Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[_mr_e]

What exactly does this "objective truth" mean?

This reminds me of conversations with my mother.  She believes that her belief system creates reality.  I believe that reality exists independently of myself (although I concede that my belief system influences my perception of reality). 

Here's an example of the objective truth:

Alice and Bob each throw a rock into the lake.  Alice throws hers in first, it makes a splash, and then Bob throws his in.  If this event occurred, then it is objectively true that Alice threw her rock into the lake first.  Even if Bob convinces the world that the opposite happened (because Bob is popular and wealthy), and even if everyone calls Alice a liar, it doesn't change what was objectively true:  Alice threw the rock into the lake first.   

PoW is a system that achieves distributed consensus on what is objectively true.  PoS is a system that allows history to be rewritten based on popular opinion. 

In both systems consensus is the objective truth... I don't see the difference.

[1714144985]

1714144985

[1714144985]

1714144985

[1714144985]

1714144985

[1714144985]

1714144985

[Peter R]

In both systems consensus is the objective truth... I don't see the difference.

A bat and a ball costs $1.10.
A bat costs a dollar more than a ball. 
How much does a ball cost?

[BldSwtTrs]

So you think miners' opinion is the objective truth?

https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf

Maybe this paper prove the point, I don't know, I will read it. But what I know for sure is that what you are saying doesn't prove anything.

You are saying that somehow a miner is ontologically different than a holder, that a miner's opinion is the truth whereas a holder's opinion is an opinion. It's a very brittle argument.

[_mr_e]

In both systems consensus is the objective truth... I don't see the difference.

A bat and a ball costs $1.10.
A bat costs a dollar more than a ball. 
How much does a ball cost?

Not following how hardware mining vs stake mining answers that any differently.

[Peter R]

In both systems consensus is the objective truth... I don't see the difference.

A bat and a ball costs $1.10.
A bat costs a dollar more than a ball. 
How much does a ball cost?

Not following how hardware mining vs stake mining answers that any differently.

If you get a certain type of people in a room, they'll come to consensus that a ball costs $0.10.  But it's objectively true that a ball costs $0.05, even if they all disagree.  The point is that what is objectively true is independent of our opinions.  

[_mr_e]

In both systems consensus is the objective truth... I don't see the difference.

A bat and a ball costs $1.10.
A bat costs a dollar more than a ball. 
How much does a ball cost?

If you get a certain type of people in a room, they'll come to consensus that a ball costs $0.10.  But it's objectively true that a ball costs $0.05, even if they all disagree.  

Sure but I don't get what that has to do with distributed consensus systems.

[cypherdoc]

What exactly does this "objective truth" mean?

This reminds me of conversations with my mother.  She believes that her belief system creates reality.  I believe that reality exists independently of myself (although I concede that my belief system influences my perception of reality).  

Here's an example of the objective truth:

Alice and Bob each throw a rock into the lake.  Alice throws hers in first, it makes a splash, and then Bob throws his in.  If this event occurred, then it is objectively true that Alice threw her rock into the lake first.  Even if Bob convinces the world that the opposite happened (because Bob is popular and wealthy), and even if everyone calls Alice a liar, it doesn't change what was objectively true:  Alice threw the rock into the lake first.  

PoW is a system that achieves distributed consensus on what is objectively true.  PoS is a system that allows history to be rewritten based on popular opinion.  

In both systems consensus is the objective truth... I don't see the difference.

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.

[Peter R]

In both systems consensus is the objective truth... I don't see the difference.

A bat and a ball costs $1.10.
A bat costs a dollar more than a ball.  
How much does a ball cost?

Not following how hardware mining vs stake mining answers that any differently.

If you get a certain type of people in a room, they'll come to consensus that a ball costs $0.10.  But it's objectively true that a ball costs $0.05, even if they all disagree.  The point is that what is objectively true is independent of our opinions.  

Sure but I don't get what that has to do with distributed consensus systems.

In a PoS system, there's no tether to physical reality.  There's no one in the room screaming:

"A ball costs $0.05, a bat costs a dollar more ($1.05) so a bat and a ball costs $0.05 + $1.05 = $1.10 you idiots!  You all fell victim to your cognitive bias!!"

PoS is an echo chamber like Cypherdoc said, and although consensus might be achieved, it may have no bearing on reality.  PoW is the tether to the physical world.  PoW mining is the objective guy in the room "proving mathematically" with chalk and a blackboard that a ball costs $0.05 until everyone is forced to concede!

[justusranvier]

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.

[_mr_e]

What exactly does this "objective truth" mean?

This reminds me of conversations with my mother.  She believes that her belief system creates reality.  I believe that reality exists independently of myself (although I concede that my belief system influences my perception of reality).  

Here's an example of the objective truth:

Alice and Bob each throw a rock into the lake.  Alice throws hers in first, it makes a splash, and then Bob throws his in.  If this event occurred, then it is objectively true that Alice threw her rock into the lake first.  Even if Bob convinces the world that the opposite happened (because Bob is popular and wealthy), and even if everyone calls Alice a liar, it doesn't change what was objectively true:  Alice threw the rock into the lake first.  

PoW is a system that achieves distributed consensus on what is objectively true.  PoS is a system that allows history to be rewritten based on popular opinion.  

In both systems consensus is the objective truth... I don't see the difference.

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. History can be rewritten with pow too, it happened before.

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

[marcus_of_augustus]

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 ...

[rocks]

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]

...

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.

[_mr_e]

...

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]

...
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.

[kodtycoon]

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]

[justusranvier]

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]

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]

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.. :/

[Peter R]

... 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.