Proof of stake mining of bicoin

[PlayaPlayaPlaya]

BitcoinDark is an interesting proof-of-stake coin that I am just getting into.

Its most groundbreaking feature, in my opinion, is the teleport feature.

This feature will allow you to teleport BTC between addresses without leaving any connection between the addresses.

This will eliminate the need for using centralized mixers to conceal BTC movements.


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=684090.0

[Triffin]

Proof of stake mining of bitcoin

=====

Hasn't this been done ( several times over ) already ??
Though I suppose you could fork BTC at block X with whatever POS scheme that floats your boat
OR .. Just buy/support PeerCoin ( PPC ) the original POS BTC clone ..


Triff ..

[saddampbuh]

12 pages of mostly bullshit and everyone ignores the important thing

with pos only miners lose out and the rest of us get rich as every new penny that gets invested into btc goes to hype up the value of our coins instead of trying and to keep pace with inflation caused by mining, isn't getting rich why we're all here?

[siameze]

isn't getting rich why we're all here?

This may shock you, but no that isn't everyone's motivation for being here. Quite a few people that frequent this forum are already rich. Some are here for the technology and the possibilities that it opens.

[cryptogeeknext]

...
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%.

The scenario is rather simple. A few with majority vote have power to freeze accounts at will, as only they decide which transactions get into the blockchain and which don't. It means they can write laws now and have instruments in their hands to enforce it. Your account can be permanently or temporary frozen if you disobey an arbitrary law that the few in power came up with (hunger games situation).

PoS is not suitable for global money system, no need to switch from PoW.

[jonald_fyookball]

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!

You make some good points.
 
Protection against 51% attacks is a concern.
For those unaware, there have been some serious
hybrid PoW/PoS proposals for Bitcoin, which you can find here:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_Stake

Right now, there doesn't seem much talk about implementing
these ideas, and I'm guessing the reason is that governments
intent on attacking Bitcoin would have
the resources to do so regardless.

I suspect that when Bitcoin becomes bigger,
these will get more attention.

In the meantime, if you really like Proof of Stake, feel
free to invest in and promote NXT, Peercoin or anything
else.

[cryptogeeknext]

Protection against 51% attacks is a concern.

For those unaware, there have been some serious
hybrid PoW/PoS proposals for Bitcoin, which you can find here:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_Stake

51% mechanism is what allows to challenge the status quo, thus enabling competition for power.
Just sitting on your money in PoW does't give you control over the system, just engaging in the competition for control doesn't bring you money as mining is normally a break-even game. Thus money and control become orthogonal, which results in a dynamic system without asymptotes. In PoS you get both in a nice single package, which saturates fairly quickly.

Hybrid systems are more tricky beasts, thus they need to be studied closely. I'm concerned that saturation in PoS aspect of the hybrid will at some point begin to negatively influence the competition on PoW side.

[dwma]

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.

Sites and applications are just as likely to benefit from being first with large userbase as a protocol.  LOL.

[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.

Sites and applications are just as likely to benefit from being first with large userbase as a protocol.  LOL.

I agree they both benefit , but protocols in which many people, businesses , and systems are dependent upon benefit far more from the network effect and are thus much more difficult to supplant than simply switching  to a different website.

I.E... Even if the community wants to and needs to move off an old protocol we still cannot after over 30 years -- IPv4

[funtotry]

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%.

Right. And unlike PoW, PoS is much easier to hide that you have a large percentage of the total stake. It is very easy to create multiple nodes with a PoS coin that are geographically disbursed via the use of VPS, while you will need to broadcast a newly found block with a PoS coin via a node that is connected to your miner and if the node is too geographically far from your miner then you will have more orphaned blocks

[jonald_fyookball]

Meni's hybrid Pow PoS proposal seems great. 

Has this been implemented in an alt?

What aspects of it can be implemented in bitcoin without a hard fork?

[bitcoin_bagholder]

Meni's hybrid Pow PoS proposal seems great. 

Has this been implemented in an alt?

What aspects of it can be implemented in bitcoin without a hard fork?

This? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=169204.0

[jonald_fyookball]

Meni's hybrid Pow PoS proposal seems great. 

Has this been implemented in an alt?

What aspects of it can be implemented in bitcoin without a hard fork?

This? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=169204.0

Thanks for the link, but no this is something different and
is a lot more complicated than Meni's simple idea, which
is basically just PoS checkpoints layered on top of the
basic PoW security.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_Stake#Meni.27s_implementation

[DecentralizeEconomics]

Protection against 51% attacks is a concern.

51% mechanism is what allows to challenge the status quo, thus enabling competition for power.
Just sitting on your money in PoW does't give you control over the system, just engaging in the competition for control doesn't bring you money as mining is normally a break-even game. Thus money and control become orthogonal, which results in a dynamic system without asymptotes. In PoS you get both in a nice single package, which saturates fairly quickly.

Hybrid systems are more tricky beasts, thus they need to be studied closely. I'm concerned that saturation in PoS aspect of the hybrid will at some point begin to negatively influence the competition on PoW side.

51% PoW mechanism is what allows malicious agents to challenge the legitimate miners, thus overpowering them via a hashpower coup d'etat.

Do you really think that the legitimate miners in Bitcoin can prevent a government from forcing their rules on the Bitcoin network?  Mind you, the NSA had a $10.7 Billion USD budget in 2013.  The only way to prevent such actions from external actors is via PoS.

For those unaware, there have been some serious
hybrid PoW/PoS proposals for Bitcoin, which you can find here:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_Stake

If you are interested in using PoW as a distribution mechanism and PoS as a security mechanism, NXT's monetary system offers such a solution.

[jonald_fyookball]

For those unaware, there have been some serious
hybrid PoW/PoS proposals for Bitcoin, which you can find here:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_Stake

If you are interested in using PoW as a distribution mechanism and PoS as a security mechanism, NXT's monetary system offers such a solution.

interesting, but I'd rather add some PoS checkpoints on top of bitcoin than use nxt as a platform to launch a new Pow currency.  I still think PoW should be the main security mechanism.

plus generally, I'd prefer to go with Bitcoin over any alt as it has a much better network and adoption. 

[DecentralizeEconomics]

I'd rather add some PoS checkpoints on top of bitcoin

I doubt that ever happens.

[Willisius]

Meni's hybrid Pow PoS proposal seems great. 

Has this been implemented in an alt?

What aspects of it can be implemented in bitcoin without a hard fork?

It is generally accepted that any crypto coin that uses mining algorithm that is not pure PoW will not be considered "Bitcoin". This is true even if "Bitcoin" forks into something else, if PoW is not exclusively used, it will no longer be Bitcoin

[Come-from-Beyond]

It is generally accepted that any crypto coin that uses mining algorithm that is not pure PoW will not be considered "Bitcoin". This is true even if "Bitcoin" forks into something else, if PoW is not exclusively used, it will no longer be Bitcoin

Bytecoin launched 2 years ago was a 100% copy of Bitcoin with another genesis block. Was it actually Bitcoin?

[jonald_fyookball]

Meni's hybrid Pow PoS proposal seems great. 

Has this been implemented in an alt?

What aspects of it can be implemented in bitcoin without a hard fork?

It is generally accepted that any crypto coin that uses mining algorithm that is not pure PoW will not be considered "Bitcoin". This is true even if "Bitcoin" forks into something else, if PoW is not exclusively used, it will no longer be Bitcoin

perhaps.

ultimately it is what users want and agree to.

but I think adding some poS checkpoints a la Meni
is a far less radical change than many other proposals.

[cbeast]

POS=no production cost=no value

If I can produce a coin without any cost, why should I pay any thing valuable to exchange it??? I will just go ahead to mine it

Fiat money can have value without production cost, because there is a law to force its circulation, and the cost to make that law can be a war, which costs millions of times more energy than POW mining

Then http://coinmarketcap.com/ gives us incorrect information... or you are just wrong.

My paintings have a price of 100 billion each. I have 500 of them. My paintings have a market cap of 50 trillion.