[CLOSED] StakeCoin Bounty

[Bitcoin Oz]

It needs some kind of incentive to get people to sign the checkpoints.

PoS is better than relying on one developer to lock the chain.

[1713532687]

1713532687

[1713532687]

1713532687

[1713532687]

1713532687

[1713532687]

1713532687

[ripper234]

It needs some kind of incentive to get people to sign the checkpoints.

PoS is better than relying on one developer to lock the chain.

+1

[maaku]

It needs some kind of incentive to get people to sign the checkpoints.

PoS is better than relying on one developer to lock the chain.

The incentive is: it keeps their (bit|lite)coins from becoming worthless. When you have or control a significant portion of the total supply of coins, that is no small incentive.

[Spekulatius]

StakeCoin Bounty

You mean Steak Coin Bounty. Do you think they let you pay for your BBC with Steak Coins?? Let me bring the Beer Coin™ (The coin you wanna drink!™) and get this BBC started!

[NASDAQEnema]

It needs some kind of incentive to get people to sign the checkpoints.

PoS is better than relying on one developer to lock the chain.

This is a fair point, however it doesn't allow the masses to participate. Therefore for all practical purposes, one tyrant or a few oligarchs results in the same situation. At least you can talk to a tyrant. Oligarchs are paranoid fucks who need to be spoonfed incentives.

The incentive is: it keeps their (bit|lite)coins from becoming worthless. When you have or control a significant portion of the total supply of coins, that is no small incentive.

The checkpoints also affect low stakeholders. In an effort to gain more control, high stakeholders can pay for attacks (including psychological) which create chain forks that send money from low stakeholders to them.
Incentivism is a futile exercise in trying to motivate the lazy. There's an undercurrent in the bitcoin and litecoin communities that will throw off the dead weight of fat wankers who need an incentive to tie their own shoes never mind create.

So far those proposing proof-of-stake have failed a simple test:
I haven't heard of one proposal that allows pools of peasants to be stake miners. Effectively these would function as cryptocities as there would be an incentive to keep cryptocoins within communities. This would create feedback loops and self-propelled microeconomies.

It was a simple extension that never crossed anyone's mind. Fail.

Failing this simple test does not give me confidence in proof-of-stake models. The people looking to add this feature are still thinking in terms of maintaining value rather than creating value. You guys are not thinking forward and it scares me to death.

There's a thread here that is going to cover the whole gamut of proof types that could make cryptocurrencies work.
http://litecoinforums.org/index.php?/topic/22-cartel-wars/

[ripper234]

It needs some kind of incentive to get people to sign the checkpoints.

PoS is better than relying on one developer to lock the chain.

The incentive is: it keeps their (bit|lite)coins from becoming worthless. When you have or control a significant portion of the total supply of coins, that is no small incentive.

If you control 1% of the coins, you can still rely on the other 99% to work towards "keeping your coins from becoming worthless", so you yourself don't have a direct incentive.

I don't understand what's the big difference between hashing power and financial power. They're convertible and therefore ultimately equivalent.

StakeCoin is a way to reduce the friction of this conversion and decentralize the network.

[ripper234]

So far those proposing proof-of-stake have failed a simple test:
I haven't heard of one proposal that allows pools of peasants to be stake miners. Effectively these would function as cryptocities as there would be an incentive to keep cryptocoins within communities. This would create feedback loops and self-propelled microeconomies.

From the wiki (myths):

In more pragmatic terms, "fairness" is an arbitrary concept that is improbable to be agreed upon by a large population. Establishing "fairness" is no goal of Bitcoin, as this would be impossible.

[Etlase2]

Gotta love people who quote the wiki written by and for bitcoin sycophants is used to make an argument.

[ripper234]

Gotta love people who quote the wiki written by and for bitcoin sycophants is used to make an argument.

Thanks!

[NASDAQEnema]

So far those proposing proof-of-stake have failed a simple test:
I haven't heard of one proposal that allows pools of peasants to be stake miners. Effectively these would function as cryptocities as there would be an incentive to keep cryptocoins within communities. This would create feedback loops and self-propelled microeconomies.

From the wiki (myths):

In more pragmatic terms, "fairness" is an arbitrary concept that is improbable to be agreed upon by a large population. Establishing "fairness" is no goal of Bitcoin, as this would be impossible.

I'm not talking about fairness. I'm talking about proof-of-stake that includes everyone who pulls an equal amount of weight. There's no difference between premining and early adopters building bunkers. One versus a few still leaves many in a second class category. If you think you can push special tier privileges and expect ppl to go along with it, you're delusional. If you think there's nobody who can repeat the success of bitcoin, you're blind.

[ripper234]

I'm not talking about fairness. I'm talking about proof-of-stake that includes everyone who pulls an equal amount of weight. There's no difference between premining and early adopters building bunkers. One versus a few still leaves many in a second class category. If you think you can push special tier privileges and expect ppl to go along with it, you're delusional. If you think there's nobody who can repeat the success of bitcoin, you're blind.

Define "pulls an equal amount of weight".
If a coin release schedule is fair, then everyone will have ample time to contemplate, design and debate it before it's released. So no unfair "early adopters".

Early Adopters of successful coins are rewarded for discovery the fact the coin is good. If it weren't for them, the coin wouldn't have started at all, by definition, so they deserve a reward.

