchain is not secret at all and you can't go back after you sell your coin.

[ThePurplePlanet]

if PoS provides for more security how come advanced check-pointing was conceived with PoS only?

Because it isn't. PoS suffers from a "nothing at risk" problem.  An attacker can use coins they no longer have but did have at one point in the past to attack the network.  Actually there is no reason to not do this.  If the attacker is unsucessful well they lose nothing in the attempt and if they are successful they get all their coins "back" (that they may have lost, had stolen, or sold).  Checkpoints limit how far back the chain can be reorged but they don't solve the nothing at stake problem, only limit the extent of the damage.

Please tell us which PoS coin has been attacked by so called "nothing at risk" problem.

None definitively although more than one POS coin has been 51% attacked.  Many of them have stake requirements which are negligible so often cheap attack is easier than a more sophisticated nothing at stake attack.  No POS coin has extensive history in the field other than PPC and it avoids an attack by using 100% centralized checkpoints.   Still you don't really believe that "hasn't happened" = "can't happen"?  Bitcoin has never been 51% attacked therefore you believe an attack is impossible?

Could you provide any other theoretical evidence to support your claim if it had never happened in practice?

In PoS, you use your stake to determine the longest chain thus total cumulative stake on a chain is the one to make nodes 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 secret chain and reverse the current chain by showing more cumulative stake. How do you get the current chain with this decision mechanism? Cannot be decentralized... No matter what is the approach the attackers can repeat the steps of the PoS approach...  Does it make sense?

It doesn't make sense at all. To do this kind of attack, you need generate a parallel secret chain using your 5% coin first. To sell your 5% coin on exchange you need to synchronize to the publick blockchain. Then your blockchain is not secret at all and you can't go back after you sell your coin.

The clients accept the longest chain. Once you sell you withdraw say bitcoins you dont need to go back to the current chain at all to make a profit....

[BitRock]

if PoS provides for more security how come advanced check-pointing was conceived with PoS only?

Because it isn't. PoS suffers from a "nothing at risk" problem.  An attacker can use coins they no longer have but did have at one point in the past to attack the network.  Actually there is no reason to not do this.  If the attacker is unsucessful well they lose nothing in the attempt and if they are successful they get all their coins "back" (that they may have lost, had stolen, or sold).  Checkpoints limit how far back the chain can be reorged but they don't solve the nothing at stake problem, only limit the extent of the damage.

Please tell us which PoS coin has been attacked by so called "nothing at risk" problem.

None definitively although more than one POS coin has been 51% attacked.  Many of them have stake requirements which are negligible so often cheap attack is easier than a more sophisticated nothing at stake attack.  No POS coin has extensive history in the field other than PPC and it avoids an attack by using 100% centralized checkpoints.   Still you don't really believe that "hasn't happened" = "can't happen"?  Bitcoin has never been 51% attacked therefore you believe an attack is impossible?

Could you provide any other theoretical evidence to support your claim if it had never happened in practice?

In PoS, you use your stake to determine the longest chain thus total cumulative stake on a chain is the one to make nodes 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 secret chain and reverse the current chain by showing more cumulative stake. How do you get the current chain with this decision mechanism? Cannot be decentralized... No matter what is the approach the attackers can repeat the steps of the PoS approach...  Does it make sense?

It doesn't make sense at all. To do this kind of attack, you need generate a parallel secret chain using your 5% coin first. To sell your 5% coin on exchange you need to synchronize to the publick blockchain. Then your blockchain is not secret at all and you can't go back after you sell your coin.

The clients accept the longest chain. Once you sell you withdraw say bitcoins you dont need to go back to the current chain at all to make a profit....

To make a profit you need to reverse the current chain by showing more cumulative stake after you sell your PoS coin to bitcoin. Then you can get bitcoin and PoS coin at same time. However, to move 5% PoS coin to exchange, you have to publish your secret longer blockchain to public. Then your secret longer blockchain becomes to public chain and you lose the ability to reverse the public blockchain.

[ThePurplePlanet]

if PoS provides for more security how come advanced check-pointing was conceived with PoS only?

