Proof of stake mining of bicoin

[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?

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.

That's insane.  First of all, good luck getting the 99% to agree on forking when they are getting paid by the 1%.
Even if you did, in a year you'd have a new 1%.  What, are you gonna fork it every year?  In a decade you
have 10 different forks, all which will have compatibility issues.  Not to mention that who is going to participate
in a coin where there's planned forks like that?  Sorry, but I don't think this idea can work.

[inBitweTrust]

Sorry to derail the thread but you realize that's a pyramid scheme in your sig,  jonald_fyookball?

Call me naive but I don't think pyramid schemes are great ways to introduce people to Bitcoin.

[cbeast]

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.

The solution to the Hunger Games is getting a boyfriend that is willing to die for your love. I mean seriously, what kind of attack is this? 51% attacks in PoS will normally be anonymous double spends. They will not tell you that they have 51%.

[inBitweTrust]

The solution to the Hunger Games is getting a boyfriend that is willing to die for your love. I mean seriously, what kind of attack is this? 51% attacks in PoS will normally be anonymous double spends. They will not tell you that they have 51%.

Correct. This also doesn't factor in other possibilities like large stakeholder defection or sabotage and hackers compromising large stakeholders computers or accounts . In the end the same psychological reasons that keep a mining pool operator from attacking bitcoin is the same reason why a PoS whale is unlikley to attack his own network. The point is with security you have to research and protect against edge cases and unlikely scenarios.

[jonald_fyookball]

Sorry to derail the thread but you realize that's a pyramid scheme in your sig,  jonald_fyookball?

Call me naive but I don't think pyramid schemes are great ways to introduce people to Bitcoin.

hmmm.... well it could be, but it seems sustainable...
I'll make a decision in the next few days whether
I should remove it.

[jonald_fyookball]

The solution to the Hunger Games is getting a boyfriend that is willing to die for your love. I mean seriously, what kind of attack is this? 51% attacks in PoS will normally be anonymous double spends. They will not tell you that they have 51%.

Correct. This also doesn't factor in other possibilities like large stakeholder defection or sabotage and hackers compromising large stakeholders computers or accounts . In the end the same psychological reasons that keep a mining pool operator from attacking bitcoin is the same reason why a PoS whale is unlikley to attack his own network. The point is with security you have to research and protect against edge cases and unlikely scenarios.

Its not about attacking the network necessarily...You can dominate the network and get massive fees.

[inBitweTrust]

hmmm.... well it could be, but it seems sustainable...
I'll make a decision in the next few days whether
I should remove it.

Sustainable?

There is no business model , service or product... it is a simple playing hot potato pyramid scheme.
That business model is a pyramid scheme in its purest sense:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme

Worst still there is a high incentive for the creator of the site to treat it as pyramid-ponzi hybrid where they run off with the funds when they have a critical thresh-hold of deposits.  Anonymous creator no accountability, another easy theft.

may have been started by this guy who is a scammer-
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=150446

[cbeast]

hmmm.... well it could be, but it seems sustainable...
I'll make a decision in the next few days whether
I should remove it.

Sustainable?

There is no business model , service or product... it is a simple playing hot potato pyramid scheme.
That business model is a pyramid scheme in its purest sense:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme

Worst still there is a high incentive for the creator of the site to treat it as pyramid-ponzi hybrid where they run off with the funds when they have a critical thresh-hold of deposits.  Anonymous creator no accountability, another easy theft.

There's an option to not see signatures.

[inBitweTrust]

There's an option to not see signatures.

Thanks, but I would rather see the scams so I can warn the user who was duped into the signature campaign and other newbies who may fall for it as well.
It is a public service.

[cbeast]

There's an option to not see signatures.

Thanks, but I would rather see the scams so I can warn the user who was duped into the signature campaign and other newbies who may fall for it as well.
It is a public service.

It doesn't matter. The mods are dead.

[inBitweTrust]

It doesn't matter. The mods are dead.

But we have each other, with or without the authoritarians who rule this realm.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

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.

You just don't get it do you?  Bitcoin is becoming more centralized as time goes on.  Mining is becoming increasingly corporatized.  The users of Bitcoin are separated from the security of the chain.  This is against everything Satoshi wanted in a currency.  The goal of Bitcoin was to place the monetary power back in the hands of the people.  Bitcoin has evolved into the monster it was meant to replace.

