Proof of stake mining of bicoin

[cbeast]

Sfinder was found and voted out successfully. 

It is almost impossible for full pay delegates to be the same person.  Unless they are superhuman and able to complete multiple jobs at the same time.  You can view the work delegates are doing.  They have to be transparent and productive or they are voted out.  It's simply not possible to all be the same person because 1 person cannot do 101 jobs.  And there are huge incentives to not do this.

Delegates are one of the great features of BitShares.  It's creating a thriving community and a whole new type of decentralised organisation.  Not to mention the unique identity v

erifying features being developed.   DPOS is an amazing, fascinating and powerful invention which is going to re-structure society itself.  Constructive criticism is always welcomed, but please keep it real.

That's the most ridiculous thing to say in the internet age. Of course one person can do millions of procedural tasks at once. If you can't write software to do it you hire cheap tech support in Mexico or India and script them. Break them up into teams for each delegate pseudonym and offer compensation based on productivity.

Point taken there can be subcontracting. 

Mathematically proving delegates are different people isn't necessary.  Incentives work strongly against any attacker.  They would have to spend months developing (via subcontracting or doing it themselves) a bunch of features for BitShares to win voter approval to take multiple positions or they would have to buy a massive amount of BTS to be able to vote themselves in, only to then attack themselves by attacking the network.  The cost of attack is already very high.

There is nothing necessarily wrong with having a social construct be part of the mix.  Lets compare it to massive warehouses filled with asics run by a handful of mining pools.  Both methods are worthy experiments and no one knows what POW or DPOS will lead to in the future.

only to then attack themselves by attacking the network.  The cost of attack is already very high.

But isn't the attack a double spend? It can more than make up for lost revenue. If you run enough double spend scams for awhile you can always sell your position down and quietly exit.

[1714666036]

1714666036

[1714666036]

1714666036

[1714666036]

1714666036

[DecentralizeEconomics]

Mathematically proving delegates are different people isn't necessary.  

You realize by saying this you are no longer a "cryptocurrency" and are now akin to Ripple which makes you trust that nodes (aka delegates) won't collude against you.

Incentives work strongly against any attacker.  They would have to spend months developing (via subcontracting or doing it themselves) a bunch of features for BitShares to win voter approval to take multiple positions or they would have to buy a massive amount of BTS to be able to vote themselves in, only to then attack themselves by attacking the network.  The cost of attack is already very high.

The cost of attacking Bitshares is extremely low.  It has already been done once.  How much did it cost "sfinder" to attack?  What makes you think it won't happen again?  What makes you think others delegates aren't currently deceiving people?  How much does it cost to mislead people through deception?

There is nothing necessarily wrong with having a social construct be part of the mix.  Lets compare it to massive warehouses filled with asics run by a handful of mining pools.  Both methods are worthy experiments and no one knows what POW or DPOS will lead to in the future.

There is absolutely something wrong with introducing a social construct into chain security and then misleading people to think the system is "decentralized" and "Safer than a Swiss bank account."  Imo, PoW is evolving into a centralized system but it is still more decentralized than DPoS because it is mathematically provable through PoW that the chain is secured by a verifiable amount of hashpower.

If I want to attack Bitcoin's PoW algo, I have to acquire 51% of the hashpower.
If I want to attack NXT's PoS algo, I have to acquire 51% of the stake.
If I want to attack Bitshare's DPoS algo, ALL I have to do is LIE.

[luckygenough56]

throw your pentium 4 to garbage (bitcoin) and buy an i7 (nxt)

edit : nxt is core i5 and nem is core i7 ! now that's better !

[matt608]

Mathematically proving delegates are different people isn't necessary. 

You realize by saying this you are no longer a "cryptocurrency" and are now akin to Ripple which makes you trust that nodes (aka delegates) won't collude against you.

Incentives work strongly against any attacker.  They would have to spend months developing (via subcontracting or doing it themselves) a bunch of features for BitShares to win voter approval to take multiple positions or they would have to buy a massive amount of BTS to be able to vote themselves in, only to then attack themselves by attacking the network.  The cost of attack is already very high.

