Bitcoin Forum
September 23, 2017, 09:40:41 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   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 ... 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 [460] 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1979981 times)
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
July 05, 2014, 02:05:07 PM
 #9181

So isn't the combination of consensus-finding and coin issuance (or at least some sort of reward) not merely a "temporary coincidence", but a necessity?
Proof of work would still work even if new coins were being minted (it had better work, because within a few decades minting will drop to insignificant levels).

Imagine all the Bitcoin were premined and distributed by some other mechanism. You'd still need an objective way to determine transaction ordering.

Proof of work would function the same way as I described above - whomever proves the highest expenditure of opportunity cost will have their version of the ordering preferred over another miner who has expended less opportunity cost.

Without issuing new coins, you wouldn't even need a specific difficulty target to have a working system - the highest PoW would win each block. Difficulty is only needed to keep block creation near a constant rate because mining combines ledger updates with minting and having a deterministic schedule for minting is desirable.
1506159641
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506159641

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506159641
Reply with quote  #2

1506159641
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1506159641
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506159641

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506159641
Reply with quote  #2

1506159641
Report to moderator
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
July 05, 2014, 02:41:16 PM
 #9182



Yes, precisely right.
Point being, it doesn't account for hash power that went into the solving (and ultimately the relay) or the amount of hashing in the pool, or any of that.  It is measured after the fact.
Thus preventing pools with "too high hash rate" is not even easily determinable.

Also there is what I think of as the "Tusken Raider" attack that GHash.io/CEX/Bitfury is currently doing to hide the amount of hash power in different pools.

But then it's also possible that the threat is overestimated by that same logic.  

Only if we throw out all the snapshot metrics and look at it as video.
We saw the large chucks move out of Ghash and into Discus Fish and BTC Guild.  
They weren't trickles, they were cut-overs.
The retail CEX users saw that suddenly there's no problem and by and large stayed.  
More joined since the problem was swept under the carpet and the cycle continues.

I have nothing against Ghash and co.  I wish them every success.
It is merely a problem of power concentration vs decentralization.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 05, 2014, 02:47:46 PM
 #9183



Yes, precisely right.
Point being, it doesn't account for hash power that went into the solving (and ultimately the relay) or the amount of hashing in the pool, or any of that.  It is measured after the fact.
Thus preventing pools with "too high hash rate" is not even easily determinable.

Also there is what I think of as the "Tusken Raider" attack that GHash.io/CEX/Bitfury is currently doing to hide the amount of hash power in different pools.

But then it's also possible that the threat is overestimated by that same logic.  

Only if we throw out all the snapshot metrics and look at it as video.
We saw the large chucks move out of Ghash and into Discus Fish and BTC Guild.  
They weren't trickles, they were cut-overs.
The retail CEX users saw that suddenly there's no problem and by and large stayed.  
More joined since the problem was swept under the carpet and the cycle continues.

I have nothing against Ghash and co.  I wish them every success.
It is merely a problem of power concentration vs decentralization.

Down to 35% Wink
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
July 05, 2014, 02:52:54 PM
 #9184


The new American judicial branch

What is this?
Code:
// START_DEFINITION
/**
 * Fingerprint Tor authoritative directories enacting the directory protocol.
 */
fingerprint('anonymizer/tor/node/authority') = $tor_authority
  and ($tor_directory or preappid(/anonymizer\/tor\/directory/));
// END_DEFINITION

// START_DEFINITION
/*
Global Variable for Tor foreign directory servers. Searching for potential Tor
clients connecting to the Tor foreign directory servers on ports 80 and 443.
*/

$tor_foreign_directory_ip = ip('193.23.244.244' or '194.109.206.212' or
'86.59.21.38' or '213.115.239.118' or '212.112.245.170') and port ('80' or
'443');
// END_DEFINITION

// START_DEFINITION
/*
this variable contains the 3 Tor directory servers hosted in FVEY countries.
Please do not update this variable with non-FVEY IPs. These are held in a
separate variable called $tor_foreign_directory_ip. Goal is to find potential
Tor clients connecting to the Tor directory servers.
*/
$tor_fvey_directory_ip = ip('128.31.0.39' or '216.224.124.114' or
'208.83.223.34') and port ('80' or '443');
// END_DEFINITION