Because it isn't. PoS suffers from a "nothing at risk" problem.  An attacker can use coins they no longer have but did have at one point in the past to attack the network.  Actually there is no reason to not do this.  If the attacker is unsucessful well they lose nothing in the attempt and if they are successful they get all their coins "back" (that they may have lost, had stolen, or sold).  Checkpoints limit how far back the chain can be reorged but they don't solve the nothing at stake problem, only limit the extent of the damage.

Please tell us which PoS coin has been attacked by so called "nothing at risk" problem.

None definitively although more than one POS coin has been 51% attacked.  Many of them have stake requirements which are negligible so often cheap attack is easier than a more sophisticated nothing at stake attack.  No POS coin has extensive history in the field other than PPC and it avoids an attack by using 100% centralized checkpoints.   Still you don't really believe that "hasn't happened" = "can't happen"?  Bitcoin has never been 51% attacked therefore you believe an attack is impossible?

Could you provide any other theoretical evidence to support your claim if it had never happened in practice?

In PoS, you use your stake to determine the longest chain thus total cumulative stake on a chain is the one to make nodes 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 secret chain and reverse the current chain by showing more cumulative stake. How do you get the current chain with this decision mechanism? Cannot be decentralized... No matter what is the approach the attackers can repeat the steps of the PoS approach...  Does it make sense?

It doesn't make sense at all. To do this kind of attack, you need generate a parallel secret chain using your 5% coin first. To sell your 5% coin on exchange you need to synchronize to the publick blockchain. Then your blockchain is not secret at all and you can't go back after you sell your coin.

The clients accept the longest chain. Once you sell you withdraw say bitcoins you dont need to go back to the current chain at all to make a profit....

To make a profit you need to reverse the current chain by showing more cumulative stake after you sell your PoS coin to bitcoin. Then you can get bitcoin and PoS coin at same time. However, to move 5% PoS coin to exchange, you have to publish your secret longer blockchain to public. Then your secret longer blockchain becomes to public chain and you lose the ability to reverse the public blockchain.

Why would the network without human intervention not accept my second chain? It perfectly follows the rules... The other attack you are describing is the nothing at stake problem where you can keep trying double send without any cost. I am talking about a more severe attack that will force the network to become centralized or investors/exchanges/reputation take massive losses....

[BitRock]

Why would the network without human intervention not accept my second chain? It perfectly follows the rules...

Because you cannot reverse public blockchain using your one secret longer blockchain twice.

Why would the network without human intervention not accept my second chain? It perfectly follows the rules... The other attack you are describing is the nothing at stake problem where you can keep trying double send without any cost. I am talking about a more severe attack that will force the network to become centralized or investors/exchanges/reputation take massive losses....

It do cost to attack Pos coin. You have to buy 5% coin from market.

I am talking about a more severe attack that will force the network to become centralized or investors/exchanges/reputation take massive losses....

Please describe the more severe attack in detail.

[ThePurplePlanet]

Why would the network without human intervention not accept my second chain? It perfectly follows the rules...

Because you cannot reverse public blockchain using your one secret longer blockchain twice.

The point is that you dont need to reverse it twice but only once.

Apart from that you misunderstand what a decentralized autonomous corporation like bitcoin means. There are certain rules and all clients follow those rules. The rule is to work on the longest chain aka most cumulative stake for PoS and most work for PoW.

 If you have the stake in your history you can reverse it 2,3,5 and as many times as you like if you want. Noone stops you from that only human intervention aka centralized checkpoints.

Why would the network without human intervention not accept my second chain? It perfectly follows the rules... The other attack you are describing is the nothing at stake problem where you can keep trying double send without any cost. I am talking about a more severe attack that will force the network to become centralized or investors/exchanges/reputation take massive losses....

It do cost to attack Pos coin. You have to buy 5% coin from market.

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) 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...

I am talking about a more severe attack that will force the network to become centralized or investors/exchanges/reputation take massive losses....

Please describe the more severe attack in detail.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Altcoin#Proof_Of_Stake

[BitRock]

Why would the network without human intervention not accept my second chain? It perfectly follows the rules...

Because you cannot reverse public blockchain using your one secret longer blockchain twice.

The point is that you dont need to reverse it twice but only once.

