Proof of stake mining of bicoin

[cryptogeeknext]

I think people are forgetting one simple fact about PoS, it saturates.

It means that even if all people on the planet are given equal amount of coins in a PoS system, the competition will make some of them richer and others poorer. At some point a group of wealthiest stakeholders will maintain the majority vote in the system. No one can outrun their blockchain. That's where Snake awaits them with the offer they can't refuse.

The wealthiest few will be approached individually with a choice - rule with us or be ruled over. Thus inner circle of control is completed and the system becomes a private enterprise. That's when zoo cages are closed and the hunger games can begin. People are brainwashed enough to not see the cage for all the food. I mean it's not called Proof of Snake for no reason.

PoW stays in PoWer

Very compelling argument.  Can we end the thread now?

Sure.
Honey BTCadger eats $nakes for breakfast, people seem to forget:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7wHMg5Yjg

[Daedelus]

So some people argue the switch to POS will be end of 2015 and others are saying mid 2016. There are good arguments on both sides. I don't know but I would bet end 2016.

Do we need a vote to settle this once and for all?..

[cbeast]

February 29, 2015. 

[Daedelus]

Ok, I'll put you down for the day after 28th Feb. Far too early if you ask me...

I never new POS was unforkable too. That's why I like these threads with all the smart guys in, it is eye opening.

[cbeast]

Ok, I'll put you down for the day after 28th Feb. Far too early if you ask me...

I never new POS was unforkable too. That's why I like these threads with all the smart guys in, it is eye opening.

PoS already exists. Buy all you want. Nobody cares but you.

[Daedelus]

Ok, I'll put you down for the day after 28th Feb. Far too early if you ask me...

I never new POS was unforkable too. That's why I like these threads with all the smart guys in, it is eye opening.

PoS already exists. Buy all you want. Nobody cares but you.

I don't follow. The 'Hunger Games' argument is only possible because POS is unforkable, right? How does me buying anything relate to this?

Ur post seems off topic. Don't worry, I won't report you

[inBitweTrust]

So some people argue the switch to POS will be end of 2015 and others are saying mid 2016. There are good arguments on both sides. I don't know but I would bet end 2016.

Do we need a vote to settle this once and for all?..

I don't gamble, or trust any prediction market service either , but think your expectations are extremely "optimistic".

Bitcoin will either never change to PoS or such a change won't occur till 2024 and beyond.

I suggest you gamble all you want with PoS. Seem like you are a Nxt proponent.... that currency is dying right now if you haven't noticed. Dropped from spot 5 to 8 in market cap and soon to be overtaken by Bitcoin assets like Counterparty! Ethereum, Counterparty and possibly Storj will likely overtake Nxt in 2016, expect it will drop further in market cap.

[Daedelus]

Yes, guilty. Sorry, maybe I should put something in my sig

[inBitweTrust]

Yes, guilty. Sorry, maybe I should put something in my sig

Nothing to be ashamed of and nothing you need to place in your sig. PoS proponents actually do have some valid criticisms of Bitcoin.
 IMHO these aren't insurmountable.  You picked that horse and can choose to cut your losses and come back whenever you want.
We will have open arms and a cup of warm tea ready(heated by asics of course).
 

[jonald_fyookball]

Ok, I'll put you down for the day after 28th Feb. Far too early if you ask me...

I never new POS was unforkable too. That's why I like these threads with all the smart guys in, it is eye opening.

PoS already exists. Buy all you want. Nobody cares but you.

I don't follow. The 'Hunger Games' argument is only possible because POS is unforkable, right? How does me buying anything relate to this?

Ur post seems off topic. Don't worry, I won't report you

Uh...no.  Anything open source is forkable.

The 'Hunger Games' argument is about permanent centralization of authority.
Yes, we could always fork, but why go down the path of centralization
based on stakes at all?

[Daedelus]

Yes, guilty. Sorry, maybe I should put something in my sig

Nothing to be ashamed of

Very nice of you to say. A true gent.

I only really like these threads to watch people get into a fluster talking to CfB and see it descend into passive aggressive quips dripping with disdain   and watching the little bits of cement and the odd brick fall from ivory towers    

[Daedelus]

Ok, I'll put you down for the day after 28th Feb. Far too early if you ask me...

I never new POS was unforkable too. That's why I like these threads with all the smart guys in, it is eye opening.

PoS already exists. Buy all you want. Nobody cares but you.

I don't follow. The 'Hunger Games' argument is only possible because POS is unforkable, right? How does me buying anything relate to this?

Ur post seems off topic. Don't worry, I won't report you

Uh...no.  Anything open source is forkable.

The 'Hunger Games' argument is about permanent centralization of authority.
Yes, we could always fork, but why go down the path of centralization
based on stakes at all?

If you can fork it, how would it ever become centralised? Would the majority prefer the hunger games over other alternatives?