// START_DEFINITION
requires grammar version 5
/**
 * Identify clients accessing Tor bridge information.
 */
fingerprint('anonymizer/tor/bridge/tls') =
ssl_x509_subject('bridges.torproject.org') or
ssl_dns_name('bridges.torproject.org');

/**
 * Database Tor bridge information extracted from confirmation emails.
 */
fingerprint('anonymizer/tor/bridge/email') =
email_address('bridges@torproject.org')
  and email_body('https://bridges.torproject.org/' : c++
  extractors: {{
    bridges[] = /bridge\s([0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}):?([0-9]{2,4}?[^0-9])/;
  }}
  init: {{
    xks::undefine_name("anonymizer/tor/torbridges/emailconfirmation");
  }}
  main: {{
    static const std::string SCHEMA_OLD = "tor_bridges";
    static const std::string SCHEMA_NEW = "tor_routers";
    static const std::string FLAGS = "Bridge";
    if (bridges) {
      for (size_t i=0; i < bridges.size(); ++i) {
        std::string address = bridges[i][0] + ":" + bridges[i][1];
        DB[SCHEMA_OLD]["tor_bridge"] = address;
        DB.apply();
        DB[SCHEMA_NEW]["tor_ip"] = bridges[i][0];
        DB[SCHEMA_NEW]["tor_port_or"] = bridges[i][1];
        DB[SCHEMA_NEW]["tor_flags"] = FLAGS;
        DB.apply();
      }
      xks::fire_fingerprint("anonymizer/tor/directory/bridge");
    }
    return true;
  }});
// END_DEFINITION


// START_DEFINITION
/*
The fingerprint identifies sessions visiting the Tor Project website from
non-fvey countries.
*/
fingerprint('anonymizer/tor/torpoject_visit')=http_host('www.torproject.org')
and not(xff_cc('US' OR 'GB' OR 'CA' OR 'AU' OR 'NZ'));
// END_DEFINITION


// START_DEFINITION
/*
These variables define terms and websites relating to the TAILs (The Amnesic
Incognito Live System) software program, a comsec mechanism advocated by
extremists on extremist forums.
*/

$TAILS_terms=word('tails' or 'Amnesiac Incognito Live System') and word('linux'
or ' USB ' or ' CD ' or 'secure desktop' or ' IRC ' or 'truecrypt' or ' tor ');
$TAILS_websites=('tails.boum.org/') or ('linuxjournal.com/content/linux*');
// END_DEFINITION

// START_DEFINITION
/*
This fingerprint identifies users searching for the TAILs (The Amnesic
Incognito Live System) software program, viewing documents relating to TAILs,
or viewing websites that detail TAILs.
*/
fingerprint('ct_mo/TAILS')=
fingerprint('documents/comsec/tails_doc') or web_search($TAILS_terms) or
url($TAILS_websites) or html_title($TAILS_websites);
// END_DEFINITION


// START_DEFINITION
requires grammar version 5
/**
 * Aggregate Tor hidden service addresses seen in raw traffic.
 */
mapreduce::plugin('anonymizer/tor/plugin/onion') =
  immediate_keyword(/(?:([a-z]+):\/\/){0,1}([a-z2-7]{16})\.onion(?::(\d+)){0,1}/c : c++
    includes: {{
      #include <boost/lexical_cast.hpp>
    }}
    proto: {{
      message onion_t {
        required string address = 1;
        optional string scheme = 2;
        optional string port = 3;
      }
    }}
    mapper<onion_t>: {{
      static const std::string prefix = "anonymizer/tor/hiddenservice/address/";

      onion_t onion;
      size_t matches = cur_args()->matches.size();
      for (size_t pos=0; pos < matches; ++pos) {
        const std::string &value = match(pos);
        if (value.size() == 16)
          onion.set_address(value);
        else if(!onion.has_scheme())
          onion.set_scheme(value);
        else
          onion.set_port(value);
      }

      if (!onion.has_address())
        return false;

