Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 12:35:01 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 [536] 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1804365 times)
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
August 17, 2014, 08:54:14 PM
 #10701

the "truth" in a POW system is determined by the objective laws of thermodynamics which are fundamental laws that exist outside the POW system.  it cannot be gamed by the stakeholders.

the "truth" in a POS system is not determined by any such laws outside its own system.  it is self referencing, aka an echo chamber, of whatever the stakeholders "want" to be the truth, whether objective or not.  it can be gamed by the stakeholders, if they all agree.
I'd add the clarification that PoW only promises that defeating the consensus process is uneconomical, not impossible.

The paper shows that PoS can't even make that promise.

http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/bino

SHA-based PoW has shown to be "centralisable" though ...

1480898101
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480898101

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480898101
Reply with quote  #2

1480898101
Report to moderator
1480898101
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480898101

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480898101
Reply with quote  #2

1480898101
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480898101
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480898101

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480898101
Reply with quote  #2

1480898101
Report to moderator
1480898101
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480898101

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480898101
Reply with quote  #2

1480898101
Report to moderator
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
August 17, 2014, 08:57:09 PM
 #10702

read the paper PeterR and Justus referenced.

the "truth" in a POW system is determined by the objective laws of thermodynamics which are fundamental laws that exist outside the POW system.  it cannot be gamed by the stakeholders.

the "truth" in a POS system is not determined by any such laws outside its own system.  it is self referencing, aka an echo chamber, of whatever the stakeholders "want" to be the truth, whether objective or not.  it can be gamed by the stakeholders, if they all agree.

But why would they all agree when doing so would destroy the integrity of their stake? As we saw recently  getting them to agree on such a change is near impossible and will only get more difficult as the system gets bigger any many forgers are companies that have their businesses built on top of the system.

Are you saying that AI will never be possible? Because that is a self referencing system.

POW is a better and more fair method of distributing new coins, but that is all.

Once bitcoin is widely distributed and the majority of block rewards comes from fees and not minting, then switching to a POS system seems fine.

Both systems are identical on how security is created, they only differ in who gets to vote. In POW votes are allocated based on how much electricity one consumes (assuming everyone has access to the same technology which will be true after ASICs settle down). In POS votes are allocated based on the number of coins held. The concepts of a voting based system are the same.

BTW bitcoin already did a rollback in March 2013, yes it was to correct a bug but the devs looked at the situation and asked miners to abandon the longest chain and build a shorter one. This is possible with POW too... Bitcoin is still based on the laws of men (not thermodynamics), its just that bitcoin aligns the interests of the "voters" in a way to create a rules based system.
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554



View Profile
August 17, 2014, 08:57:44 PM
 #10703

...

But why would they all agree when doing so would destroy the integrity of their stake? ...

Because they could've just sold their stake. I believe the paper points that out.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
But Bitcointalk & /r/bitcoin are heavily censored. bitco.in/forum, forum.bitcoin.com, and /r/btc are open.
Best info on Casascius coins: http://spotcoins.com/casascius
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 814


View Profile
August 17, 2014, 09:01:43 PM
 #10704

...

But why would they all agree when doing so would destroy the integrity of their stake? ...

Because they could've just sold their stake. I believe the paper points that out.

So an entity sells their stake and then hopes that the rest of the network will agree to fork it back for them? Highly unlikely. If this fork, which would have only changed the outcome of a single known malicious transaction was unable to pass, then I can't imagine how a fork like that would ever pass.
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554



View Profile
August 17, 2014, 09:02:07 PM
 #10705

...
http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/bino

SHA-based PoW has shown to be "centralisable" though ...


Yeah, I skimmed that post earlier today. First off, mining converging to industrial scale is not "centralization" in the sense that a single entity will irrevocably obtain control of the network. Also note that the author said Satoshi made a "miscalculation" about this tendency toward industrial mining, when in fact, in one of Satoshi's earliest writings he pointed out that mining would converge to be done by a relatively small number of large enterprises. People who didn't 1) foresee this themselves and/or 2) read Satoshi's early writings are one of the following: 1) stupid, 2) lazy. And now such people crying "bino" because of this "realization", when in fact they're just further behind on the thinking-things-through department than the rest of us.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
But Bitcointalk & /r/bitcoin are heavily censored. bitco.in/forum, forum.bitcoin.com, and /r/btc are open.
Best info on Casascius coins: http://spotcoins.com/casascius
kodtycoon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770


View Profile
August 17, 2014, 09:02:25 PM
 #10706

the "truth" in a POW system is determined by the objective laws of thermodynamics which are fundamental laws that exist outside the POW system.  it cannot be gamed by the stakeholders.

the "truth" in a POS system is not determined by any such laws outside its own system.  it is self referencing, aka an echo chamber, of whatever the stakeholders "want" to be the truth, whether objective or not.  it can be gamed by the stakeholders, if they all agree.
I'd add the clarification that PoW only promises that defeating the consensus process is uneconomical, not impossible.