You can criticize NXT's initial distribution and claim it is "centralized" because initially the currency was held by 73 individuals, but at the end of the day PoW vs PoS argument comes down to trust.

Do you trust external agents not to overpower BTC's hashpower?  Only a fool would believe that a government doesn't have the resources to control Bitcoin.  The bitcoin hashpower held by individual people (not corporations or pools), who are legitimately concerned with securing the chain and not merely profits, will never be enough to prevent an attack on BTC.  The BTC chain might not be destroyed by these "attackers" but altered or restricted.  What if a government decided to freeze certain accounts?  They could easily coerce the corporate and pool miners to enact these changes.  The individual miners and currency users would be helpless to stop it.

Do you trust that the original NXT stakeholders are actually individuals committed to decentralization and continuing the legacy of bitcoin?  Seeing that the NXT IPO drew very little attention, I figure that the original stakeholders are actual individuals and not corporations, bankers, private equity or governments.  That means the chain was originally secured by individuals who were drawn to the movement by the original ideals of Bitcoin.  Since the start of NXT, the holders have obviously changed.  A good portion of the original stakeholders have sold out.  Who did they sell to?  Do you think they sold to the corporations, bankers, PE and governments?  I'm sure some did, but does this allow for these entities to attack the chain?  If together and working in concert these groups acquired over 500 million NXT, then yes.  If not though, the chain is secured by decentralized individuals.  The more individuals that join NXT the stronger and more resistant to attack it becomes.  Soon it becomes extremely difficult to purchase enough stake to attack without driving up the price to a ridiculous amount and it becomes equally difficult to coerce enough individuals.  When NXT forms its economic cluster, the stake requirements to attack will rise to 90%.  This makes acquiring the required stake to launch an attack practically impossible especially if you consider that some stakeholders will just never sell.

So, do you trust external agents to not to overpower BTC's hashpower or do you trust that NXT's stakeholders are actually legitimate individuals?

[7West]

First to Market is Usually Not Best in Market

There is a very common misconception in the innovation world that being first to market translate to being best in market. However there seems to be a much more decisive factor to being best in market and that is best-fit-implementation.

Similar to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution the best fit survive. Here are some out of many examples of very successful companies/products that were far from being the first to market:

Microsoft — DOS (Disk Operating Systems) IBM had DOS for its then-small System/360 mainframes as far back as 1964 Microsoft did not invent it but provided better implementation (some would argue that J)

Facebook- was not the first social network

Google- was not the first search engine

iPhone — was not the first Smartphone (remember Blackberry?) Actually the first Smartphone (that also had touch screen!) was by BellSouth under the name Simon Personal Communicator (1994).

Chrome — was not the first Internet Browser (Remember Netscape?)

Point being that rather than focusing only on being first to market we should place more weight on understanding/ figuring out the best implementation that provides the fittest product/value to user’s need. Proof of Stake is the best implementation imo.

BlackCoin started off as POW for about one week then switched to full POS after all coins were mined.

[johnyj]

This thread clearly shows how bored people are these days, trying to generate value by talking 

[Come-from-Beyond]

This thread clearly shows how bored people are these days, trying to generate value by talking 

While you are talking the price is declining. Shut up and do anything.

[inBitweTrust]

First to Market is Usually Not Best in Market

There is a very common misconception in the innovation world that being first to market translate to being best in market. However there seems to be a much more decisive factor to being best in market and that is best-fit-implementation.

You are conflating companies/sites/applications with protocols, with the latter benefiting greatly from being first to market with a large userbase.

[cbeast]

This thread clearly shows how bored people are these days, trying to generate value by talking 

I'm so bored I'm going through old threads.

[Tobo]

Do people here really care about technology? What I see here is that people (the establishment) are full of wishful thinking and just tried to protect their investment. There is nothing wrong with that.

But you can not stop other people to explore new opportunities by new technologies. We all want to be rich, don't we? You will be rich until you have large amount of coins and convert your coins into the hard cash or the coin you bet on becomes to a real thing like Facebook or Google.

Wish yourself lucky enough to bet on the right one.

