Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[_mr_e]

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]

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.

[_mr_e]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[justusranvier]

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]

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.

[kodtycoon]

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.

[Peter R]

your a bit well behind the times man! lol

Yeah, I guess I should have signed up with Chuck for the mailing list.  The definition of the coin apparently changes monthly.  Crypto 2.0: The future of money indeed.   / sarc

[rpietila]

your a bit well behind the times man! lol

Yeah, I guess I should have signed up with Chuck for the mailing list.  The definition of the coin apparently changes monthly.  Crypto 2.0: The future of money indeed.   / sarc

It is not very reassuring to read the assertations that PoS is fine, because not only are they incorrect, but also they reveal that the monetary architects of PoS thingies are not well versed in monetary economics.

[jmw74]

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.

Aren't you confusing the stake (which can be reused to provide signaling for many transactions over time) with the coins (which can only be used once)?

The stake is worthless as far as I can tell. Stake is just showing someone what you own, not actually giving it to them. Would someone pay me just because I show them that I have a lot of money in my wallet? I can show what's in there a million times without losing a cent.

[Adrian-x]

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.

Aren't you confusing the stake (which can be reused to provide signaling for many transactions over time) with the coins (which can only be used once)?

The stake is worthless as far as I can tell. Stake is just showing someone what you own, not actually giving it to them. Would someone pay me just because I show them that I have a lot of money in my wallet? I can show what's in there a million times without losing a cent.

Actually this is a compelling reason for PoS, it's a physiological phenomenon, I have power therefore I demand you concede.

I guess it's not an elegant power phenomenon.

[sidhujag]

Its a fruitless debate neighbour tom doesnt care about peice of shit staking its not a big enough leap of technological advance to justify a move from bitcoin which has the network affect at full blast. Its a waste of time to think that pos will transport the coin to marketcap stardom, heck Id even go so far as to say that merge mining is a bigger plus to have in a coin than pos.. the security of the network is gauranteed with merge mining and it is green since it uses bitcoins network or whatever network is biggest at the moment.

[rpietila]

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.

Aren't you confusing the stake (which can be reused to provide signaling for many transactions over time) with the coins (which can only be used once)?

The stake is worthless as far as I can tell. Stake is just showing someone what you own, not actually giving it to them. Would someone pay me just because I show them that I have a lot of money in my wallet? I can show what's in there a million times without losing a cent.

No, it's you who is confusing. Let me rephrase the issue here and hero members correct me if I am wrong:

- You need to expend real world resources to produce something (otherwise) worthless (eg. hashes), which are expended when you use it to "vote" on which chain is the longest. You cannot double-spend hashes, so there is always a cost if you want in the game, and the reward (coinbase) tends to the marginal cost.

- In PoS, you can vote with the same coins in all universes of the present, as well as the past and future, and not produce anything, and it does not cost anything. So it is a worthless system to determine which chain is the longest (no cost == nothing at stake). The only reason PoS advocates argue against it is that they have not even understood the basic problem.

[molecular]

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.

If this is your answer to Peter R.s well-founded and well-explained critcism of PoS/nxt, then it's very easy for me to make up my mind.

As for the supposed (not factual) bet you propose: they would have to give the potential attacker access to a key that used to have 51% stake at some point in the past first. I'm willing to bet they wont do that.

[rpietila]

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.

If this is your answer to Peter R.s well-founded and well-explained critcism of PoS/nxt, then it's very easy for me to make up my mind.

As for the supposed (not factual) bet you propose: they would have to give the potential attacker access to a key that used to have 51% stake at some point in the past first. I'm willing to bet they wont do that.

Then history is not on your side. Mark also turned crook at gunpoint.

[jmw74]

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.

Aren't you confusing the stake (which can be reused to provide signaling for many transactions over time) with the coins (which can only be used once)?

The stake is worthless as far as I can tell. Stake is just showing someone what you own, not actually giving it to them. Would someone pay me just because I show them that I have a lot of money in my wallet? I can show what's in there a million times without losing a cent.

No, it's you who is confusing. Let me rephrase the issue here and hero members correct me if I am wrong:

- You need to expend real world resources to produce something (otherwise) worthless (eg. hashes), which are expended when you use it to "vote" on which chain is the longest. You cannot double-spend hashes, so there is always a cost if you want in the game, and the reward (coinbase) tends to the marginal cost.

- In PoS, you can vote with the same coins in all universes of the present, as well as the past and future, and not produce anything, and it does not cost anything. So it is a worthless system to determine which chain is the longest (no cost == nothing at stake). The only reason PoS advocates argue against it is that they have not even understood the basic problem.

I agree with you, but this is a different point than the one Justus was making. He was saying the proof has to have no value anywhere else. To me, at least on this criteria, PoS seems to fit.

[_mr_e]

Interesting discussion with Vitalik and some of the nxt guys happening today after he posted his Stake article today. Looks like he admits nxt does things a little better then he thought:https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/bounty-for-successful-nothing-at-stake-attack/msg60166/#msg60166

A few of his ideas from the article are also currently being implemented into nxt in a feature they call economic clustering. Seems to me like nxt is spearheading some incredible advancements and are not shy to keep adding new powerful features to the protocol quickly. At its very worst it will be a great case study when determining how to improve bitcoins mining mechanism.

Not every time someone mentions another coin is to pump the shit out of it, some people actually have the belief that good advancements can come from experimenting with this technology in a number of ways. Just like those who were quick to dismiss bitcoin are paying for it, you'd be wise to keep your eyes open to new ideas.