The paper shows that PoS can't even make that promise.
PoS can make that promise.. in order to be able to rewrite history, a malicious user would have to buy well over 50% of the currency.. to do that and then fuck the system is as you say, uneconomical..

regardless, even if you are correct.. soon the roolback or reorg wont be possible.. transparent forging will soon be fully in place and when it is, you would need over 90%/95% of forging power to do a roll back or reorg and that would be virtually, or economically, impossible... or so unlikely that its enough... the same way a 51% attack is so unlikely it is enough.
[/quote]

"Pioneering a revolutionary novel consensus mechanism called proof of importance."
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
August 17, 2014, 09:04:18 PM
 #10707

SHA-based PoW has shown to be "centralisable" though ...
That word sounds scary, but what does it mean?

Is it the case that people who can afford to perform negative ROI attacks of sufficient magnitude can break a PoW system?

Yes, and Bitcoin never promised that they couldn't.

We know from math it's impossible to make a distributed consensus system that's cryptographically secure, so trying to find such a system is a pointless distraction. It's a question of how do we best use the tools we have within the confines of what is possible.
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 814


View Profile
August 17, 2014, 09:06:37 PM
 #10708

Again, Vitalik has been doing a TON of research on this topic and look what he found: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6990
kodtycoon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770


View Profile
August 17, 2014, 09:16:23 PM
 #10709

Again, Vitalik has been doing a TON of research on this topic and look what he found: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6990

is there a mirror site for bitshares.org? it wont load for me at all. wouldnt earlier ether, even the homepage.. :/

"Pioneering a revolutionary novel consensus mechanism called proof of importance."
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
August 17, 2014, 09:35:48 PM
 #10710

... in order to be able to rewrite history, a malicious user would have to buy well over 50% of the currency.. to do that and then fuck the system is as you say, uneconomical..

... transparent forging ... would need over 90%/95% of forging power to do a roll back or reorg ...

The Nxt community was debating "rewriting history" to rollback the theft from Bter!  The users become the attackers, and in their echo chamber they decide to make up whatever truth appears convenient at the time.  If you don't see this, then you don't want to see it.  

On the topic of a single malicious cabal attacking the network, the cabal needs only 51% of what is currently staked, which may be significantly less than 51% of the money supply.  Furthermore, the cabal can attack with coins they once had but have since sold.  This is the nothing-at-stake problem (aka the history-rewrite problem).  This can be prevented with checkpoints or if the developers sign blocks as valid, but then your decentralized currency is no longer decentralized!  We saw this with the viacoin roll back.

Lastly, the idea that some special sauce known as "transparent forging" will require 90% of the critical resource to attack is a highly dubious claim.  I strongly suspect that the following PoX Theorem holds:

A malicious user controlling 51% of the critical resource X in a PoX distributed consensus system can attack the network.
  

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
kodtycoon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770


View Profile
August 17, 2014, 09:53:52 PM
 #10711

... in order to be able to rewrite history, a malicious user would have to buy well over 50% of the currency.. to do that and then fuck the system is as you say, uneconomical..

The Nxt community was debating "rewriting history" to rollback the theft from Bter!  The users become the attackers, and in their echo chamber they decide to make up whatever truth appears convenient at the time.  If you don't see this, then you don't want to see it.  

On the topic of a single malicious cabal attacking the network, the cabal needs only 51% of what is currently staked, which may be significantly less than 51% of the money supply.  Furthermore, the cabal can attack with coins they once had but have since sold.  This is the nothing-at-stake problem (aka the history-rewrite problem).  This can be prevented with checkpoints or if the developers sign blocks as valid, but then your decentralized currency is no longer decentralized!  We saw this with the viacoin roll back.

Lastly, the idea that some special sauce known as "transparent forging" will require 90% of the critical resource to attack is a highly dubious claim.  I strongly suspect that the following PoX Theorem holds:

A malicious user controlling 51% of the critical resource X in a PoX distributed consensus system can attack the network.
  

transparent forging: will be sure to send you documentation once integrated.

nothing at stake: read this, its done in a decentralised manner.. believe it or not...

make up whatever truth appears convenient: was it in the best interest of the forgers and in the best interest for the security and future of the network to perform a rollback? no... did the forgers agree to the rollback by forging on the new chain? a fraction yes... but the majority agreed that the best thing for the network was to stay on the current chain and not do a roll back.. even in such a dire time when, tbh, not much worse could have happened to require a rollback/reorg but even this worse case scenario did not induce the forgers to remove themselves from the main chain to the reorg chain..