The cost of attacking Bitshares' is extremely low.  It has already been done once.  How much did it cost "sfinder" to attack?  What makes you think it won't happen again?  What makes you think others delegates aren't currently deceiving people?  How much does it cost to mislead people through deception?

There is nothing necessarily wrong with having a social construct be part of the mix.  Lets compare it to massive warehouses filled with asics run by a handful of mining pools.  Both methods are worthy experiments and no one knows what POW or DPOS will lead to in the future.

There is absolutely something wrong with introducing a social construct into chain security and then misleading people to think the system is "decentralized" and "Safer than a Swiss bank account."  Imo, PoW is evolving into a centralized system but it is still more decentralized than DPoS because it is mathematically provable through PoW that the chain is secured by a verifiable amount of hashpower.

If I want to attack Bitcoin's PoW algo, I have to acquire 51% of the hashpower.
If I want to attack NXT's PoS algo, I have to acquire 51% of the stake.
If I want to attack Bitshare's DPoS algo, ALL I have to do is LIE.

afaik sfinder didn't attack the network, he just ran several delegates while spreading bearish sentiment.  sfinder is a case of successful identification and removal out of malicious delegates.

You don't just have to lie, you have to convince stakeholders to vote for you enough times to win the majority of the delegate positions. The votes can be withdrawn and the delegates removed if an attack is made.  Any attack attempt may result in making BitShares immediately stronger as devs typically have to do some work in advance to get voted in.  They would have to do this 50+ times to have a chance at doing a double spend.  Basic block singing delegates are voted in more easily but they can still be kicked out and they will decrease in number as time moves forward.

Also there is an unique individual verification system being developed by http://followmyvote.com/ who are part of BitShares which could be used to ensure delegates are unique individuals and make it even stronger in the future.

[Shuai]

The cost of attacking Bitshares' is extremely low.  It has already been done once.  How much did it cost "sfinder" to attack?  What makes you think it won't happen again?  What makes you think others delegates aren't currently deceiving people?  How much does it cost to mislead people through deception?

This is perfect example of why DPOS works so well. We literally have a situation where the network autonomously removed a block producer the community identified as being malicious. With POW or POS there is no such possibility, if you have a malicious stakeholder/block producer you simply have to accept that they will stay so forever.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

afaik sfinder didn't attack the network, he just ran several delegates while spreading bearish sentiment.  sfinder is a case of successful identification and removal out of malicious delegates.

The fact that one individual was voted into multiple delegate positions is a breakdown of chain security.  Just because he didn't attack doesn't mean that he couldn't have or that someone in the future won't.  You can't say that "sfinder is a case of successful identification and removal out of malicious delegates" because YOU DON'T KNOW IF HE CONTROLS OTHER DELEGATES.  No one can be sure how many delegates are controlled by one person because DPOS IS FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED.

You don't just have to lie, you have to convince stakeholders to vote for you enough times to win the majority of the delegate positions. The votes can be withdrawn and the delegates removed if an attack is made.  Any attack attempt may result in making BitShares immediately stronger as devs typically have to do some work in advance to get voted in.  They would have to do this 50+ times to have a chance at doing a double spend.  Basic block singing delegates are voted in more easily but they can still be kicked out and they will decrease in number as time moves forward.

After an attack is made, it is too late.  No one will care if the stakeholders remove their votes from the attacking delegates.  People will have lost money.  Who is going to be responsible for replacing investors' lost money?

Also there is an unique individual verification system being developed by http://followmyvote.com/ who are part of BitShares which could be used to ensure delegates are unique individuals and make it even stronger in the future.

This doesn't sound very "decentralized" to me.  It sounds like a system to bring about "approved validators" which is extremely similar to Ripple but more centralized.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

The cost of attacking Bitshares' is extremely low.  It has already been done once.  How much did it cost "sfinder" to attack?  What makes you think it won't happen again?  What makes you think others delegates aren't currently deceiving people?  How much does it cost to mislead people through deception?

This is perfect example of why DPOS works so well. We literally have a situation where the network autonomously removed a block producer the community identified as being malicious. With POW or POS there is no such possibility, if you have a malicious stakeholder/block producer you simply have to accept that they will stay so forever.