Early Adopters of shit coins are "punished" because their investments plummet down the drain.

There is no special tier in StakeCoin, no thresholds. Everyone can participate, big or small.

I think the success of Bitcoin will be unmatched me for many, many years ... it is too revolutionary. This kind of idea doesn't come by every year. There might be improvements (StakeCoin might be one of them), but the basic principles will remain the same.

Sorry, but the UtopiaCoin you'd like to see just can't exist in this world.

[NASDAQEnema]

There is no special tier in StakeCoin, no thresholds. Everyone can participate, big or small.

That's funny because so far every proof-of-stake proposal I've seen says "Minimum X (large) coins and peasants get to fill out napkin size complaint form".

[Etlase2]

I'm not talking about fairness. I'm talking about proof-of-stake that includes everyone who pulls an equal amount of weight. There's no difference between premining and early adopters building bunkers. One versus a few still leaves many in a second class category. If you think you can push special tier privileges and expect ppl to go along with it, you're delusional. If you think there's nobody who can repeat the success of bitcoin, you're blind.

I'm not sure why you have your panties in such a bunch over proof of stake. The bitcoin protocol and ergo litecoin are not very friendly to decentralization on a massive scale. The design is to already make the many in a second-class category. The moneylenders and the debtors. It will be the same scenario all over again.

Define "pulls an equal amount of weight".
If a coin release schedule is fair, then everyone will have ample time to contemplate, design and debate it before it's released. So no unfair "early adopters".

LOL @ "coin release schedule"

"I will let you have coins when I SAY you can have coins!"

A closed monetary system is such a joke.

[ripper234]

LOL @ "coin release schedule"

"I will let you have coins when I SAY you can have coins!"

A closed monetary system is such a joke.

coin release schedule = the schedule at which the new alt chain is released.
This is composed of designing the new alt, asking for comments, releasing a testnet version, and finally releasing the real blockchain.

This has nothing to do with the rate of coin generation.

Stop trolling, please.

[Etlase2]

Oh well it's hard to understand what you mean sometimes. You say a lot of things without understanding what you say, so forgive me for being confused.

For example

There is no special tier in StakeCoin, no thresholds. Everyone can participate, big or small.

So you propose that every account with a satoshi in it gets to sign the block chain, right? Do you have any idea how much bandwidth and data that would take? Do you realize miners will just drop these signatures anyway? Perhaps you should sit on the sidelines and let the big boys talk about these kinds of changes. You should stick to quoting the wiki where someone has spent time actually making up a bullshit argument for you.

[ripper234]

Oh well it's hard to understand what you mean sometimes. You say a lot of things without understanding what you say, so forgive me for being confused.

For example

There is no special tier in StakeCoin, no thresholds. Everyone can participate, big or small.

So you propose that every account with a satoshi in it gets to sign the block chain, right? Do you have any idea how much bandwidth and data that would take? Do you realize miners will just drop these signatures anyway? Perhaps you should sit on the sidelines and let the big boys talk about these kinds of changes. You should stick to quoting the wiki where someone has spent time actually making up a bullshit argument for you.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[Meni Rosenfeld]

That's funny because so far every proof-of-stake proposal I've seen says "Minimum X (large) coins and peasants get to fill out napkin size complaint form".

There are 2 proposals (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_Stake, also linked in the OP) and none of them say anything about a minimum. The "minimum" that may be needed in practice is on the order of magnitude of dollars.

I think you might be confused with the SolidCoin system.

[NASDAQEnema]

That's funny because so far every proof-of-stake proposal I've seen says "Minimum X (large) coins and peasants get to fill out napkin size complaint form".

There are 2 proposals (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_Stake, also linked in the OP) and none of them say anything about a minimum. The "minimum" that may be needed in practice is on the order of magnitude of dollars.

I think you might be confused with the SolidCoin system.

Well so far someone has actually suggested that the peasants would have "accountability and a feedback process" with regard to proof-of-stake.

So there's already the second tier meme in play even if not in the design.

[cbeast]

Instead of PoW vs PoS, I would like to see something along the lines of rock/scissors/paper where three systems balance each other simultaneously. The third system would be reputation based. Call it a Proof of Merit rating. Merit is earned by accepting transactions. PoS outweighs PoW, PoW outweighs PoM, PoM outweighs PoS.

PoW includes transactions to gain Merit. Stake gives up liquidity (or possibly demurrage) to gain Merit, Merit takes time to build. Merit is spent to broadcast blocks.

Even if PoS gains monopoly power, it can be overturned if PoW gains enough Merit. If a PoW miner is successful in acquiring Merit, it can reduce power consumption and switch to PoM. There will need to be constant evaluation of the network to determine which strategy is most cost effective.

This is just a simple idea. Pay no attention. It's not that I like or dislike any system in and of itself, but only the fairness of the system. I still think PoW is better in the long run because technology will always keep increasing hashrate, but game theory suggests other strategies can be effective.

[maaku]

That would be a natural extension of proof-of-stake. Signatures in proof-of-stake are weighted by the number of coins they represent, but there's no reason another reputation-based weighting function can't be added on top of that.

That said, you'd have to find a way to deal with when the reputation evaluations don't agree.