      MAPPER.map(onion.address(), onion);
      xks::fire_fingerprint(prefix + onion.address());
      return true;
    }}
    reducer<onion_t>: {{
      for (values_t::const_iterator iter = VALUES.begin();
          iter != VALUES.end();
          ++iter) {
        DB["tor_onion_survey"]["onion_address"] = iter->address() + ".onion";
        if (iter->has_scheme())
          DB["tor_onion_survey"]["onion_scheme"] = iter->scheme();
        if (iter->has_port())
          DB["tor_onion_survey"]["onion_port"] = iter->port();
        DB["tor_onion_survey"]["onion_count"] = boost::lexical_cast<std::string>(TOTAL_VALUE_COUNT);
        DB.apply();
        DB.clear();
      }
      return true;
    }});

/**
 * Placeholder fingerprint for Tor hidden service addresses.
 * Real fingerpritns will be fired by the plugins
 *   'anonymizer/tor/plugin/onion/*'
 */
fingerprint('anonymizer/tor/hiddenservice/address') = nil;
// END_DEFINITION


// START_DEFINITION
appid('anonymizer/mailer/mixminion', 3.0, viewer=$ascii_viewer) =
        http_host('mixminion') or
        ip('128.31.0.34');
// END_DEFINITION

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 05, 2014, 03:27:24 PM
 #9185


The new American judicial branch

What is this?
Code:
// START_DEFINITION
/**
 * Fingerprint Tor authoritative directories enacting the directory protocol.
 */
fingerprint('anonymizer/tor/node/authority') = $tor_authority
  and ($tor_directory or preappid(/anonymizer\/tor\/directory/));
// END_DEFINITION

// START_DEFINITION
/*
Global Variable for Tor foreign directory servers. Searching for potential Tor
clients connecting to the Tor foreign directory servers on ports 80 and 443.
*/

$tor_foreign_directory_ip = ip('193.23.244.244' or '194.109.206.212' or
'86.59.21.38' or '213.115.239.118' or '212.112.245.170') and port ('80' or
'443');
// END_DEFINITION

// START_DEFINITION
/*
this variable contains the 3 Tor directory servers hosted in FVEY countries.
Please do not update this variable with non-FVEY IPs. These are held in a
separate variable called $tor_foreign_directory_ip. Goal is to find potential
Tor clients connecting to the Tor directory servers.
*/
$tor_fvey_directory_ip = ip('128.31.0.39' or '216.224.124.114' or
'208.83.223.34') and port ('80' or '443');
// END_DEFINITION


// START_DEFINITION
requires grammar version 5
/**
 * Identify clients accessing Tor bridge information.
 */
fingerprint('anonymizer/tor/bridge/tls') =
ssl_x509_subject('bridges.torproject.org') or
ssl_dns_name('bridges.torproject.org');

/**
 * Database Tor bridge information extracted from confirmation emails.
 */
fingerprint('anonymizer/tor/bridge/email') =
email_address('bridges@torproject.org')
  and email_body('https://bridges.torproject.org/' : c++
  extractors: {{
    bridges[] = /bridge\s([0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}):?([0-9]{2,4}?[^0-9])/;
  }}
  init: {{
    xks::undefine_name("anonymizer/tor/torbridges/emailconfirmation");
  }}
  main: {{
    static const std::string SCHEMA_OLD = "tor_bridges";
    static const std::string SCHEMA_NEW = "tor_routers";
    static const std::string FLAGS = "Bridge";
    if (bridges) {
      for (size_t i=0; i < bridges.size(); ++i) {
        std::string address = bridges[i][0] + ":" + bridges[i][1];
        DB[SCHEMA_OLD]["tor_bridge"] = address;
        DB.apply();
        DB[SCHEMA_NEW]["tor_ip"] = bridges[i][0];
        DB[SCHEMA_NEW]["tor_port_or"] = bridges[i][1];
        DB[SCHEMA_NEW]["tor_flags"] = FLAGS;
        DB.apply();
      }
      xks::fire_fingerprint("anonymizer/tor/directory/bridge");
    }
    return true;
  }});
// END_DEFINITION


// START_DEFINITION
/*
The fingerprint identifies sessions visiting the Tor Project website from
non-fvey countries.
*/
fingerprint('anonymizer/tor/torpoject_visit')=http_host('www.torproject.org')
and not(xff_cc('US' OR 'GB' OR 'CA' OR 'AU' OR 'NZ'));
// END_DEFINITION