Wrong.  This is a perfect example of why DPoS is broken.  We literally have a situation where the security of the network is at the mercy of stakeholders trusting delegates not to collude against them.  How can you be sure that other individuals aren't currently posing as multiple delegates?  YOU CAN'T!

With PoW or PoS, I can't control 51% of the hashpower or stake with the moving of my lips.

[Shuai]

The cost of attacking Bitshares' is extremely low.  It has already been done once.  How much did it cost "sfinder" to attack?  What makes you think it won't happen again?  What makes you think others delegates aren't currently deceiving people?  How much does it cost to mislead people through deception?

This is perfect example of why DPOS works so well. We literally have a situation where the network autonomously removed a block producer the community identified as being malicious. With POW or POS there is no such possibility, if you have a malicious stakeholder/block producer you simply have to accept that they will stay so forever.

Wrong.  This is a perfect example of why DPoS is broken.  We literally have a situation where the security of the network is at the mercy of stakeholders trusting delegates not to collude against them.  How can you be sure that other individuals aren't currently posing as multiple delegates?  YOU CAN'T!

Lol. How can you be sure that 51% of all bitcoin mining power isn't controlled by a single person, or that 51% of all NXT isn't held by or leased to a single person? Nice try at FUD, though.

[crazyearner]

Would be nice to see a POS system introduced to Bitcoin but then again many wouldn't like it. I know if this would be in place would be nice to have this but how Bitconi was created I doubt very much they would add such things due to how big bitcoin is and how big it is becoming.  Who knows what the future hold maybe satoshi himself will come back and say ahh yes POW is fairly old so here is the new release with POS within it to generate some stakes.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

The cost of attacking Bitshares' is extremely low.  It has already been done once.  How much did it cost "sfinder" to attack?  What makes you think it won't happen again?  What makes you think others delegates aren't currently deceiving people?  How much does it cost to mislead people through deception?

This is perfect example of why DPOS works so well. We literally have a situation where the network autonomously removed a block producer the community identified as being malicious. With POW or POS there is no such possibility, if you have a malicious stakeholder/block producer you simply have to accept that they will stay so forever.

Wrong.  This is a perfect example of why DPoS is broken.  We literally have a situation where the security of the network is at the mercy of stakeholders trusting delegates not to collude against them.  How can you be sure that other individuals aren't currently posing as multiple delegates?  YOU CAN'T!

Lol. How can you be sure that 51% of all bitcoin mining power isn't controlled by a single person, or that 51% of all NXT isn't held by or leased to a single person? Nice try at FUD, though.

It's not FUD.  It's FACT.

Of course someone could control 51% of Bitcoin's hashpower or own 51% of all the NXT.  That isn't the crux of the argument.  The main contention with why Bitshares' DPoS is fundamentally flawed is that no one has to go out and acquire 51% of the hashpower or the stake.  All they have to do is convince stakeholders to vote them into power.  That is the added "social construct".

[jonald_fyookball]

Obviously, DPoS does add a "social construct" (or whatever you want to call it) on top of the blockchain.

Whether that improves or hinders distributed consensus is the question.
I tend to think it hinders it by its very nature, because people are inherently
unreliable, and can be manipulated in various ways.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Obviously, DPoS does add a "social construct" (or whatever you want to call it) on top of the blockchain.

Whether that improves or hinders distributed consensus is the question.
I tend to think it hinders it by its very nature, because people are inherently
unreliable, and can be manipulated in various ways.

Bitcoin (but not PoW) relies on "social construct" too. Just recall Deepbit or GHash that could conduct a 51% attack.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

Who knows what the future hold maybe satoshi himself will come back and say ahh yes POW is fairly old so here is the new release with POS within it to generate some stakes.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303898.0

[jonald_fyookball]

Obviously, DPoS does add a "social construct" (or whatever you want to call it) on top of the blockchain.

Whether that improves or hinders distributed consensus is the question.
I tend to think it hinders it by its very nature, because people are inherently
unreliable, and can be manipulated in various ways.

Bitcoin (but not PoW) relies on "social construct" too. Just recall Deepbit or GHash that could conduct a 51% attack.

