Are PoS coins secure and reliable?

[Octavius]

I have a simple question.

Let's take an example: There 3 active clients on the network right now.

- Wallet A holds 10 coins

- Wallet B holds 10 coins

- Wallet C holds 100 coins

Wallet C sends 100 coins, who will validate transactions?

Bitcoin miners help keep the Bitcoin network secure, but how secure are PoS coins?

If Wallet A or B can validate transactions, that means PoS is vulnerable to important security flaws?

[darkota]

No, they are not reliable. As you can see, Vericoin had to be rolled back because the attacker got 30% of all Vericoins.

Navajocoin, another PoS coin, was recently doublespent or Nothing at Staked attacked, twice, when hethe attacker gained over 50% of all Navajocoins.

[Yakamoto]

No, they are not reliable. As you can see, Vericoin had to be rolled back because the attacker got 30% of all Vericoins.

Navajocoin, another PoS coin, was recently doublespent or Nothing at Staked attacked, twice, when he gained over 50% of all Navajocoins.

And this nicely sums up why most people prefer PoW over PoS. When stuff like this happens, it's bad. And it's not hard either. Most hacks are easier than they're choked up to be, all you need is good software or a lot of luck. Or good methods if spotting vulnerabilities.

I cannot stand beside PoS coins, as they always seem to be the greatest scam ever. Until we either fix it or come up with a new Proof system, I can only support PoW.

[stealth923]

proof is in the pudding. Dont care what any PoS shill says....its vulnerabilities are too big for mainstream.

I wont support Proof of stake anymore. If I was an exchange I would sure as hell stake the coins for more profit.

Yes you can get a shitload of hardware to try and 51% PoW but good luck getting past pool operators who will restrict. Look at GHASH.io's latest statement, they will never breach 40% for bitcoin.

http://www.coindesk.com/ghash-commits-40-hashrate-cap-bitcoin-mining-summit/

PoS = dead

[El Dude]

Pos is a fail

[sillybear]

Yeah

No, they are not reliable. As you can see, Vericoin had to be rolled back because the attacker got 30% of all Vericoins.

Navajocoin, another PoS coin, was recently doublespent or Nothing at Staked attacked, twice, when he gained over 50% of all Navajocoins.

And this nicely sums up why most people prefer PoW over PoS. When stuff like this happens, it's bad. And it's not hard either. Most hacks are easier than they're choked up to be, all you need is good software or a lot of luck. Or good methods if spotting vulnerabilities.

I cannot stand beside PoS coins, as they always seem to be the greatest scam ever. Until we either fix it or come up with a new Proof system, I can only support PoW.

Yeah. PoW has no flaw and we should all trust mining pool. (esp eligius.st)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=95401.0
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/o6qwx/lukejr_attacks_and_kills_coiledcoin_altcurrency/
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3472/what-is-the-story-behind-the-attack-on-coiledcoin
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=56675.msg678006#msg678006

[devphp]

There are different implementations of PoS, some are vulnerable, some are more secure than PoW.

[Este Nuno]

There are different implementations of PoS, some are vulnerable, some are more secure than PoW.

Yeah.

Just because some coins have flaws that have been exploited does not mean that PoS as a whole can be dismissed.

People should be working together to push PoS technology forward as it's clearly superior to PoW. I find it hard to believe that someone could justify the excess of PoW if and when a PoS alternative exists. Other than making an argument for PoW purely out of self interest of course.

Right now PoW is dominant. And there are some PoS currencies like NXT that are progressing well and appear to have a good chance of solidifying their place as the first secure decentralised PoS currency. Time will tell how it plays out, but it's looking good for PoS thus far I think.

It's possible that PoS isn't feasible but so far even for 'Nothing at Stake' attacks, V. Buterin and Come-From-Beyond seemed to agree that there was a theoretical solution. And that seems to be the main issue right now against PoS.

[henryjames1003]

There are different implementations of PoS, some are vulnerable, some are more secure than PoW.

Yeah.

Just because some coins have flaws that have been exploited does not mean that PoS as a whole can be dismissed.

People should be working together to push PoS technology forward as it's clearly superior to PoW. I find it hard to believe that someone could justify the excess of PoW if and when a PoS alternative exists. Other than making an argument for PoW purely out of self interest of course.

Right now PoW is dominant. And there are some PoS currencies like NXT that are progressing well and appear to have a good chance of solidifying their place as the first secure decentralised PoS currency. Time will tell how it plays out, but it's looking good for PoS thus far I think.