"Pioneering a revolutionary novel consensus mechanism called proof of importance."
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 814


View Profile
August 17, 2014, 09:57:48 PM
 #10712

Again, Vitalik has been doing a TON of research on this topic and look what he found: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6990

is there a mirror site for bitshares.org? it wont load for me at all. wouldnt earlier ether, even the homepage.. :/

Hmm your right but no I don't know a mirror. Basically it looks like Ethereum is going to be teaming up with bitshares and DPOS (similar to how nxt works) he is quoted as saying that it has become clear the POW is dead.
kodtycoon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770


View Profile
August 17, 2014, 10:05:01 PM
 #10713

Again, Vitalik has been doing a TON of research on this topic and look what he found: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6990

is there a mirror site for bitshares.org? it wont load for me at all. wouldnt earlier ether, even the homepage.. :/

Hmm your right but no I don't know a mirror. Basically it looks like Ethereum is going to be teaming up with bitshares and DPOS (similar to how nxt works) he is quoted as saying that it has become clear the POW is dead.

your joking?Huh?

HAHAHA im sorry but i find that absolutely hilarious lol not because i disagree, i do agree it is/will be, but because of all the pow buffs fighting the pow corner so hard and then someone, that so many pow buffs have put on a crypto pedestal and someone so high profile, turns around and says pow is dead... after all these PoW buffs have given him millions.. that is priceless!!!!!! Cheesy OMG LOLZ... hahaha

"Pioneering a revolutionary novel consensus mechanism called proof of importance."
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
August 17, 2014, 10:18:38 PM
 #10714

HAHAHA im sorry but i find that absolutely hilarious lol not because i disagree, i do agree it is/will be, but because of all the pow buffs fighting the pow corner so hard and then someone, that so many pow buffs have put on a crypto pedestal and someone so high profile, turns around and says pow is dead... after all these PoW buffs have given him millions.. that is priceless!!!!!! Cheesy OMG LOLZ... hahaha

If Ethereum merged with BitShares and used DPoS it would be hilarious indeed.  I think my fellow "PoW buffs" would agree.  Personally, I don't believe this rumour, however. 

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 17, 2014, 10:20:06 PM
 #10715

Again, Vitalik has been doing a TON of research on this topic and look what he found: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6990

is there a mirror site for bitshares.org? it wont load for me at all. wouldnt earlier ether, even the homepage.. :/

Hmm your right but no I don't know a mirror. Basically it looks like Ethereum is going to be teaming up with bitshares and DPOS (similar to how nxt works) he is quoted as saying that it has become clear the POW is dead.

you are simply delusional:

kodtycoon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770


View Profile
August 17, 2014, 10:23:25 PM
 #10716

Again, Vitalik has been doing a TON of research on this topic and look what he found: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6990

is there a mirror site for bitshares.org? it wont load for me at all. wouldnt earlier ether, even the homepage.. :/

Hmm your right but no I don't know a mirror. Basically it looks like Ethereum is going to be teaming up with bitshares and DPOS (similar to how nxt works) he is quoted as saying that it has become clear the POW is dead.

you are simply delusional:



mr.e are you able to locate the quote? has he put this in writing somewhere or did someone just repeat what he has said vocally?

"Pioneering a revolutionary novel consensus mechanism called proof of importance."
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
August 17, 2014, 10:25:47 PM
 #10717


The Nxt community was debating "rewriting history" to rollback the theft from Bter!  The users become the attackers, and in their echo chamber they decide to make up whatever truth appears convenient at the time.  If you don't see this, then you don't want to see it.  

On the topic of a single malicious cabal attacking the network, the cabal needs only 51% of what is currently staked, which may be significantly less than 51% of the money supply.  Furthermore, the cabal can attack with coins they once had but have since sold.  This is the nothing-at-stake problem (aka the history-rewrite problem).  This can be prevented with checkpoints or if the developers sign blocks as valid, but then your decentralized currency is no longer decentralized!  We saw this with the viacoin roll back or fork it and get rid of it.

Lastly, the idea that some special sauce known as "transparent forging" will require 90% of the critical resource to attack is a highly dubious claim.  I strongly suspect that the following PoX Theorem holds:

A malicious user controlling 51% of the critical resource X in a PoX distributed consensus system can attack the network.
  