Apart from that you misunderstand what a decentralized autonomous corporation like bitcoin means. There are certain rules and all clients follow those rules. The rule is to work on the longest chain aka most cumulative stake for PoS and most work for PoW.

 If you have the stake in your history you can reverse it 2,3,5 and as many times as you like if you want. Noone stops you from that only human intervention aka centralized checkpoints.

Why would the network without human intervention not accept my second chain? It perfectly follows the rules... The other attack you are describing is the nothing at stake problem where you can keep trying double send without any cost. I am talking about a more severe attack that will force the network to become centralized or investors/exchanges/reputation take massive losses....

It do cost to attack Pos coin. You have to buy 5% coin from market.

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) 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...

I am talking about a more severe attack that will force the network to become centralized or investors/exchanges/reputation take massive losses....

Please describe the more severe attack in detail.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Altcoin#Proof_Of_Stake

Ironically, Feathercoin, AuroraCoin and Quarkcoin, all of those PoW coin, have centralized checkpoints.

[ThePurplePlanet]

Why would the network without human intervention not accept my second chain? It perfectly follows the rules...

Because you cannot reverse public blockchain using your one secret longer blockchain twice.

The point is that you dont need to reverse it twice but only once.

Apart from that you misunderstand what a decentralized autonomous corporation like bitcoin means. There are certain rules and all clients follow those rules. The rule is to work on the longest chain aka most cumulative stake for PoS and most work for PoW.

 If you have the stake in your history you can reverse it 2,3,5 and as many times as you like if you want. Noone stops you from that only human intervention aka centralized checkpoints.

Why would the network without human intervention not accept my second chain? It perfectly follows the rules... The other attack you are describing is the nothing at stake problem where you can keep trying double send without any cost. I am talking about a more severe attack that will force the network to become centralized or investors/exchanges/reputation take massive losses....

It do cost to attack Pos coin. You have to buy 5% coin from market.

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) 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...

I am talking about a more severe attack that will force the network to become centralized or investors/exchanges/reputation take massive losses....

Please describe the more severe attack in detail.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Altcoin#Proof_Of_Stake

Ironically, Feathercoin, AudroraCoin and Quarkcoin, all of those PoW coin, have centralized checkpoints.

Thats true... It is like a chicken and egg problem... The value needs to rise so that more hashing power flows in and secure the network.... So I guess these coins are waiting if more adoption happens so that the price rises and become secure... On the other hand PoS cannot be decentralized at any value...

I am sure if these coins become more valuable they can remove the checkpoints....

[BitRock]

Why would the network without human intervention not accept my second chain? It perfectly follows the rules...

Because you cannot reverse public blockchain using your one secret longer blockchain twice.

The point is that you dont need to reverse it twice but only once.

Apart from that you misunderstand what a decentralized autonomous corporation like bitcoin means. There are certain rules and all clients follow those rules. The rule is to work on the longest chain aka most cumulative stake for PoS and most work for PoW.

 If you have the stake in your history you can reverse it 2,3,5 and as many times as you like if you want. Noone stops you from that only human intervention aka centralized checkpoints.

Why would the network without human intervention not accept my second chain? It perfectly follows the rules... The other attack you are describing is the nothing at stake problem where you can keep trying double send without any cost. I am talking about a more severe attack that will force the network to become centralized or investors/exchanges/reputation take massive losses....

It do cost to attack Pos coin. You have to buy 5% coin from market.

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) 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...

I am talking about a more severe attack that will force the network to become centralized or investors/exchanges/reputation take massive losses....

Please describe the more severe attack in detail.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Altcoin#Proof_Of_Stake

Ironically, Feathercoin, AudroraCoin and Quarkcoin, all of those PoW coin, have centralized checkpoints.

Thats true... It is like a chicken and egg problem... The value needs to rise so that more hashing power flows in and secure the network.... So I guess these coins are waiting if more adoption happens so that the price rises and become secure... On the other hand PoS cannot be decentralized at any value...

I am sure if these coins become more valuable they can remove the checkpoints....

When the mining reward of PoW coin is decreased dramatically, it will require centralized checkpoints like PoS coin.
That is what happened on quark.

[ThePurplePlanet]

Why would the network without human intervention not accept my second chain? It perfectly follows the rules...