// START_DEFINITION
/*
These variables define terms and websites relating to the TAILs (The Amnesic
Incognito Live System) software program, a comsec mechanism advocated by
extremists on extremist forums.
*/

$TAILS_terms=word('tails' or 'Amnesiac Incognito Live System') and word('linux'
or ' USB ' or ' CD ' or 'secure desktop' or ' IRC ' or 'truecrypt' or ' tor ');
$TAILS_websites=('tails.boum.org/') or ('linuxjournal.com/content/linux*');
// END_DEFINITION

// START_DEFINITION
/*
This fingerprint identifies users searching for the TAILs (The Amnesic
Incognito Live System) software program, viewing documents relating to TAILs,
or viewing websites that detail TAILs.
*/
fingerprint('ct_mo/TAILS')=
fingerprint('documents/comsec/tails_doc') or web_search($TAILS_terms) or
url($TAILS_websites) or html_title($TAILS_websites);
// END_DEFINITION


// START_DEFINITION
requires grammar version 5
/**
 * Aggregate Tor hidden service addresses seen in raw traffic.
 */
mapreduce::plugin('anonymizer/tor/plugin/onion') =
  immediate_keyword(/(?:([a-z]+):\/\/){0,1}([a-z2-7]{16})\.onion(?::(\d+)){0,1}/c : c++
    includes: {{
      #include <boost/lexical_cast.hpp>
    }}
    proto: {{
      message onion_t {
        required string address = 1;
        optional string scheme = 2;
        optional string port = 3;
      }
    }}
    mapper<onion_t>: {{
      static const std::string prefix = "anonymizer/tor/hiddenservice/address/";

      onion_t onion;
      size_t matches = cur_args()->matches.size();
      for (size_t pos=0; pos < matches; ++pos) {
        const std::string &value = match(pos);
        if (value.size() == 16)
          onion.set_address(value);
        else if(!onion.has_scheme())
          onion.set_scheme(value);
        else
          onion.set_port(value);
      }

      if (!onion.has_address())
        return false;

      MAPPER.map(onion.address(), onion);
      xks::fire_fingerprint(prefix + onion.address());
      return true;
    }}
    reducer<onion_t>: {{
      for (values_t::const_iterator iter = VALUES.begin();
          iter != VALUES.end();
          ++iter) {
        DB["tor_onion_survey"]["onion_address"] = iter->address() + ".onion";
        if (iter->has_scheme())
          DB["tor_onion_survey"]["onion_scheme"] = iter->scheme();
        if (iter->has_port())
          DB["tor_onion_survey"]["onion_port"] = iter->port();
        DB["tor_onion_survey"]["onion_count"] = boost::lexical_cast<std::string>(TOTAL_VALUE_COUNT);
        DB.apply();
        DB.clear();
      }
      return true;
    }});

/**
 * Placeholder fingerprint for Tor hidden service addresses.
 * Real fingerpritns will be fired by the plugins
 *   'anonymizer/tor/plugin/onion/*'
 */
fingerprint('anonymizer/tor/hiddenservice/address') = nil;
// END_DEFINITION


// START_DEFINITION
appid('anonymizer/mailer/mixminion', 3.0, viewer=$ascii_viewer) =
        http_host('mixminion') or
        ip('128.31.0.34');
// END_DEFINITION



http://www.wired.com/2014/07/nsa-targets-users-of-privacy-services/
Luke32
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1


View Profile
July 05, 2014, 06:38:29 PM
 #9186

PoS coins use the number of coins held as the basis for their signalling system. Since coins have an exchange rate, they obviously do not fulfill the criteria of having no value, either practical or intellectual. Thus PoS is not an viable mechanism for honest signalling.

The criterion of having no value is a theoretically sound one for proof of work systems. I am not convinced it's correct to apply this criterion to proof of stake systems the way you did it, because PoS and PoW solve the distributed consensus problem in a different manner. Let me try to explain:

What's the reason behind the criterion that the calculations in a PoW system must have no value (either practical or intellectual)? This simply to increase the cost for an outsider to successfully attack the system, right? To ensure that "telling the truth" is more profitable than "lying".

