Changes to the Alogrithm Prohibited or disputed?

[turvarya]

To me that's only a couple of a percent chance of being personally affected if you happened to be transferring coin at the time of the attack. Then when it's noticed happening, we point dual Gavins at it and pull the trigger, 48 hour fix even if attacker paid someone to get them drunk at a conference the night before.

Yes, but Bitcoin will be permanently damaged by by removing the trust we have in the system from such an attack.

and it's ONLY when a large amount of resources and planning has been achieved that you can possibly do anything else, at which point everybody is watching you like a hawk. With POS, it seems more like you can 5th column it gradually.

Again you seem to be ignoring that a disgruntled employee or outside hacker attacking a large mining pool without a large amount of resources can attack the network.

You seem to be focusing on PoS as well which isn't exactly what the paper is talking about.

People use the term "attack the network" a lot. Could you give examples, of what can really happen? What do these attacks look like? What damage can these "attacks" really do?

[cryptogeeknext]

i think he's saying centralization is inevitable with most kinds of PoS.

If that is what he is suggesting than it is odd statement to make as it is trivial to design an algorithm which forces or encourages decentralization, even with PoS. What is tricky is combining the right security and incentives as well into the consensus mechanism.

I.E.. having Bitcoin incorporate a hybrid PoW /TaPoS algo where either some of the transaction fees or mining rewards aren paid to full nodes/or p2p miners would both encourage decentralization and make Bitcoin more robust.

I already have some concerns with Vitalik's proposal and am adding more concerns as I review it further but would like to hear more specific concerns rather than knee jerk reactions and generalizations(not coming from you BTW)

It is indeed possible that PoW is superior to everything else and Satoshi got it right the first time. What I find interesting and concerning is that many people aren't even willing to test or study new consensus designs. I have a long history of attacking PoS and many alts in general and am making a very reasonable suggestion of entertaining an idea and studying Vitalik's proposals followed by a very conservative approach of incorporating this algo into an alt or sidechain so it can be tested over the course of years before even thinking about discussing a hardfork and this is the reaction I get.

There appears to be a sense of protectionism, reverence and faith towards Satoshi's original code, which is silly because most of his code has already been thrown out or changed.

My criticism was directed towards current PoS implementations, where it's not the reward scheme that bothered me, but the fact that stake maintains permanent share of control no matter what, that's the recipe for stagnation and eventual collapse of the system. If you like the words "economic stimulus" you might hear a lot of that in the end game scenario of current PoS implementations.

The alternative mechanism seems to be proposed with PoI, but sustainable network effects might become new dangers of centralization there.

The point with PoW is that money needs to be simple, so that everyone can understand it, don't fix if it ain't broken.

[Flashman]

"Consensus" for Bitcoin means the people behind enough mining pools to control > 50% of the hash rate. What end users want is irrelevant.

End users have their finger on the price trigger, if they do not like what the mines do, they pull it, bang, crash.

[FattyMcButterpants]

To me that's only a couple of a percent chance of being personally affected if you happened to be transferring coin at the time of the attack. Then when it's noticed happening, we point dual Gavins at it and pull the trigger, 48 hour fix even if attacker paid someone to get them drunk at a conference the night before.

Yes, but Bitcoin will be permanently damaged by by removing the trust we have in the system from such an attack.

and it's ONLY when a large amount of resources and planning has been achieved that you can possibly do anything else, at which point everybody is watching you like a hawk. With POS, it seems more like you can 5th column it gradually.

Again you seem to be ignoring that a disgruntled employee or outside hacker attacking a large mining pool without a large amount of resources can attack the network.

You seem to be focusing on PoS as well which isn't exactly what the paper is talking about.

People use the term "attack the network" a lot. Could you give examples, of what can really happen? What do these attacks look like? What damage can these "attacks" really do?

Any successful attack would erode confidence in the network and would cause people to not want to hold/use any coins that are backed by the network. As a result the value of such coin would decline (like to nearly zero).

