The Deathblow to Proof of Stake

[DeathAndTaxes]

because in proof of stake coins, there is a master node responsible for checkpointing and alerts.

So centralized security for a "decentralized" network?

[1714869068]

1714869068

[1714869068]

1714869068

[1714869068]

1714869068

[Rofo]

Not Proof of Stake's fault you got coins with near zero incentive to stake, users who don't understand staking security, and a lack of NXT/PPC/NOVA security features (centralized or otherwise) rampant around here.

[stealth923]

Standard Proof of stake is dead. If I owned 5% of a coin and colluded with 5 other people who also held 5% we could attack the network easily. Let alone a single exchange can stake and or kill the network with a single wallet. The vulnerabilities are too big for mainstream adoption. You can imagine if bitcoin was PoS and this happened, you would have 1 person that controls the entire network. Instant death.

[Rofo]

Standard Proof of stake is dead. If I owned 5% of a coin and colluded with 5 other people who also held 5% we could attack the network easily. Let alone a single exchange can stake and or kill the network with a single wallet. The vulnerabilities are too big for mainstream adoption. You can imagine if bitcoin was PoS and this happened, you would have 1 person that controls the entire network. Instant death.

If the BTC community kept 2.4 billion dollars (approx. 30%) worth of BTC on a single exchange, the network deserves death to teach them a valuable lesson.

[Willisius]

PoS isn't the problem. Using PoS solely is the problem.

[stealth923]

PoS isn't the problem. Using PoS solely is the problem.

Agreed - I would bet most coins using plain old PoS will need to change or die off because of this.

[devphp]

because in proof of stake coins, there is a master node responsible for checkpointing and alerts.

So centralized security for a "decentralized" network?

NXT doesn't have centralized checkpoints.
Other PoS (Peercoin?) may have those.
A distinction has to be made here if you want to stay objective.

[EvilDave]

because in proof of stake coins, there is a master node responsible for checkpointing and alerts.

So centralized security for a "decentralized" network?

NXT doesn't have centralized checkpoints.
Other PoS (Peercoin?) may have those.
A distinction has to be made here if you want to stay objective.

Yup, no stinking master nodes for us......

[toknormal]

NxT and POS is the way forward.

Masternodes are also a fantastically powerful concept and are already proving a success.

[onemorebtc]

NxT and POS is the way forward.

Masternodes are also a fantastically powerful concept and are already proving a success.

lol,,, i was drinking coffee... no i have to clean my display

[superresistant]

Total bullshit from OP.
I hope people will do their own research.

I have nothing to add to this troll talk.

[Brangdon]

because in proof of stake coins, there is a master node responsible for checkpointing and alerts.

I wish people wouldn't talk as if all PoS algorithms were the same. Nxt doesn't use check-points. Doing a rollback in Nxt would be about as hard as doing one in Bitcoin.

Standard Proof of stake is dead. If I owned 5% of a coin and colluded with 5 other people who also held 5% we could attack the network easily.

This is equally a problem for Bitcoin. You would need to own 5% of the hashpower rather than 5% of the coin; either way it is a big investment. Thing is, if you own 25% of Nxt, and you destroy the currency, you've destroyed your own money. Where-as with PoW you can own enough hashpower to destroy a currency without owning any of that currency. Afterwards you can move onto another currency that uses the same PoW algorithm. Currencies have been destroyed this way (when they were young).

You can imagine if bitcoin was PoS and this happened, you would have 1 person that controls the entire network. Instant death.

Again, the analogy with Bitcoin is one faction gaining 25% of the hashing power. And it's happened - Ghash.io has been close to 51%. It seems it's far more likely to happen in a PoW currency, even the most mature one, than in a mature PoS. Obviously, GHash.io has not meant instant death for Bitcoin.

[BitcoinNational]

because in proof of stake coins, there is a master node responsible for checkpointing and alerts.

So centralized security for a "decentralized" network?

