Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 10:25:22 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Why is the interest in proof of stake limited?  (Voting closed: March 26, 2012, 04:49:08 AM)
It would require a fork or an altchain. Bitcoin would have been better off starting with proof of stake, now it is too late. - 15 (14.3%)
I don't understand how proof of stake would work? - 15 (14.3%)
I like proof of stake and would prefer a fork, but the fork is useless without majority agreement, and majority is impossible to obtain. - 5 (4.8%)
I own a lot of GPUs, but not much coin. This proposal would fuck me over personally. - 7 (6.7%)
I don't think there is any problem with bitcoin. Thus proof of stake is not necessary. - 34 (32.4%)
I think there is a problem, but I am waiting for a better solution. - 10 (9.5%)
I support proof of stake in an altchain. - 9 (8.6%)
I support proof of stake in a minority fork - 4 (3.8%)
Some other viewpoint explained below. - 6 (5.7%)
Total Voters: 60

Pages: « 1 2 [3]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Why isn't proof of stake more widely supported?  (Read 3457 times)
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
March 19, 2012, 09:06:01 PM
 #41

Wasn't SolidCoin a Proof-of-Stake chain, where a few trusted miners started out with 10,000,000 coins each to make sure the "benevolent stakeholders" were the only ones able to mine/sign transactions?

It was only in the mostt bastard form.

1) There was one stakeholder.
2) He gave himself 12M coins via a premine.

It isn't much of a "stake" if you get it for free.  It isn't much of a decentralized currency if you rig the rules so that you and you only will be the only stakeholder into perpetuity.

Pretending solidcoin is a crypto-currency just devalues the term.
1480847122
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480847122

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480847122
Reply with quote  #2

1480847122
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480847122
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480847122

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480847122
Reply with quote  #2

1480847122
Report to moderator
1480847122
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480847122

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480847122
Reply with quote  #2

1480847122
Report to moderator
1480847122
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480847122

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480847122
Reply with quote  #2

1480847122
Report to moderator
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
March 19, 2012, 09:18:33 PM
 #42

Kinda demonstrates the problem with getting PoS started, too, doesn't it?

DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
March 19, 2012, 09:19:18 PM
 #43

Kinda demonstrates the problem with getting PoS started, too, doesn't it?

No. 
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
March 20, 2012, 01:36:17 AM
 #44

Wasn't SolidCoin a Proof-of-Stake chain, where a few trusted miners started out with 10,000,000 coins each to make sure the "benevolent stakeholders" were the only ones able to mine/sign transactions?
SolidCoin starts as a monopoly and becomes a cryptocurrency when miners are rewarded with transaction fees based on hashrate.
PoS starts as a cryptocurrency and becomes a monopoly.
The only thing worse would be to code PoS rules into SolidCoin. OTOH, some people might like that.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
Pages: « 1 2 [3]  All
  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!