A likely attack would involve spending the same coins multiple times, resulting in all of the people who thought they received money to actually not receive money.

[cryptogeeknext]

Regarding various attack discussions.

Remember, the good test for freedom is that it can be attacked, and you need to accept the costs of defending it, sometimes at a loss. If your freedom cannot be attacked, the chances are that you've already lost it somewhere along the way.

[inBitweTrust]

My criticism was directed towards current PoS implementations, where it's not the reward scheme that bothered me, but the fact that stake maintains permanent share of control no matter what, that's the recipe for stagnation and eventual collapse of the system. If you like the words "economic stimulus" you might hear a lot of that in the end game scenario of current PoS implementations.

Non Sequitor. PoS can easily be designed where the largest stakeholders don't maintain a permanent share of control through Demurrage or a PoSV scheme. Otherwise, PoW within Bitcoin has the exact same problem. Satoshi doesn't need to buy an ASIC to maintain control of his 1 million coins.

[cryptogeeknext]

My criticism was directed towards current PoS implementations, where it's not the reward scheme that bothered me, but the fact that stake maintains permanent share of control no matter what, that's the recipe for stagnation and eventual collapse of the system. If you like the words "economic stimulus" you might hear a lot of that in the end game scenario of current PoS implementations.

Non Sequitor. PoS can easily be designed where the largest stakeholders don't maintain a permanent share of control through Demurrage or a PoSV scheme. Otherwise, PoW within Bitcoin has the exact same problem. Satoshi doesn't need to buy an ASIC to maintain control of his 1 million coins.

Oh no, you don't understand control then.
If current controllers decide to freeze Satoshi's addresses then there is nothing he do about it, other than attempt to challenge the controllers, maybe even at a loss. So you need to keep an eye on mining if you are rich, but you don't get control automatically. PoW ensures competition for control.

[inBitweTrust]

Oh no, you don't understand control then.
If current controllers decide to freeze Satoshi's addresses then there is nothing he do about it, other than attempt to challenge the controllers, maybe even at a loss. So you need to keep an eye on mining if you are rich, but you don't get control automatically. PoW ensures competition for control.

Within Bitcoin, full nodes, not miners have ultimate control. Miners have no ability to take or destroy Satoshi's 1 million Bitcoins. An attack can freeze Satoshi from spending his coins temporarily at the cost of destroying the trust of Bitcoin altogether and forcing a fork.

Additionally, you keep on focusing on comparing Bitcoins PoW with simple PoS implementations like Nxt which is outside this conversation. I am not advocating PoS, as a viable alternative.

Perhaps you should read Vitalik's paper to get a better understanding of what this conversation is about.

[turvarya]

To me that's only a couple of a percent chance of being personally affected if you happened to be transferring coin at the time of the attack. Then when it's noticed happening, we point dual Gavins at it and pull the trigger, 48 hour fix even if attacker paid someone to get them drunk at a conference the night before.

Yes, but Bitcoin will be permanently damaged by by removing the trust we have in the system from such an attack.

and it's ONLY when a large amount of resources and planning has been achieved that you can possibly do anything else, at which point everybody is watching you like a hawk. With POS, it seems more like you can 5th column it gradually.

Again you seem to be ignoring that a disgruntled employee or outside hacker attacking a large mining pool without a large amount of resources can attack the network.

You seem to be focusing on PoS as well which isn't exactly what the paper is talking about.

People use the term "attack the network" a lot. Could you give examples, of what can really happen? What do these attacks look like? What damage can these "attacks" really do?

Any successful attack would erode confidence in the network and would cause people to not want to hold/use any coins that are backed by the network. As a result the value of such coin would decline (like to nearly zero).

A likely attack would involve spending the same coins multiple times, resulting in all of the people who thought they received money to actually not receive money.

So, the real threat to Bitcoin is not on the technical site, but on the PR-site. If that would be true, shouldn't we fear more about people bad-mouthing bitcoin? Oh wait, they already do and Bitcoin is still alive, although people believe that the CEO of bitcoin if a magical tux or that bitcoin was already hacked, etc.