With PoS, the signalling system is indeed based on coins which have value. This means outsiders (those who don't own coins) can't influence the signalling system. The coins however only have value as long as the system functions as it should (the same is of course true for PoW systems). I therefore think this system also ensures that "telling the truth" (which makes the system functions as it should) is more profitable than "lying", and could thus be a viable mechanism for honest signalling.

NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
July 05, 2014, 06:40:15 PM
 #9187

Down to 35% Wink

LOL... or is it?

Big fish in a lot of little pools...

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
July 05, 2014, 06:42:40 PM
 #9188

PoS coins use the number of coins held as the basis for their signalling system. Since coins have an exchange rate, they obviously do not fulfill the criteria of having no value, either practical or intellectual. Thus PoS is not an viable mechanism for honest signalling.

The criterion of having no value is a theoretically sound one for proof of work systems. I am not convinced it's correct to apply this criterion to proof of stake systems the way you did it, because PoS and PoW solve the distributed consensus problem in a different manner. Let me try to explain:

What's the reason behind the criterion that the calculations in a PoW system must have no value (either practical or intellectual)? This simply to increase the cost for an outsider to successfully attack the system, right? To ensure that "telling the truth" is more profitable than "lying".

With PoS, the signalling system is indeed based on coins which have value. This means outsiders (those who don't own coins) can't influence the signalling system. The coins however only have value as long as the system functions as it should (the same is of course true for PoW systems). I therefore think this system also ensures that "telling the truth" (which makes the system functions as it should) is more profitable than "lying", and could thus be a viable mechanism for honest signalling.

The systemic incentives are opposite though.  Where PoW encourages decentralization, PoS encourages centralization.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
User705
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728



View Profile
July 05, 2014, 06:59:50 PM
 #9189

PoS coins use the number of coins held as the basis for their signalling system. Since coins have an exchange rate, they obviously do not fulfill the criteria of having no value, either practical or intellectual. Thus PoS is not an viable mechanism for honest signalling.

The criterion of having no value is a theoretically sound one for proof of work systems. I am not convinced it's correct to apply this criterion to proof of stake systems the way you did it, because PoS and PoW solve the distributed consensus problem in a different manner. Let me try to explain:

What's the reason behind the criterion that the calculations in a PoW system must have no value (either practical or intellectual)? This simply to increase the cost for an outsider to successfully attack the system, right? To ensure that "telling the truth" is more profitable than "lying".

With PoS, the signalling system is indeed based on coins which have value. This means outsiders (those who don't own coins) can't influence the signalling system. The coins however only have value as long as the system functions as it should (the same is of course true for PoW systems). I therefore think this system also ensures that "telling the truth" (which makes the system functions as it should) is more profitable than "lying", and could thus be a viable mechanism for honest signalling.

The systemic incentives are opposite though.  Where PoW encourages decentralization, PoS encourages centralization.
Really???
PoS = anyone can/does and even possibly is forced to mine with any size investment. 
PoW = economics of scale and division of labor guarantee eventual centralization.
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2352



View Profile
July 05, 2014, 07:37:48 PM
 #9190

PoW = economics of scale and division of labor guarantee eventual centralization.

Not necessarily: a byproduct of mining is heat. It's hard to get rid of the heat in large centralized operations. In small operations less so, it may even be useful in some cases.

At some point mining cost will mostly be energy, not hardware. I've recently encountered a weird situation regarding solar electricity production (pretty decentralized in germany, where I live): in certain cases the array produces excess electricity which can neither be used locally nor fed into the grid for profit (due to stupid laws and regulations). Usually what is done in such cases is the electricity is just injected for free to the grid... what a waste economically, right? Well, if you have some cheap asics (so cheap that you can just have them laying around idle if not needed) you can make good use of the excess electricity.

PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 817



View Profile
July 05, 2014, 07:40:56 PM
 #9191

What about NXTs way of doing pos? Much better then peercoin,  safe from 51%, cheap, green, faster confirmations and potentially instant confirmations on the way. Seems like a much better system to me.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile
July 05, 2014, 07:43:36 PM
 #9192

PoS coins use the number of coins held as the basis for their signalling system. Since coins have an exchange rate, they obviously do not fulfill the criteria of having no value, either practical or intellectual. Thus PoS is not an viable mechanism for honest signalling.
The criterion of having no value is a theoretically sound one for proof of work systems. I am not convinced it's correct to apply this criterion to proof of stake systems the way you did it, because PoS and PoW solve the distributed consensus problem in a different manner. Let me try to explain:

What's the reason behind the criterion that the calculations in a PoW system must have no value (either practical or intellectual)? This simply to increase the cost for an outsider to successfully attack the system, right? To ensure that "telling the truth" is more profitable than "lying".

With PoS, the signalling system is indeed based on coins which have value. This means outsiders (those who don't own coins) can't influence the signalling system. The coins however only have value as long as the system functions as it should (the same is of course true for PoW systems). I therefore think this system also ensures that "telling the truth" (which makes the system functions as it should) is more profitable than "lying", and could thus be a viable mechanism for honest signalling.


No.  The "signalling system" for PoS is based on coins which have value now or which had value at some point in the past.  An attacker can use coins that have already been legitimately spent (i.e., he has nothing at stake) to attempt to "re-write history" in his favour, thereby creating a new "best" chain where his coins haven't been spent.  This is the "nothing-at-stake" or "history-rewrite" problem1

Before one can even intelligently debate PoS, one must at least review the original proof-of-stake thread here, the many highly-refined thoughts by DeathAndTaxes (CEO of BitSimple) here, and perhaps Andytoshi's work in Section 5 of this documentOne must understand the nothing-at-stake problem.

What I think we need, and I was talking with Chris Wilmer about this a few months ago, is to launch a peer-reviewed journal J Bitcoin, to help put an end to derpfests like these tireless PoS debates.  This way, we can point to a well-written article, reviewed by experts in the field, to both disseminate the work of our community more effectively and make the true state of knowledge more clear.  I would donate 1 BTC to such a cause if we had a credible plan to make the journal happen.


1Current PoS coins get around this problem, for example, by having the developers sign blocks as valid (Peercoin) or by introducing regular blockchain checkpoints into the code (Nxt).  In other words, these PoS coins are not decentralized.

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

Activity: 817



View Profile
July 05, 2014, 07:49:01 PM
 #9193

PoS coins use the number of coins held as the basis for their signalling system. Since coins have an exchange rate, they obviously do not fulfill the criteria of having no value, either practical or intellectual. Thus PoS is not an viable mechanism for honest signalling.
The criterion of having no value is a theoretically sound one for proof of work systems. I am not convinced it's correct to apply this criterion to proof of stake systems the way you did it, because PoS and PoW solve the distributed consensus problem in a different manner. Let me try to explain:

What's the reason behind the criterion that the calculations in a PoW system must have no value (either practical or intellectual)? This simply to increase the cost for an outsider to successfully attack the system, right? To ensure that "telling the truth" is more profitable than "lying".

With PoS, the signalling system is indeed based on coins which have value. This means outsiders (those who don't own coins) can't influence the signalling system. The coins however only have value as long as the system functions as it should (the same is of course true for PoW systems). I therefore think this system also ensures that "telling the truth" (which makes the system functions as it should) is more profitable than "lying", and could thus be a viable mechanism for honest signalling.


No.  The "signalling system" for PoS is based on coins which have value now or which had value at some point in the past.  An attacker can use coins that have already been legitimately spent (i.e., he has nothing at stake) to attempt to "re-write history" in his favour, thereby creating a new "best" chain where his coins haven't been spent.  This is the "nothing-at-stake" or "history-rewrite" problem1.  

Before one can even intelligently debate PoS, one must at least review the original proof-of-stake thread here, the many highly-refined thoughts by DeathAndTaxes (CEO of BitSimple) here, and perhaps Andytoshi's work in Section 5 of this document.  One must understand the nothing-at-stake problem.

What I think we need, and I was talking with Chris Wilmer about this a few months ago, is to launch a peer-reviewed journal J Bitcoin, to help put an end to derpfests like these tireless PoS debates.  This way, we can point to a well-written article, reviewed by experts in the field, to both disseminate the work of our community more effectively and make the true state of knowledge more clear.  I would donate 1 BTC to such a cause if we had a credible plan to make the journal happen.


