Long Live Proof-of-Work, Long Live Mining - "there is no meaningful alternative"

[devphp]

Stake isn't capital. You can base PoS on tokens like travel points. Capital is fixed value hardware or natural resources. Bulldozers, ASICS, oil, and licenses are examples of capital. PoS tokens are speculative vehicles that may or may not have value except as a security token like a Verisign cookie.

Since you consider licenses (intellectual property, not just physical property) an example of capital, think of the stake as a license that you invest into.

[cbeast]

Stake isn't capital. You can base PoS on tokens like travel points. Capital is fixed value hardware or natural resources. Bulldozers, ASICS, oil, and licenses are examples of capital. PoS tokens are speculative vehicles that may or may not have value except as a security token like a Verisign cookie.

Since you consider licenses (intellectual property, not just physical property) an example of capital, think of the stake as a license that you invest into.

As long as you have legal standing to issue the license then fine. Would you then copyright it and keep it closed source? Would you sue people for violating your license? If so, then yes, you have a good statist capital.

[devphp]

Dude, the license here is the stake you purchase, that is your capital investment. The license gives you a right (what do you mean legal, I thought crypto currencies don't require a legal permission to operate?) to take part in the staking process, the stake is your mining rig except it's 'virtual' not physical, these PoS tokens you purchase is now your uninflatable intellectual property that secures the blockchain. Come on, that's easy enough to understand, don't pretend you don't get it

[jonald_fyookball]

The point of the article isnt that poS could never work, just that theres no point to It because It offers no gain in energy efficiency.

[exoton]

Stake isn't capital. You can base PoS on tokens like travel points. Capital is fixed value hardware or natural resources. Bulldozers, ASICS, oil, and licenses are examples of capital. PoS tokens are speculative vehicles that may or may not have value except as a security token like a Verisign cookie.

Since you consider licenses (intellectual property, not just physical property) an example of capital, think of the stake as a license that you invest into.

No. The stake does not give you any incentive to promote the long term health of a PoS network. With PoS you can buy a coin, attack the network with it and then sell it. You would suffer no losses (expect potential slippage).

With a PoW coin on the other hand, you are forced to make a long term investment (spanning at least several months) in which you would suffer greatly (financially) in the event that the network was attacked

[cbeast]

Dude, the license here is the stake you purchase, that is your capital investment. The license gives you a right (what do you mean legal, I thought crypto currencies don't require a legal permission to operate?) to take part in the staking process, the stake is your mining rig except it's 'virtual' not physical, these PoS tokens you purchase is now your uninflatable intellectual property that secures the blockchain. Come on, that's easy enough to understand, don't pretend you don't get it

That's not the definition I was using. You should call it proof of license. I can only presume you are willing and able to sue your PoS users that violate your license. Now we see your motives.

[devphp]

I see you're in the mood of twisting words like lawyers.

[Daedelus]

Some rigorous research into POS, which includes some findings relating to the so called "Nothing at Stake problem" has been published >>> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=897488.0

You can play with the models used to get the findings yourself. There is still some questions to answer (which will be done in subsequent papers) but the authors found "it's nearly impossible to attack a proof-of-stake currency with '1% stake even' as stated by Buterin".


Please comment in the thread >>> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=897488.0 to hopefully get a good quality discussion going for the benefit of the crypto scene, let's leave tribalism at the door.

[jonald_fyookball]

Some rigorous research into POS, which includes some findings relating to the so called "Nothing at Stake problem" has been published >>> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=897488.0

You can play with the models used to get the findings yourself. There is still some questions to answer (which will be done in subsequent papers) but the authors found "it's nearly impossible to attack a proof-of-stake currency with '1% stake even' as stated by Buterin".


Please comment in the thread >>> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=897488.0 to hopefully get a good quality discussion going for the benefit of the crypto scene, let's leave tribalism at the door.

They didn't find that at all.   Why are you posting a false quote?

They conclude its still a problem!  See my comment in the other thread.

[Daedelus]

That quote is exactly what they say they have found,  since it is a quote from the OP of the thread you refer to...

And your comment says you haven't taken the time to digest and understand the paper... or even read the OP apparently, before commenting on it. Sheesh...

[jonald_fyookball]

That quote is exactly what they say they have found,  since it is a quote from the OP of the thread you refer to...