[cryptogeeknext]

Oh no, you don't understand control then.
If current controllers decide to freeze Satoshi's addresses then there is nothing he do about it, other than attempt to challenge the controllers, maybe even at a loss. So you need to keep an eye on mining if you are rich, but you don't get control automatically. PoW ensures competition for control.

Within Bitcoin, full nodes, not miners have ultimate control. Miners have no ability to take or destroy Satoshi's 1 million Bitcoins. An attack can freeze Satoshi from spending his coins temporarily at the cost of destroying the trust of Bitcoin altogether and forcing a fork.

Additionally, you keep on focusing on comparing Bitcoins PoW with simple PoS implementations like Nxt which is outside this conversation. I am not advocating PoS, as a viable alternative.

Perhaps you should read Vitalik's paper to get a better understanding of what this conversation is about.

No, full nodes have no say in what gets into blockchain and what doesn't, miners do.
My arguments are cast from the position of the end game scenario for each system.

I have to read Vitalik's papers to have an opinion, so this will have to wait a bit, but I would advocate against changing current PoW systems into something else simply because getting rid of PoW would not let it compete with other models on the common ground.

[inBitweTrust]

No, full nodes have no say in what gets into blockchain and what doesn't, miners do.
My arguments are cast from the position of the end game scenario for each system.

I have to read Vitalik's papers to have an opinion, so this will have to wait a bit, but I would advocate against changing current PoW systems into something else simply because getting rid of PoW would not let it compete with other models on the common ground.

Full nodes have the ultimate control as they can fork the blockchain at whim and leave all the miners behind buring electricity in the service of no one besides themselves.

Why do you insinuate PoW is he only possible method of competition?
PoW doesn't have a monopoly of competition and it is trivial to design an algo which allows for more decentralized competition than PoW.

[inBitweTrust]

So, the real threat to Bitcoin is not on the technical site, but on the PR-site. If that would be true, shouldn't we fear more about people bad-mouthing bitcoin? Oh wait, they already do and Bitcoin is still alive, although people believe that the CEO of bitcoin if a magical tux or that bitcoin was already hacked, etc.

The basis of threat in attacking confidence within Bitcoin is indeed technical. The fact that Mtgox was able to use transaction malleability as an feeble excuse for being hacked regardless of this "flaw" or "feature" being known of before hand was a technical problem within Bitcoin that caused much damage to our ecosystem.

Sticking our head in sand and ignoring threats will not prevent bad PR or attacks from occurring. Bitcoin isn't perfect and can improve. Whether or not PoW is a perfect consensus mechanism is up for debate.

[FattyMcButterpants]

To me that's only a couple of a percent chance of being personally affected if you happened to be transferring coin at the time of the attack. Then when it's noticed happening, we point dual Gavins at it and pull the trigger, 48 hour fix even if attacker paid someone to get them drunk at a conference the night before.

Yes, but Bitcoin will be permanently damaged by by removing the trust we have in the system from such an attack.

and it's ONLY when a large amount of resources and planning has been achieved that you can possibly do anything else, at which point everybody is watching you like a hawk. With POS, it seems more like you can 5th column it gradually.

Again you seem to be ignoring that a disgruntled employee or outside hacker attacking a large mining pool without a large amount of resources can attack the network.

You seem to be focusing on PoS as well which isn't exactly what the paper is talking about.

People use the term "attack the network" a lot. Could you give examples, of what can really happen? What do these attacks look like? What damage can these "attacks" really do?

Any successful attack would erode confidence in the network and would cause people to not want to hold/use any coins that are backed by the network. As a result the value of such coin would decline (like to nearly zero).

A likely attack would involve spending the same coins multiple times, resulting in all of the people who thought they received money to actually not receive money.

So, the real threat to Bitcoin is not on the technical site, but on the PR-site. If that would be true, shouldn't we fear more about people bad-mouthing bitcoin? Oh wait, they already do and Bitcoin is still alive, although people believe that the CEO of bitcoin if a magical tux or that bitcoin was already hacked, etc.