1Current PoS coins get around this problem, for example, by having the developers sign blocks as valid (Peercoin) or by introducing regular blockchain checkpoints into the code (Nxt).  In other words, these PoS coins are not decentralized.

Nxt does not suffer from the nothing at stake issue and I'm not sure that it still uses checkpoints either.
kodtycoon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
July 05, 2014, 07:56:33 PM
 #9194

PoS coins use the number of coins held as the basis for their signalling system. Since coins have an exchange rate, they obviously do not fulfill the criteria of having no value, either practical or intellectual. Thus PoS is not an viable mechanism for honest signalling.
The criterion of having no value is a theoretically sound one for proof of work systems. I am not convinced it's correct to apply this criterion to proof of stake systems the way you did it, because PoS and PoW solve the distributed consensus problem in a different manner. Let me try to explain:

What's the reason behind the criterion that the calculations in a PoW system must have no value (either practical or intellectual)? This simply to increase the cost for an outsider to successfully attack the system, right? To ensure that "telling the truth" is more profitable than "lying".

With PoS, the signalling system is indeed based on coins which have value. This means outsiders (those who don't own coins) can't influence the signalling system. The coins however only have value as long as the system functions as it should (the same is of course true for PoW systems). I therefore think this system also ensures that "telling the truth" (which makes the system functions as it should) is more profitable than "lying", and could thus be a viable mechanism for honest signalling.


No.  The "signalling system" for PoS is based on coins which have value now or which had value at some point in the past.  An attacker can use coins that have already been legitimately spent (i.e., he has nothing at stake) to attempt to "re-write history" in his favour, thereby creating a new "best" chain where his coins haven't been spent.  This is the "nothing-at-stake" or "history-rewrite" problem1.  

Before one can even intelligently debate PoS, one must at least review the original proof-of-stake thread here, the many highly-refined thoughts by DeathAndTaxes (CEO of BitSimple) here, and perhaps Andytoshi's work in Section 5 of this document.  One must understand the nothing-at-stake problem.

What I think we need, and I was talking with Chris Wilmer about this a few months ago, is to launch a peer-reviewed journal J Bitcoin, to help put an end to derpfests like these tireless PoS debates.  This way, we can point to a well-written article, reviewed by experts in the field, to both disseminate the work of our community more effectively and make the true state of knowledge more clear.  I would donate 1 BTC to such a cause if we had a credible plan to make the journal happen.


1Current PoS coins get around this problem, for example, by having the developers sign blocks as valid (Peercoin) or by introducing regular blockchain checkpoints into the code (Nxt).  In other words, these PoS coins are not decentralized.

Nxt does not suffer from the nothing at stake issue and I'm not sure that it still uses checkpoints either.
44
no, nxt doesnt use checkpoints anymore.

manfred
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938


Energy is Wealth


View Profile
July 05, 2014, 08:01:13 PM
 #9195

What about NXTs way of doing pos? Much better then peercoin,  safe from 51%, cheap, green, faster confirmations and potentially instant confirmations on the way. Seems like a much better system to me.
PoS$ Proof of Scam is worthless crap. nxt does not have to worry about 51% "BCNext" and friends have full control of the coin everyone else dances to the music they play.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=674029.0
Start of nxt
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303898
The second post is already talking about police and the 3rd post is quoting a post which is missing, hmm oozes confidence . It seems some posts have been deleted. There is 1 Billion of them available and most trades are a few hundreds.
kodtycoon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
July 05, 2014, 08:03:51 PM
 #9196

What about NXTs way of doing pos? Much better then peercoin,  safe from 51%, cheap, green, faster confirmations and potentially instant confirmations on the way. Seems like a much better system to me.
PoS$ Proof of Scam is worthless crap. nxt does not have to worry about 51% "BCNext" and friends have full control of the coin everyone else dances to the music they play.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=674029.0
Start of nxt
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303898
The second post is already talking about police and the 3rd post is quoting a post which is missing, hmm oozes confidence . It seems some posts have been deleted. There is 1 Billion of them available and most trades are a few hundreds.

enter nem. evenly split 3000 ways. taint analysis used to remove sockpuppets. 1m nem per stake holder. cant get much better distribution for apos coin than that.