Sort of true, but pools aren't part
of the Bitcoin protocol.  
Miners have the choice to use
a pool or not.  There are many
independent mining operations,
and some people run full nodes
and mine just because they
want to support the network.  Also
there can  be an unlimited number
of pools.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong
but in Bitshares, only the
delegates collect fees, not
the stakeholders.

[Tobo]

One main difference between BitshareX and Nxt is the philosophical difference. BTSX is taking the path of building policies. In the meantime, Nxt is taking the path of building a neutral platform to allow the third parties to build specific policies on the the platform.

[screwUdriver]

Obviously, DPoS does add a "social construct" (or whatever you want to call it) on top of the blockchain.

Whether that improves or hinders distributed consensus is the question.
I tend to think it hinders it by its very nature, because people are inherently
unreliable, and can be manipulated in various ways.

Bitcoin (but not PoW) relies on "social construct" too. Just recall Deepbit or GHash that could conduct a 51% attack.

They could not conduct a 51% attack. If they tried to conduct one the miners that would be mining on the pool would leave to another pool.

[cbeast]

Obviously, DPoS does add a "social construct" (or whatever you want to call it) on top of the blockchain.

Whether that improves or hinders distributed consensus is the question.
I tend to think it hinders it by its very nature, because people are inherently
unreliable, and can be manipulated in various ways.

Bitcoin (but not PoW) relies on "social construct" too. Just recall Deepbit or GHash that could conduct a 51% attack.

Yes, the mining pool 'social contract' is hodgepodge at best. It is something that can be addressed by Bitcoin 2.0 contracts.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

Obviously, DPoS does add a "social construct" (or whatever you want to call it) on top of the blockchain.

Whether that improves or hinders distributed consensus is the question.
I tend to think it hinders it by its very nature, because people are inherently
unreliable, and can be manipulated in various ways.

Bitcoin (but not PoW) relies on "social construct" too. Just recall Deepbit or GHash that could conduct a 51% attack.

Sort of true, but pools aren't part
of the Bitcoin protocol.  
Miners have the choice to use
a pool or not.  There are many
independent mining operations,
and some people run full nodes
and mine just because they
want to support the network.  Also
there can  be an unlimited number
of pools.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong
but in Bitshares, only the
delegates collect fees, not
the stakeholders.

That is true.  In Bitshares, only the delegates collect the transaction fees and not the stakeholders.

I'd like to make this point about PoS.  Proof-of-Stake was designed to wrest control of the security of the chain from the profiteers and re-establish it back where it belongs which is in the hands of the currency users.  It is the right of every currency holder to be able to secure their own investment.  This is the core ideology behind PoS and decentralization.  No one should be forced to "delegate" the security of their investment to another individual.

Bitshares' DPoS algorithm is "Proof-of-Stake" IN NAME ONLY.  It does not in any way embody the principles of the PoS movement or the original decentralization movement of Bitcoin.  It forces centralization upon its users and makes them "delegate" the security of their investment to other individuals.  Regardless, if these "delegates" are unique or not, it does not matter.  Being a currency user in a PoS system means YOU have the undeniable right to protect your own investment.

Bitshares' is NOT a "Proof-of-Stake" system.  I would say it is best described as Proof-of-Parliamentarism.  I hesitate on this description because at least with regular parliamentarism the "delegates" can be verified to be physically separate individuals regardless of their lobby induced leanings.  Needless to say, DPoS does not empower the currency holder, but instead holds them at the whims of delegates.  At best, such a system adds unnecessary centralization and strips stakeholders of their rights, but at worst, it is a breeding ground for scams, corruption, swindling and deceit.  It is morally bankrupt to portray DPoS as "decentralized", "Safer than a Swiss bank account", "Proof-of-Stake" or quite frankly "a cryptocurrency algorithm".

[Come-from-Beyond]

They could not conduct a 51% attack. If they tried to conduct one the miners that would be mining on the pool would leave to another pool.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=327767.0

Most of miners don't care.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

They could not conduct a 51% attack. If they tried to conduct one the miners that would be mining on the pool would leave to another pool.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=327767.0

Most of miners don't care.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."