Something at stake - proof of stake alternative

[smooth]

I don't understand how derivatives apply in a PoS system. Having 'control' of paper money in a closed system like a brokerage is not the same as actually having that cryptographic currency to stake.

It matters because nothing at stake means you have nothing to lose. If you lose coins but gain at least the value of those coins elsewhere, then you still have nothing at stake.

Nothing at stake is fundamental and can't ever be fixed. That doesn't mean it isn't possible to build a functional or useful currency system around that fact, but it will have some properties that will always differ from proof-of-work (where an actual thing -- energy -- is consumed and can't be "unconsumed" elsewhere in an offsetting trade). People who want to do useful work should stop trying to "fix" or "disprove" nothing-at-stake and accept it as a fact and go from there.

Individuals 'leasing' stake to other individuals though sounds like a big problem to me. And any community that allows such a market to develop is probably making a big mistake since it could greatly lower the cost of an attack.

It can't be prevented unless the market is highly regulated. That's exactly what ArticMine was saying.

[achimsmile]

People who want to do useful work should stop trying to "fix" or "disprove" nothing-at-stake and accept it as a fact and go from there.

We don't even have a proper description of how N@S would work on a specific coin yet. All I hear is some bold statements "n@s is a fact". Please, you and I don't know the math behind it enough to make such claims.

Let's prove n@s first before saying it can't be disproved, allright?

[sasha35625]

Actually I can't see anything wrong with checkpointing setup sort of which is implemented in NXT now or the one Vitalik wrote about recently. Such systems worked, work, and seem to be able to work in future.  Field tests are successful, this is the most important.
Any crypto will be some cross between social consensus and "technical" consensus, so if technical consensus is not guaranteed by theory it doesn't mean that the system can't function.

[smooth]

Actually I can't see anything wrong with checkpointing setup sort of which is implemented in NXT now or the one Vitalik wrote about recently. Such systems worked, work, and seem to be able to work in future.  Field tests are successful, this is the most important.
Any crypto will be some cross between social consensus and "technical" consensus, so if technical consensus is not guaranteed by theory it doesn't mean that the system can't function.

"Any crypto" does not have to include social consensus, as Vitalik explained. PoW is "objective." This doesn't mean it always works perfectly -- if you are completely disconnected from the longest chain, you can't ever choose the longest chain. But in choosing between two chains, there is no social consensus involved. And in the first case (disconnected) social consensus won't help you, so it adds nothing.

But what you were saying about things that work is ultimately exactly what I was saying above. Trying to "fix" nothing-at-stake is dumb.

[sasha35625]

Real world shows that POW is not objective, gigahash could have more than 50% of hashing power easily. So they choose to behave themselves not to hurt the network. It is very subjective.

Actually I can't see anything wrong with checkpointing setup sort of which is implemented in NXT now or the one Vitalik wrote about recently. Such systems worked, work, and seem to be able to work in future.  Field tests are successful, this is the most important.
Any crypto will be some cross between social consensus and "technical" consensus, so if technical consensus is not guaranteed by theory it doesn't mean that the system can't function.

"Any crypto" does not have to include social consensus, as Vitalik explained. PoW is "objective." This doesn't mean it always works perfectly -- if you are completely disconnected from the longest chain, you can't ever choose the longest chain. But in choosing between two chains, there is no social consensus involved. And in the first case (disconnected) social consensus won't help you, so it adds nothing.

But what you were saying about things that work is ultimately exactly what I was saying above. Trying to "fix" nothing-at-stake is dumb.

[smooth]

No that is not subjective. Even if ghash had >50% and even if they misbehaved, the longest chain would still be objective and unambiguous.

We are back to what works and is useful, but that's a different question.

I'm not a fan of PoW as it exists in Bitcoin with extremely large pools, but I still assert that it has a stronger consensus model that is more robust with respect to trust. Again, that doesn't even imply it is necessarily useful at all.

Real world shows that POW is not objective, gigahash could have more than 50% of hashing power easily. So they choose to behave themselves not to hurt the network. It is very subjective.

Actually I can't see anything wrong with checkpointing setup sort of which is implemented in NXT now or the one Vitalik wrote about recently. Such systems worked, work, and seem to be able to work in future.  Field tests are successful, this is the most important.
Any crypto will be some cross between social consensus and "technical" consensus, so if technical consensus is not guaranteed by theory it doesn't mean that the system can't function.

"Any crypto" does not have to include social consensus, as Vitalik explained. PoW is "objective." This doesn't mean it always works perfectly -- if you are completely disconnected from the longest chain, you can't ever choose the longest chain. But in choosing between two chains, there is no social consensus involved. And in the first case (disconnected) social consensus won't help you, so it adds nothing.

But what you were saying about things that work is ultimately exactly what I was saying above. Trying to "fix" nothing-at-stake is dumb.

[sasha35625]

This approach with prepayment, bet or whatever you call it is getting hot now,
another project based on this http://tendermint.com/

[Daedelus]

@sasha, rigorous research in the the 'Nothing at Stake' assertions has been published >>> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=897488.0

Please comment in the thread >>> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=897488.0. It would be good if we could get heads together from all aspects of cyrpto in the same place to discuss.

[sasha35625]

@sasha, rigorous research in the the 'Nothing at Stake' assertions has been published >>> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=897488.0

Please comment in the thread >>> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=897488.0. It would be good if we could get heads together from all aspects of cyrpto in the same place to discuss.

Thank you, I'm watching this, I'm "coinomat" at nxtforum

[Daedelus]

@sasha, rigorous research in the the 'Nothing at Stake' assertions has been published >>> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=897488.0

Please comment in the thread >>> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=897488.0. It would be good if we could get heads together from all aspects of cyrpto in the same place to discuss.

Thank you, I'm watching this, I'm "coinomat" at nxtforum

I never knew!

[kodtycoon]

@sasha, rigorous research in the the 'Nothing at Stake' assertions has been published >>> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=897488.0

Please comment in the thread >>> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=897488.0. It would be good if we could get heads together from all aspects of cyrpto in the same place to discuss.

why not bang the drum a little quieter Daedelus? Been away a day or so and catching up... you're in almost every thread I've looked at. Maybe it is our overlapping interests but sheesh!

i couldnt resist..

[Daedelus]

That's very uncharitable at Christmas! You can spam when the POI whitepaper is finally released 

[kodtycoon]

That's very uncharitable at Christmas! You can spam when the POI whitepaper is finally released 

il hold you to that..

im all for spreading the word on that paper though, i just could help myself ha. good that theres finally something solid out to tackle the pos fud. i see there is virtually zero arguments against it lol

[EvilDave]

The N@S paper from Kushti is important, though, this attack vector is always brought out whenever Nxt (and POS in general) is discussed.
Right now, the paper takes a few improtant steps in demonstrating that a nothing-at-stake attack is almost ceratinly dooned to fail.

And Hi! to the Coinomat dude!