It's possible that PoS isn't feasible but so far even for 'Nothing at Stake' attacks, V. Buterin and Come-From-Beyond seemed to agree that there was a theoretical solution. And that seems to be the main issue right now against PoS.

and how pos(One of the implementations) can deal with the situation in OP's thread?

[Este Nuno]

There are different implementations of PoS, some are vulnerable, some are more secure than PoW.

Yeah.

Just because some coins have flaws that have been exploited does not mean that PoS as a whole can be dismissed.

People should be working together to push PoS technology forward as it's clearly superior to PoW. I find it hard to believe that someone could justify the excess of PoW if and when a PoS alternative exists. Other than making an argument for PoW purely out of self interest of course.

Right now PoW is dominant. And there are some PoS currencies like NXT that are progressing well and appear to have a good chance of solidifying their place as the first secure decentralised PoS currency. Time will tell how it plays out, but it's looking good for PoS thus far I think.

It's possible that PoS isn't feasible but so far even for 'Nothing at Stake' attacks, V. Buterin and Come-From-Beyond seemed to agree that there was a theoretical solution. And that seems to be the main issue right now against PoS.

and how pos(One of the implementations) can deal with the situation in OP's thread?

As i know the network forges blocks and results in a blockchain that is similar in function to how we use blockchains in PoW currencies now. If one person on the network did have over 50% of the coins then it would not be secure, in the same way that if one miner had over 50% of the network on a PoW coin they could mount an attack.

In PoS people forge blocks with their stake and in PoW people mine blocks by finding the correct hash to mine the next block in the blockchain.

Someone who has a better technical understanding about PoS than I can probably explain it better. I just follow along the debate as a layman and try to think about the practical applications.

[XbladeX]

I have a simple question.

Let's take an example: There 3 active clients on the network right now.

- Wallet A holds 10 coins

- Wallet B holds 10 coins

- Wallet C holds 100 coins

Wallet C sends 100 coins, who will validate transactions?

Bitcoin miners help keep the Bitcoin network secure, but how secure are PoS coins?

If Wallet A or B can validate transactions, that means PoS is vulnerable to important security flaws?

Wallet C sends 100 coins, who will validate transactions?

straight answer from POS developer:
- Wallet A  and Wallet B have equal chance.
- 50% if A and 50% if B

Bitcoin miners help keep the Bitcoin network secure, but how secure are PoS coins?
On-line coins secure network they are like mining machines.
POS is secure as they holders are.
More staking nodes you have then better for POS security.
Size of wallets also has matter.
NXT have diffident build than PPC family (note: PPC in not pure POS today like BC VRC XC ).

How see networks of particular coins.
More nodes better.


to add more secure and BIG nettwork(more coins) is the faster transactions you will have look:

[Lieji]

Yeah

No, they are not reliable. As you can see, Vericoin had to be rolled back because the attacker got 30% of all Vericoins.

Navajocoin, another PoS coin, was recently doublespent or Nothing at Staked attacked, twice, when he gained over 50% of all Navajocoins.

And this nicely sums up why most people prefer PoW over PoS. When stuff like this happens, it's bad. And it's not hard either. Most hacks are easier than they're choked up to be, all you need is good software or a lot of luck. Or good methods if spotting vulnerabilities.

I cannot stand beside PoS coins, as they always seem to be the greatest scam ever. Until we either fix it or come up with a new Proof system, I can only support PoW.

Yeah. PoW has no flaw and we should all trust mining pool. (esp eligius.st)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=95401.0
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/o6qwx/lukejr_attacks_and_kills_coiledcoin_altcurrency/
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3472/what-is-the-story-behind-the-attack-on-coiledcoin
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=56675.msg678006#msg678006

You registered a new bitcointalk account to make this post lol. 

[BitJohn]

PoS coins are still the most secure the Vericoin attack says nothing about the security of these coins. In fact with only 30% of the coins still no reason to roll it back. So to answer the question yes Proof of Stake is a great concept.

[XbladeX]

Re: Are PoS coins secure and reliable?

Summary:
Yes but only strong POS networks.

To be fair now days new POS coins are kept mostly in Bittrex lets say sometimes i see 50% of all in order book !!!!
If 97% of coins are kept probably on exchange ( bittrex  and POS new stars… )  when you will buy 2% of 1m coin for 400 sat…0,08BTC
You can play god of their network… and 51% attack have 100% chance.

