kodtycoon
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1568
Merit: 1002
|
|
August 17, 2014, 09:53:52 PM |
|
... 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..
|
|
|
|
_mr_e
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 817
Merit: 1000
|
|
August 17, 2014, 09:57:48 PM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1568
Merit: 1002
|
|
August 17, 2014, 10:05:01 PM |
|
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? ? 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!!!!!! OMG LOLZ... hahaha
|
|
|
|
Peter R
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007
|
|
August 17, 2014, 10:18:38 PM |
|
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!!!!!! 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.
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
August 17, 2014, 10:20:06 PM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1568
Merit: 1002
|
|
August 17, 2014, 10:23:25 PM |
|
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?
|
|
|
|
HeliKopterBen
|
|
August 17, 2014, 10:25:47 PM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1568
Merit: 1002
|
|
August 17, 2014, 10:28:58 PM |
|
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..
|
|
|
|
_mr_e
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 817
Merit: 1000
|
|
August 17, 2014, 10:33:20 PM |
|
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
Activity: 817
Merit: 1000
|
|
August 17, 2014, 10:41:39 PM |
|
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/
|
|
|
|
Peter R
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007
|
|
August 17, 2014, 10:45:01 PM |
|
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.
I don't disagree. A PoS network comes to some sort of a consensus. In PoW, that consensus is tethered to physical reality because resources are consumed when voting for a chain; in PoS, that consensus is tethered only to popular opinion. In my mind, PoW cryptos are like gold coins--they take energy and effort to create, and only physical methods can be used to steal them. PoS cryptos are like share certificates--they can be created for zero cost only based on the desires of stake holders, and they can be voided just as easily (voided by social methods as opposed to stolen by physical methods). 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?
They can attack with "nothing at stake" by using coins they once held but have since sold. To attack a PoW system, one must expend resources in this reality. The game theory is completely different.
|
|
|
|
|
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3920
Merit: 2349
Eadem mutata resurgo
|
|
August 17, 2014, 10:46:49 PM |
|
proof of self-importance seems to be gaining evidence in this thread ...
|
|
|
|
Odalv
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1414
Merit: 1000
|
|
August 17, 2014, 10:55:49 PM |
|
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. You will understand when they all agree at confiscation of your wealth. ... just because of PoS
|
|
|
|
kodtycoon
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1568
Merit: 1002
|
|
August 17, 2014, 10:56:22 PM |
|
proof of self-importance seems to be gaining evidence in this thread ...
and how is mentioning proof of importance being self important? if you think i was trying to make some kind of joke your mistaken... if you havnt heard of it, perhaps you should get out more instead of making stupid insults???
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
August 17, 2014, 11:18:43 PM |
|
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. i see plenty of differences: Bitcoin's "rollbacks" in the past were from code bugs, one of which was exploited to generate a massive output of invalid BTC's and the other which caused a fork. an immediate consensus was gained from the community to patch the technical bugs with new code prior to it being released; otherwise repeated occurrences of the problems could reasonably be expected which threatened the long term viability of the system itself. in NXT's case, the NXT stolen was due to a weakness in Bter's security, not a bug in the NXT code, let alone one that threatened the viability of NXT. for crony economic reasons only, a rollback was offered in the form of a patch from the devs despite what looked like a consensus not to offer it. this makes it much different from what happened in Bitcoin and was an expression of the biased motives of the stakeholders in charge of the code and that of the influence of Bter. the next time something like this happens, no one can predict how they will act, whereas with Bitcoin, you can be sure no one will rollback code just to save someone some money but only to save the system.
|
|
|
|
_mr_e
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 817
Merit: 1000
|
|
August 17, 2014, 11:22:29 PM |
|
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. i see plenty of differences: Bitcoin's "rollbacks" in the past were from code bugs, one of which was exploited to generate a massive output of invalid BTC's and the other which caused a fork. an immediate consensus was gained from the community to patch the technical bugs with new code prior to it being released; otherwise repeated occurrences of the problems could reasonably be expected which threatened the long term viability of the system itself. in NXT's case, the NXT stolen was due to a weakness in Bter's security, not a bug in the NXT code, let alone one that threatened the viability of NXT. for crony economic reasons only, a rollback was offered in the form of a patch from the devs despite what looked like a consensus not to offer it. this makes it much different from what happened in Bitcoin and was an expression of the biased motives of the stakeholders in charge of the code and that of the influence of Bter. the next time something like this happens, no one can predict how they will act, whereas with Bitcoin, you can be sure no one will rollback code just to save someone some money. Except the fork never happened, for all the reasons you just specified, so none of that really matters. Thats really the biggest difference. It's open source software, anyone can put up a version for people to use but clearly people didn't want to run it. It didn't happen this time and it's unlikely to happen next time.
|
|
|
|
justusranvier
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
|
|
August 17, 2014, 11:25:24 PM |
|
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!!!!!! 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. Funny thing about those projects: BitShares (Invictus) was the sinking ship that Charles Hoskinson bailed from after he bailed from Mastercoin (and bailed from the Bitcoin Education Project before that), prior to bailing from the Ethereum project. I wonder if there's some common thread between all those projects besides the fact that Hoskinson got involved with them, pumped them up, and bailed...
|
|
|
|
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3920
Merit: 2349
Eadem mutata resurgo
|
|
August 17, 2014, 11:26:41 PM |
|
proof of self-importance seems to be gaining evidence in this thread ...
and how is mentioning proof of importance being self important? if you think i was trying to make some kind of joke your mistaken... if you havnt heard of it, perhaps you should get out more instead of making stupid insults??? ... and if the cap fits wear it?
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
August 17, 2014, 11:29:47 PM |
|
the way consensus works in an open source community is that an overwhelming majority (not just a majority) of the community members involved get to voice their opinions and come to an agreement that a change is necessary. the few who may not fully agree with the changes usually still can live with the changes enacted.
in NXT's case, the devs never had a consensus; they just unilaterally thru a rollback patch out to the community to placate Bter and to see what would happen. what happened may be a majority mechanism but it is not a consensus mechanism.
|
|
|
|
|