No it would be a technical issue. If the network is successfully attacked then the network does not protect your money.

It would be much worse then people "bad mouthing" bitcoin or PoW mining.

[devphp]

Bitcoin consensus is controlled by miners, not full nodes.
Miners won't agree to change the status quo, as they would go bankrupt.
Bitcoin will always stay PoW.

[inBitweTrust]

Bitcoin consensus is controlled by miners, not full nodes.

This depends upon how one defines consensus. There is a consensus mechanism between full nodes and a consensus mechanism that miners control. Full nodes can remove the power away from miners in an instant with a hard fork.

This hard fork can be protected from any threats from miners with a simple adjustment of the algorithm to remove part or all control ASIC's have over bitcoin.

The bad news for you is that any advantages or features alts have over bitcoin can quickly be incorporated from a consensus between full nodes with or without miners approval.

[devphp]

Anything is possible in theory, but in reality Bitcoin will stay as is, mark my words. Thus this discussion is pointless. You can see that it's pointless from very few people participating, all the early adopters are happy with the status quo. The rest listen to them and never question their authority, end of story. And you're wrong, there is no bad news for me here.

[inBitweTrust]

Anything is possible in theory, but in reality Bitcoin will stay as is, mark my words. Thus this discussion is pointless. You can see that it's pointless from very few people participating, all the early adopters are happy with the status quo and the rest have blind faith in them, end of story.

Time will tell but as the poll indicates thus far 58.3 percent of those sampled are open to change if something proves favorable. I expect these numbers to grow with increases in centralization from mining. If mining is decentralized naturally due to economics than that is fine too as this isn't an ideological battle for me between PoW or PoS but a practical battle in having the most robust and efficient system that benefits everyone.

And you're wrong, there is no bad news for me here.

Aren't you a Nxt shill who trolls these Bitcoin forums or do I have you mistaken for someone else? What percentage of your asset portfolio exists in Nxt vs BTC?

In full disclosure I am currently am 99% vested in BTC, and 1% vested in namecoin after selling all my litecoins. I currently do not mine but have in the past as well.

[devphp]

Whichever is better, PoW or PoS is fine with me, there is no bad news for me here, you're wrong.
You're right that as long as it's robust, efficient and secure, that's all that matters.
Please proceed to discuss with other members as we have found consensus )

[inBitweTrust]

Whichever is better, PoW or PoS is fine with me, there is no bad news for me here, you're wrong.
You're right that as long as it's robust, efficient and secure, that's all that matters.
Please proceed to discuss with other members as we have found consensus )

Are you trying to suggest you are neutral on this subject matter and have posted positive aspects of PoW in the last year within this forum?

What percentage of your asset portfolio exists in Nxt vs BTC?

[cryptogeeknext]

No, full nodes have no say in what gets into blockchain and what doesn't, miners do.
My arguments are cast from the position of the end game scenario for each system.

I have to read Vitalik's papers to have an opinion, so this will have to wait a bit, but I would advocate against changing current PoW systems into something else simply because getting rid of PoW would not let it compete with other models on the common ground.

Full nodes have the ultimate control as they can fork the blockchain at whim and leave all the miners behind buring electricity in the service of no one besides themselves.

No, you're mistaken.
Miners produce longest valid chain, full nodes accept it.
Full nodes themselves don't produce any chain at all.

Hard fork wouldn't change much, and it's not as quick and easy as you portray.

Why do you insinuate PoW is he only possible method of competition?
PoW doesn't have a monopoly of competition and it is trivial to design an algo which allows for more decentralized competition than PoW.

The crypto space is a play-field for various models to compete, PoW is not the only option, though it does look quite simple and robust. Replacing PoW with something else would remove it from competition. Why would you suggest reducing the options instead of increasing them?

If it's so trivial to design a new algorithm for distributed consensus with good long-lasting characteristics of decentralization and competition, you should do it.