And your comment says you haven't taken the time to digest and understand the paper... or even read the OP apparently, before commenting on it. Sheesh...

Listen you muppet...

Open the actual PDF with the white paper,
https://github.com/ConsensusResearch/articles-papers/blob/master/multistrategy/multistrategy.pdf

Nowhere does it say "it's nearly impossible to attack a proof-of-stake currency".
 
But it does say (nothing at stake) "is a real problem" and future work will
try to find  "the ways to avoid N@S attack if any"

Obviously I'm the one who read the white paper, and you did not.

[Daedelus]

Don't get ruffled jonald, we all make mistakes. The quote is exactly where I said it was.

The reason they say it is because this paper is the first part of their findings. Consider it a teaser. Hence...


"- we have formally defined nothing-at-stake attack(again, using Buterin's informal definition) and made initial simulations. We haven't included their results in paper as they are seems to be too raw, but I can reveal them here: N@S attack could happens only in short-range, e.g. for within 20 blocks for 10% stake, so with 30 confirmations we haven't observed the successful attack. Also please note the attack has pretty unpredictable nature for attacker, so he can hardly enforce it, even in theory(in practice it's even harder to get it done properly). The correlation with stake size is still the open question, but it's nearly impossible to attack a proof-of-stake currency with "1% stake even" as stated by Buterin"



You're welcome.

[jonald_fyookball]

obviously the quote is wrong and inverting parts of the paper.  do you not agree?

the phrase "with even 1% stake" was actually the paper quoting the ethereum blog
and it says the opposite...says that with even 1% stake you can attack the network.

sorry for the name calling but it is pretty frustrating when people are misquoting
things and throwing their opinions around without even reading the white papers
being referenced.

[Daedelus]

it is pretty frustrating when people are misquoting
things and throwing their opinions around without even reading the white papers
being referenced.

Where was I misquoting? Which parts are my opinion?

If you want to challenge the authors, I think it would be better done in the other thread.

[jonald_fyookball]

obviously the quote is wrong and inverting parts of the paper.  do you not agree?

the phrase "with even 1% stake" was actually the paper quoting the ethereum blog
and it says the opposite...says that with even 1% stake you can attack the network.

sorry for the name calling but it is pretty frustrating when people are misquoting
things and throwing their opinions around without even reading the white papers
being referenced.

Where was I misquoting? Which parts are my opinion?

You're quoting a quote that itself is totally wrong.

THIS:

it's nearly impossible to attack a proof-of-stake currency with "1% stake even" as stated by Buterin"

.

The paper doesn't say that at all, in any way, shape, or form.
(If I'm mistaken, please tell me exactly what page of the white paper
multistrategy.pdf  I can find that on.)

No, instead it quotes the etherum blog and says this:

However, this
algorithm has one important
aw: there is "nothing at stake". In the event
of a fork, whether the fork is accidental or a malicious attempt to rewrite
history and reverse a transaction, the optimal strategy for any miner is to
mine on every chain, so that the miner gets their reward no matter which
fork wins. Thus, assuming a large number of economically interested miners,
an attacker may be able to send a transaction in exchange for some digital
good (usually another cryptocurrency), receive the good, then start a fork of
the blockchain from one block behind the transaction and send the money to
themselves instead, and even with 1% of the total stake the attacker's fork
would win because everyone else is mining on both

[Daedelus]

My reference was the thread. The thread explicitly tells you that that quote isn't in this paper. My post above states the same, results in "subsequent papers".


The only person linking that quote about the results to this paper is you. And then you are attacking me on the grounds that I am the one making the link.

[jonald_fyookball]

My reference was the thread. The thread explicitly tells you that that quote isn't in this paper. My post above states the same, results in "subsequent papers".


The only person linking that quote about the results to this paper is you. And then you are attacking me on the grounds that I am the one making the link.

ok whatever...i made my points.  have a nice day.

[Daedelus]

Thanks. Have a nice day too.

[Amph]

pow is good enough, it need maybe a better transaction validate, a system that can check if a block is valid, without basing its check on the longest chain

[jonald_fyookball]

pow is good enough, it need maybe a better transaction validate, a system that can check if a block is valid, without basing its check on the longest chain

like what?