[siameze]

Do people here really care about technology? What I see here is that people (the establishment) tried to protect their investment. There is nothing wrong with that.

But you can not stop other people to explore new opportunities by new technologies. We all want to be rich, don't we? You will be rich until you have large amount of coins and convert your coins into the hard cash or the coin you bet on becomes to a real thing like Facebook or Google.

Wish yourself lucky enough to bet on the right one.

No, nothing wrong with that at all. I personally care more about the emerging technology than I do becoming the next bzillionaire.

Sometimes in this crazy world of cryptocurrency it is hard to see the forest for the trees.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

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.

You just don't get it do you?  Bitcoin is becoming more centralized as time goes on.  Mining is becoming increasingly corporatized.  The users of Bitcoin are separated from the security of the chain.  This is against everything Satoshi wanted in a currency.  The goal of Bitcoin was to place the monetary power back in the hands of the people.  Bitcoin has evolved into the monster it was meant to replace.

You can criticize NXT's initial distribution and claim it is "centralized" because initially the currency was held by 73 individuals, but at the end of the day PoW vs PoS argument comes down to trust.

Do you trust external agents not to overpower BTC's hashpower?  Only a fool would believe that a government doesn't have the resources to control Bitcoin.  The bitcoin hashpower held by individual people (not corporations or pools), who are legitimately concerned with securing the chain and not merely profits, will never be enough to prevent an attack on BTC.  The BTC chain might not be destroyed by these "attackers" but altered or restricted.  What if a government decided to freeze certain accounts?  They could easily coerce the corporate and pool miners to enact these changes.  The individual miners and currency users would be helpless to stop it.

Do you trust that the original NXT stakeholders are actually individuals committed to decentralization and continuing the legacy of bitcoin?  Seeing that the NXT IPO drew very little attention, I figure that the original stakeholders are actual individuals and not corporations, bankers, private equity or governments.  That means the chain was originally secured by individuals who were drawn to the movement by the original ideals of Bitcoin.  Since the start of NXT, the holders have obviously changed.  A good portion of the original stakeholders have sold out.  Who did they sell to?  Do you think they sold to the corporations, bankers, PE and governments?  I'm sure some did, but does this allow for these entities to attack the chain?  If together and working in concert these groups acquired over 500 million NXT, then yes.  If not though, the chain is secured by decentralized individuals.  The more individuals that join NXT the stronger and more resistant to attack it becomes.  Soon it becomes extremely difficult to purchase enough stake to attack without driving up the price to a ridiculous amount and it becomes equally difficult to coerce enough individuals.  When NXT forms its economic cluster, the stake requirements to attack will rise to 90%.  This makes acquiring the required stake to launch an attack practically impossible especially if you consider that some stakeholders will just never sell.

So, do you trust external agents to not to overpower BTC's hashpower or do you trust that NXT's stakeholders are actually legitimate individuals?

It seems that no one could come up with a valid counterargument to my statement.  When all you get are responses like this:

This thread clearly shows how bored people are these days, trying to generate value by talking 

You know you hit the nail on the head.

It is unfortunate that some individuals who are obviously invested in Bitcoin denounce a cryptoplatform like NXT which was born out of the Bitcoin movement.  They act if as though there weren't exchanges to sell their BTC for NXT and that NXT is a private club which they cannot join.  It looks to others as if they are upset that they didn't invest in NXT earlier.  These peoples' jealousy towards NXT clouds their judgment and makes them fail to see that NXT is simply a continuation of the original Bitcoin movement.  The people who founded NXT were originally Bitcoiners and shared their hopes and aspirations for a decentralized economy controlled by the people.

Some Bitcoiners claim that NXT is trying to destroy decentralization.  We are not.  The truth is we are trying to save and uphold the ideals of the original movement.  Most miners no longer care about decentralization; they only care about profits.  The ability of a currency holder to secure his investment is at the very core of decentralization.  Allowing external actors to infringe upon a currency holder's right to secure their chain results in the currency no longer being decentralized.  A system must be designed to resist external actors if a currency is to remain autonomous.

BCNext (BitCoinNext) created NXT not to undermine Bitcoin, but to continue its legacy.  We share the same cause.  We are allies in the same fight.

Long live decentralization!  Power to the people!