People are just greed they produce coins which will never have security because of lack community to support it
But same is with POW coin who have network hash rate 10mhs-300mhs scrypt…
Same rules are here and there… just look:
http://www.coinwarz.com/cryptocurrency/?sort=hashrate&dir=asc  one KNC titan 300MHS can wipe 30+ networks…

While to hit POS you need buy coins depends on coinmarketcap that can be easy or hard...

Real POS coins like PPC(someday pure POS) BC FTC have secure POS networks today while some newer clones needs some time
or they won't have never it security all depends on people how they secure network
IN VRC situation is that they decided to put 30% of all in ONE place they risked a lot.
Coins with high network weith and many nodes i wil consider as safe.
http://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/nodes-ppc-bc-xc-ftc-nvc.html

Important in POS are p2p networks exchanges, markets, smart contracts and people who will use them.
When those solutions will be popular POS networks will be more secure and faster.

[darkota]

There are different implementations of PoS, some are vulnerable, some are more secure than PoW.

Yeah.

Just because some coins have flaws that have been exploited does not mean that PoS as a whole can be dismissed.

People should be working together to push PoS technology forward as it's clearly superior to PoW. I find it hard to believe that someone could justify the excess of PoW if and when a PoS alternative exists. Other than making an argument for PoW purely out of self interest of course.

Right now PoW is dominant. And there are some PoS currencies like NXT that are progressing well and appear to have a good chance of solidifying their place as the first secure decentralised PoS currency. Time will tell how it plays out, but it's looking good for PoS thus far I think.

It's possible that PoS isn't feasible but so far even for 'Nothing at Stake' attacks, V. Buterin and Come-From-Beyond seemed to agree that there was a theoretical solution. And that seems to be the main issue right now against PoS.

A Nothing at Stake attack was done twice on Navajo, which is a PoS coin. That attacker, since he owned 50% of all navajocoins, can now doublespend, anytime he wants at any time in the future, just because he owned 50% of all coins temporarily....PoS=Piece of Shit.

[Brilliantrocket]

PoS is garbage. The only reason for its existence is to separate fools from their money.

[devphp]

PoS is garbage. The only reason for its existence is to separate fools from their money.

Here is one with miner mentality.

[Brilliantrocket]

PoS is garbage. The only reason for its existence is to separate fools from their money.

Here is one with miner mentality.

Refer to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=557732.msg6501833#msg6501833

[Brilliantrocket]

In particular

The other attacks you describe all derive from the fundamental reason I declared all non-proof-of-work systems to be insecure back in April.

My logic was mathematically fundamental. The input entropy set is quite deterministic and well known and thus can be preimaged. For example, accumulating a lot of coin-days-destroyed and then targeting them in clever ways to subvert the security.

The randomness (entropy) of each proof-of-work is fundamental and mathematical and it can not be preimaged. It can only be surely defeated with > 50% of the network hash rate. Note I recently offered what I believe to a solution to the selfish-mining attack (the one at hackingdistributed.com that claims 25 - 35% attack).

I am skeptical that you can characterize all possible attack vectors of proof-of-stake in one coherent mathematical proof. Thus you will not know formally what the security is; instead a list of adhoc attacks and counter-measures.

Nevertheless I am not bagging on Peercoin. Everyone should be free to decide for themselves which coin they prefer. Perhaps there are unknown attacks on Bitcoin as well, yet I am somewhat comforted by the clear math for security of proof-of-work. I will not say I will never be convinced to support a non-proof-of-work coin, I will correct myself if someone explains such a system convincingly. It is on my TODO list to study more Peercoin.

Edit: Perhaps coin-days-destroyed in some attack vectors motivates not transacting for long periods of time.

[XbladeX]

....
A Nothing at Stake attack was done twice on Navajo, which is a PoS coin. That attacker, since he owned 50% of all navajocoins, can now doublespend, anytime he wants at any time in the future, just because he owned 50% of all coins temporarily....PoS=Piece of Shit.

ONCE AGAIN.
Cheap coins who are in 90% kept on bittrex to sell on pump are valuable because none protect network!

attacker can have 2% of all coins and make 51% attack... when coin don't use solution from POS2.0 is even more valuable to such attacks.

In POS2.0 you cannot generate "more mining power being offline" only online coins can get coin age.
so problem with "owning 50% of all coins temporarily" is minimal and much harder to exploit...
Navajo is not protected because of no one is staking...
Not using POS2.0 make it even more valuable to attack.


Now look at similar POW coins  if you rent mining ring 100Mhs you can attack 18coins with 51%...
http://www.coinwarz.com/cryptocurrency?sort=hashrate&dir=asc

Same situation like with POS shitcoins who no one protect...