Benjig
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 462


Trusted


View Profile
July 05, 2014, 08:05:08 PM
 #9197

What about NXTs way of doing pos? Much better then peercoin,  safe from 51%, cheap, green, faster confirmations and potentially instant confirmations on the way. Seems like a much better system to me.
PoS$ Proof of Scam is worthless crap. nxt does not have to worry about 51% "BCNext" and friends have full control of the coin everyone else dances to the music they play.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=674029.0
Start of nxt
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303898
The second post is already talking about police and the 3rd post is quoting a post which is missing, hmm oozes confidence . It seems some posts have been deleted. There is 1 Billion of them available and most trades are a few hundreds.

I dont like when people start spamming with their NXT pump and dump, same with dark, i dont see sucess in any of those coins.

Internet of things.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
July 05, 2014, 08:09:07 PM
 #9198

What I think we need, and I was talking with Chris Wilmer about this a few months ago, is to launch a peer-reviewed journal J Bitcoin, to help put an end to derpfests like these tireless PoS debates.  This way, we can point to a well-written article, reviewed by experts in the field, to both disseminate the work of our community more effectively and make the true state of knowledge more clear.  I would donate 1 BTC to such a cause if we had a credible plan to make the journal happen.
https://github.com/NakamotoInstitute/nakamotoinstitute.org
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile
July 05, 2014, 08:22:35 PM
 #9199

Nxt does not suffer from the nothing at stake issue and I'm not sure that it still uses checkpoints either.

Are there Nxt bots or something that scan the forum for the terms "PoS" and "Nxt" and send alerts to the Nxt pumpers?  It seems you can't use either of those words without attracting them.

Anyways, last time I dipped my toe into the PoS debate, that very day Cryptsy's Nxt node went down apparently due to a blockchain convergence issue.  I entered the Nxt thread and found this jewel complete with the bright-red 20pt font formatting:

Okay, guys. I need to bother you once more:
Please update to 1.1.3 as 1.1.0 is somewhat broken.
Maybe that's the problem that cryptsy us having is there transactions are not going through. They might be on a fork.
Anyone let them know, please.
Ah, yes. And they should tell me if they wish to be added to our future update-mailing-list .

I found the nonchalant manner that the network fork possibility was dealt with quite telling: just send out new updated code and make sure you join our mailing list!  

Anyways, if it is true that checkpoints are now eliminated, then the cabal of large Nxt holders could very likely sell their coins but keep the associated private keys, wait a while, and then launch a nothing-at-stake attack to reclaim their coins.


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

Activity: 728


View Profile
July 05, 2014, 08:32:52 PM
 #9200

Nxt does not suffer from the nothing at stake issue and I'm not sure that it still uses checkpoints either.

Are there Nxt bots or something that scan the forum for the terms "PoS" and "Nxt" and send alerts to the Nxt pumpers?  It seems you can't use either of those words without attracting the them.

Anyways, last time I dipped my toe into the PoS debate, that very day Cryptsy's Nxt node went down apparently due to a blockchain convergence issue.  I entered the Nxt thread and found this jewel complete with the bright-red 20pt font formatting:

Okay, guys. I need to bother you once more:
Please update to 1.1.3 as 1.1.0 is somewhat broken.
Maybe that's the problem that cryptsy us having is there transactions are not going through. They might be on a fork.
Anyone let them know, please.
Ah, yes. And they should tell me if they wish to be added to our future update-mailing-list .

I found the nonchalant manner that the network fork possibility was dealt with quite telling: just send out new updated code and make sure you join our mailing list!  

Anyways, if it is true that checkpoints are now eliminated, then the cabal of large Nxt holders could very likely sell their coins but keep the associated private keys, wait a while, and then launch a nothing-at-stake attack to reclaim their coins.



your a bit well behind the times man! lol

and if your so sure it can be done, why dont you do it? im sure the nxt guys would put a hefty bet on with you that you or anyone cant do it.

Pages: « 1 ... 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 [460] 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 ... 1558 »
  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!