Because you cannot reverse public blockchain using your one secret longer blockchain twice.

The point is that you dont need to reverse it twice but only once.

Apart from that you misunderstand what a decentralized autonomous corporation like bitcoin means. There are certain rules and all clients follow those rules. The rule is to work on the longest chain aka most cumulative stake for PoS and most work for PoW.

 If you have the stake in your history you can reverse it 2,3,5 and as many times as you like if you want. Noone stops you from that only human intervention aka centralized checkpoints.

Why would the network without human intervention not accept my second chain? It perfectly follows the rules... The other attack you are describing is the nothing at stake problem where you can keep trying double send without any cost. I am talking about a more severe attack that will force the network to become centralized or investors/exchanges/reputation take massive losses....

It do cost to attack Pos coin. You have to buy 5% coin from market.

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) 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...

I am talking about a more severe attack that will force the network to become centralized or investors/exchanges/reputation take massive losses....

Please describe the more severe attack in detail.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Altcoin#Proof_Of_Stake

Ironically, Feathercoin, AudroraCoin and Quarkcoin, all of those PoW coin, have centralized checkpoints.

Thats true... It is like a chicken and egg problem... The value needs to rise so that more hashing power flows in and secure the network.... So I guess these coins are waiting if more adoption happens so that the price rises and become secure... On the other hand PoS cannot be decentralized at any value...

I am sure if these coins become more valuable they can remove the checkpoints....

When the mining reward of PoW coin is decreased dramatically, it will require centralized checkpoints like PoS coin.
That is what happened on quark.

Thats true unless you have a lot of transactions and economic activity to rely on that. Thats why it is bad for coins long-term to instamine. Definity instamine can give price boost early but hinders adoption and thus usage..

[BugSpirit]

Nothing at stake or other similar technique are based on quite a poor Longest Chain Determination algorytm. And the algorytm is also responsible for diminishing PoS contribution to security.

We could demand both larger stake and larger pow difficulty to resolve the conflict iff favor of one of the chains. With this method the attacker will need both 51% of hashrate and 51% of working stake to fork blockchain as he likes. It's not ideal but with such a logic stakeholders will be able to prevent 51% PoW attack and pools will be able to reverse the chain in case of nothing-at-stake.

[digitalindustry]

The only point i disagree with is the fast distribution -

- all this done was speed up the natural cycle that all crypto will go though anyhow.

 - so in speeding it up we actually gained adoption - see the Quark community is among one of the largest in Crypto no one doubts that.

- all the time new people are coming on board.

so how did it work ?

we removed the monopoly aspect  the key part of the manipulation that lets a currency be kept high, I just commented also that MRO Monero has this in a limited way - so i predict  (unless i can find proof of Scam) a fall in its price as the emission goes out.

you see we can all learn from Quark , as it leads the way.

why hasn't that moved to price appreciation ?

because simply when it was at 0 there were still large holders as the cycle goes though our community picks up a little bit more, and a little bit more etc.

this means that its inevitable that Quark distributes further in the future, all others still subject to monopoly can't start to do this yet.

[digitalindustry]

Hash will solve itself - but the large community we have will (including myself) chip in and give incentives to new miners .

this is the (i mine with my block eruptor to help the network) scenario that Bitcoin had .

except with Quark we see real benefits so people with a stake in Quark will do this . 

[digitalindustry]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=604716.0


^^^^^
i'm just trying to  "plain language" DE_logics attack theory on PoS


----------------------------------------------------

Interesting just because i think no one outside of hard core Crypto is going to understand any of that, - can i just state it in plain language and you tell me if a am  far or close to the mark?


PoS  means Proof of ownership like owning a Bond. + interest.

When you hold units of crpyto they age like bonds and mature giving back an "interest" stake - 

DE_logics is basically saying  or theorizing that under certain conditions  if you had:


10 Bonds (ten pieces of interest bearing paper) each worth 1 unit + 1 unit of interest.

you would earn more net interest verses:

One single 10 unit Bond + its interest.