Bitcoin was "rolled back" at one point in the early days.  Whether objective or subjective, no one wanted 92 billion bitcoins to remain in the blockchain and controlled by a single entity.  If that were to happen today I almost guarantee the miners would find a way to roll it back. 

The fact is nxt worked as advertised.  The developers released a patch to roll back the transaction but it was unsuccessful, proving that they did not have complete control over the network and the integrity of the currency remained intact.  POS is subject to similar game theory type stuff as POW.  Why would someone who has a large stake in the system attempt to compromise it?

We can debate whether POW or POS can be compromised, but the fact is cryptocurrency is proven to be sound money once relatively mature.  If 5% (or 7% in bitcoin's case - mtgox) of US dollars had somehow been stolen, you can be guaranteed that the federal reserve would have arbitrarily started a counterfeit program (2008 bailouts and QE).  Our systems are better and the beauty is users have a choice of POW or POS.

Counterfeit:  made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive:  merriam-webster
kodtycoon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770


View Profile
August 17, 2014, 10:28:58 PM
 #10718


The Nxt community was debating "rewriting history" to rollback the theft from Bter!  The users become the attackers, and in their echo chamber they decide to make up whatever truth appears convenient at the time.  If you don't see this, then you don't want to see it.  

On the topic of a single malicious cabal attacking the network, the cabal needs only 51% of what is currently staked, which may be significantly less than 51% of the money supply.  Furthermore, the cabal can attack with coins they once had but have since sold.  This is the nothing-at-stake problem (aka the history-rewrite problem).  This can be prevented with checkpoints or if the developers sign blocks as valid, but then your decentralized currency is no longer decentralized!  We saw this with the viacoin roll back or fork it and get rid of it.

Lastly, the idea that some special sauce known as "transparent forging" will require 90% of the critical resource to attack is a highly dubious claim.  I strongly suspect that the following PoX Theorem holds:

A malicious user controlling 51% of the critical resource X in a PoX distributed consensus system can attack the network.
  

Bitcoin was "rolled back" at one point in the early days.  Whether objective or subjective, no one wanted 92 billion bitcoins to remain in the blockchain and controlled by a single entity.  If that were to happen today I almost guarantee the miners would find a way to roll it back. 

The fact is nxt worked as advertised.  The developers released a patch to roll back the transaction but it was unsuccessful, proving that they did not have complete control over the network and the integrity of the currency remained intact.  POS is subject to similar game theory type stuff as POW.  Why would someone who has a large stake in the system attempt to compromise it?

We can debate whether POW or POS can be compromised, but the fact is cryptocurrency is proven to be sound money once relatively mature.  If 5% (or 7% in bitcoin's case - mtgox) of US dollars had somehow been stolen, you can be guaranteed that the federal reserve would have arbitrarily started a counterfeit program (2008 bailouts and QE).  Our systems are better and the beauty is users have a choice of POW or POS.

thank you for interjecting that. i didnt know bitcoin once did a rollback...

also, you will all be debating proof of importance soon too.. now that, is a revolutionary new consensus algorithm..

"Pioneering a revolutionary novel consensus mechanism called proof of importance."
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 814


View Profile
August 17, 2014, 10:33:20 PM
 #10719

Again, Vitalik has been doing a TON of research on this topic and look what he found: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6990

is there a mirror site for bitshares.org? it wont load for me at all. wouldnt earlier ether, even the homepage.. :/

Hmm your right but no I don't know a mirror. Basically it looks like Ethereum is going to be teaming up with bitshares and DPOS (similar to how nxt works) he is quoted as saying that it has become clear the POW is dead.

you are simply delusional:



I'm not saying I agree with that particular statement although I'd guess he was talking more long term.
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 814


View Profile
August 17, 2014, 10:41:39 PM
 #10720

Again, Vitalik has been doing a TON of research on this topic and look what he found: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6990

is there a mirror site for bitshares.org? it wont load for me at all. wouldnt earlier ether, even the homepage.. :/

Hmm your right but no I don't know a mirror. Basically it looks like Ethereum is going to be teaming up with bitshares and DPOS (similar to how nxt works) he is quoted as saying that it has become clear the POW is dead.

you are simply delusional:



mr.e are you able to locate the quote? has he put this in writing somewhere or did someone just repeat what he has said vocally?

Here's the nxt discussion on this particular link. Perhaps I should have waited to see the actual quote again before saying that as I'm going based off a relatively poor memory . We'll have to wait till the bitshares forum comes back.

https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/nxt-vs-bitsharesethereum/20/
Pages: « 1 ... 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 [536] 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 ... 1560 »
  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!