Plus one centralized exchange, staking in one central wallet. 

An 'unlocked' wallet 

[evanito]

Proof of stake is useless to people who want to use online wallets for their altcoin, since most online wallets keep the income for themselves. As do exchanges that gain POS shares in balances.

[newuser01]

PoS leads to centralization

Both me and many others have said this before and it still remains true.


PoW is better for security
PoS is good if you don't care about centralization/security and you're ok with one person controlling the network.

[superresistant]

PoS leads to centralization

Both me and many others have said this before and it still remains true.


PoW is better for security
PoS is good if you don't care about centralization/security and you're ok with one person controlling the network.

PoW leads to centralization through hardware production, professional mining and massive big pool.

There are no incentive to centralize in PoS.
A node is the same no matter the amount of coins (in Nxt at least, other PoS are shit if they have such big flaws).

Both me and many others have said this before and it still remains true.

PoS is better for security
PoW is good if you don't care about centralization/security and you're ok with few people controlling the network.

[illodin]

Does NXT suffer from the "nothing at stake" vulnerability? Or all IPO+PoS coins for that matter, because in the beginning someone had 100% of the coins.

[newuser01]

PoS leads to centralization

Both me and many others have said this before and it still remains true.


PoW is better for security
PoS is good if you don't care about centralization/security and you're ok with one person controlling the network.

PoW leads to centralization through massive big pools.
There are no incentive to centralize in PoS.

Both me and many others have said this before and it still remains true.

PoS is better for security
PoW is good if you don't care about centralization/security and you're ok with few people controlling the network (hardware production + professional mining + pool).

oh you're talking about bitcoin, with the big pools?
Sure, there are a few bigger pools than others but it isn't 1 person controlling the network, like PoS always eventually ends up at.

Also check out multi-algo PoW coins there's you answer for big centralized pools.

I would still rather have big centralized pools than someone having the power to control the network without owning any hashing power or even 51% of the coins (even if he had them at one point, he can sell them off and then attack the network - attacking it at no cost).

How does your PoS deal with that, fork it to an earlier stage? haha

PoS allows someone to attack a network at no cost and ruin it for everyone else while benefitting, PoW doesn't. If you cannot see that then there is nothing more to discuss, you need to open your eyes to see

[superresistant]

PoS leads to centralization
Both me and many others have said this before and it still remains true.
PoW is better for security
PoS is good if you don't care about centralization/security and you're ok with one person controlling the network.

PoW leads to centralization through massive big pools.
There are no incentive to centralize in PoS.
Both me and many others have said this before and it still remains true.
PoS is better for security
PoW is good if you don't care about centralization/security and you're ok with few people controlling the network (hardware production + professional mining + pool).

oh you're talking about bitcoin, with the big pools?
Sure, there are a few bigger pools than others but it isn't 1 person controlling the network, like PoS always eventually ends up at.
Also check out multi-algo PoW coins there's you answer for big centralized pools.
I would still rather have big centralized pools than someone having the power to control the network without owning any hashing power or even 51% of the coins (even if he had them at one point, he can sell them off and then attack the network - attacking it at no cost).
How does your PoS deal with that, fork it to an earlier stage? haha
PoS allows someone to attack a network at no cost and ruin it for everyone else while benefitting, PoW doesn't. If you cannot see that then there is nothing more to discuss, you need to open your eyes to see

In Nxt, a node add the same resilience to the network no matter the amount of coins.

This new wave of PoS shitcoin are not real PoS.

Let me requote myself if you cannot read :

PoW leads to centralization through hardware production, professional mining and massive big pool.

There are no incentive to centralize in PoS.
A node is the same no matter the amount of coins (in Nxt at least, other PoS are shit if they have such big flaws).

[illodin]

A node is the same no matter the amount of coins (in Nxt at least, other PoS are shit if they have such big flaws).

Sorry my ignorance regarding NXT, but someone could just start as many nodes as he wants and have majority of them?