* even if the interest is meant to be equal - i.e the 10 bonds should equal the exact same net return as the single Bond because they are the same units net worth and the interest rate is "fixed" by whole the system.

and in this way, this could be a flaw in PoS  because someone could split up their bonds (something you can do with crypto)  and generate enough interest to control the whole game.



how did i do ?

if its on or close to the mark i will post it back on the other thread as it is relevant - #

[digitalindustry]

I worry that changing Quark to PoS would make it complicated to newcomers. To the average consumer, PoW is hard enough to understand, but I think it makes sense at least. I think that Quark has the bare bones of something great--fast transactions, secure network, best distribution model around. We don't need to reinvent the wheel; we just need to put some air back in the tires.

I think working on getting mining pools set up (great work by Cashmen) is where we should focus our efforts. Vic had some great ideas on reddit. Orm also had some excellent ideas, which I will quote here.

1.Foundation buy different GPU miners and the community can buy shares/contracts. The shares can also be sold at QEX (like cryptsy is doing with the mine1 and mine2). The foundation creates a special page with mining statistics. Mining can be combined with more profitable coins. The payout of the contracts can be daily and is dependent what is mined and always in Quark.

2. Create a mining pool with different levels of hashing rates. If I mine with a I5 I don't want to be mixed with "heavy GPU" miners then my mining share is not visible anymore. In this way you make it also more fun for people who contributes with low hashing power (which I think is just as important for the distrbution as the miners who contribute with high hashing power)

I know I don't have a lot of posts on this forum, but I'm pretty sure most people know who I am so whatever. It's hard enough keeping up with reddit, IRC, Trello, Email without having to follow forums as well.

Welcome : )

Thanks for taking the time to sign up

[voluntarist500]

quark is just fine. Stop making all coins the same. Quark has been copied many times - because it is good. Please no pos. Pos is more inflation and reduces the value in the long run. don't kill quark with pos. Thanks.
Have some patients with it and improove otherwise. do not dilute scarce coin.

[victzhang]

quark is just fine. Stop making all coins the same. Quark has been copied many times - because it is good. Please no pos. Pos is more inflation and reduces the value in the long run. don't kill quark with pos. Thanks.
Have some patients with it and improove otherwise. do not dilute scarce coin.

PoS will not make Quark more inflationary. Currently Quark has a 0.5% inflation every year. We can split it as 0.25% PoW inflation and 0.25% PoS inflation. PoS will NOT kill Quark; instead, it will save it from attacks.

Network security is a very important issue, and PoS is an efficient way to solve this issue. With pure PoW, people has to set up miners to protect the network; given the very low block reward, a smart person doesn't want to mine Quark because the mining income can't even pay electricity. With PoW/PoS mixed, people can simply leave their wallets open to protect the network at a very low cost.

PoW coins with low/no block reward have been shown to not work. A recent failure is Coin2, which was under massive attack and had to implement PoS after that. The attacker even posted in the ANN thread and claimed that he earned 20+BTC by 51% attacks. Considering Coin2 only has a very small market cap, 20BTC is a huge number. Quark could be the next Coin2 if we blindly believe Quark is unique and shouldn't be changed in anyways, and don't take any measure to increase network security.

Low hashrate keeps investors away. Currently the hashrate is only about 400M. At this hashrate an investor is getting worried because one could lose his/her investment after a attack. This is definitely not good.

PoS is stronger than you think. I know recently there are some discussions on whether PoS is safe enough. Someone doubts if PoS provides enough protection. Yes, PoS could be attacked even only with 1% of the total coins, but it will happen ONLY IF very few people are connecting their wallets to the network and the active stake on the network is less than 1%. PoS can be 51% attacked if the attacker own more than 51% coin-age than the "active" coin-age on the network. We can simply encourage people to leave their wallets open when idle to increase the active stakes on the network to gain enough protection, much easier than encouraging people to fire up their equipment and burn electricity to mine. (Added on 05/31)However, implementing PoS and not asking people to open their wallets do not work. Coin2 is still a bad example here since it was said to be 51% attacked even after PoS implementation.

Price increase will not solve the security issue. If we do some good promotions and more people are buying (increase the price), the hashrate will go up as a result. Promotion is important; however, when the price goes up, attackers also have more incentive and are willing to pay more to do the attack since he can earn more after the attack. If price and hashrate increase at the same time with a similar scale, network security is not improved.