[inBitweTrust]

If you can fork it, how would it ever become centralised? Would the majority prefer the hunger games over other alternatives?

Whether or not one stack is centralized has nothing to do with its forked child.

[jonald_fyookball]

Ok, I'll put you down for the day after 28th Feb. Far too early if you ask me...

I never new POS was unforkable too. That's why I like these threads with all the smart guys in, it is eye opening.

PoS already exists. Buy all you want. Nobody cares but you.

I don't follow. The 'Hunger Games' argument is only possible because POS is unforkable, right? How does me buying anything relate to this?

Ur post seems off topic. Don't worry, I won't report you

Uh...no.  Anything open source is forkable.

The 'Hunger Games' argument is about permanent centralization of authority.
Yes, we could always fork, but why go down the path of centralization
based on stakes at all?

If you can fork it, how would it ever become centralised?

Anyone can fork a code repository...But getting everyone
to agree to use any one particular fork is hard.  Therefore,
forking is not a good solution in general.  And what would they
fork to?  If you know that a problem exists, it is better to solve
it up front and just have everyone use the updated code from
the beginning.  

What you are saying is in effect: "Can't we just start with
a bad system, and then switch to a better system later?"

[Daedelus]

Bter was hacked. Forgers in Nxt were given the choice: accept the hack or forge a forked client that didn't recognise the hackers stake, cutting them out. They had 720 blocks to decide before the rolling checkpoint prevented reorgs. Forgers chose to accept the hack.

Replace 'bter hack' with 'hunger games scenario' and only masochists would have remained forging with the original version.

Far from being a bad system, it is an example of decentralised decsion making.

[jonald_fyookball]

Bter was hacked. Forgers in Nxt were given the choice: accept the hack or forge a forked client that didn't recognise the hackers stake, cutting them out. They had 720 blocks to decide before the rolling checkpoint prevented reorgs. Forgers chose to accept the hack.

Replace 'bter hack' with 'hunger games scenario' and only masochists would have remained forging with the original version.

Well, it is true that consensus to a forked version is more likely during extreme circumstances,
but my point still remains:  What do you fork to?  Unless you fork to something other than PoS,
the hunger games scenario can happen again and again.

[Daedelus]

Bter was hacked. Forgers in Nxt were given the choice: accept the hack or forge a forked client that didn't recognise the hackers stake, cutting them out. They had 720 blocks to decide before the rolling checkpoint prevented reorgs. Forgers chose to accept the hack.

Replace 'bter hack' with 'hunger games scenario' and only masochists would have remained forging with the original version.

Well, it is true that consensus to a forked version is more likely during extreme circumstances,
but my point still remains:  What do you fork to?  Unless you fork to something other than PoS,
the hunger games scenario can happen again and again.

And as long as the majority are not masochists, hunger games will never last. It would probably never occur, a different path would be taken at a less severe stage. You fork to 'the same minus the stuff the majority don't want'

[jonald_fyookball]

Bter was hacked. Forgers in Nxt were given the choice: accept the hack or forge a forked client that didn't recognise the hackers stake, cutting them out. They had 720 blocks to decide before the rolling checkpoint prevented reorgs. Forgers chose to accept the hack.

Replace 'bter hack' with 'hunger games scenario' and only masochists would have remained forging with the original version.

Well, it is true that consensus to a forked version is more likely during extreme circumstances,
but my point still remains:  What do you fork to?  Unless you fork to something other than PoS,
the hunger games scenario can happen again and again.

And as long as the majority are not masochists, it will never last. You fork to 'the same minus the stuff the majority don't want'

I don't follow what you're saying.

If the hunger games argument is that proof of stake causes centralization of power,
how do you "minus that out" while still keeping proof of stake?

[Daedelus]

Bter was hacked. Forgers in Nxt were given the choice: accept the hack or forge a forked client that didn't recognise the hackers stake, cutting them out. They had 720 blocks to decide before the rolling checkpoint prevented reorgs. Forgers chose to accept the hack.

Replace 'bter hack' with 'hunger games scenario' and only masochists would have remained forging with the original version.

Well, it is true that consensus to a forked version is more likely during extreme circumstances,
but my point still remains:  What do you fork to?  Unless you fork to something other than PoS,
the hunger games scenario can happen again and again.

And as long as the majority are not masochists, it will never last. You fork to 'the same minus the stuff the majority don't want'

I don't follow what you're saying.

If the hunger games argument is that proof of stake causes centralization of power,
how do you "minus that out" while still keeping proof of stake?

The '1%' have 51% of the stake. The 99% with 49% of the stake decide they don't like being ruled and fork the client. Their 49% becomes 100% in the forked platform. The 1% are left with nothing of value.

[Daedelus]

I'll catch up later. Gotta go paint a donkey.