Bitcoin Forum
June 21, 2024, 09:50:25 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: PoS vs Pow  (Read 1892 times)
vince232 (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 22, 2015, 01:44:09 PM
 #1

guys which do you think has more chance to succeed? PoS coin or PoW coin? and why
Hollowman338
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 22, 2015, 05:22:43 PM
 #2

PoS ftw
Cryddit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1129


View Profile
March 22, 2015, 06:02:08 PM
 #3

I believe the ideal is a PoW/TaPoS hybrid, eventually converging on Transactions-as-Proof-of-stake as the transaction rate gets large enough that any 'whales' big enough to game it for a double spend are also too big to do so and not get prosecuted.

Most implementations of Proof-of-stake suck.  They are not the way it's supposed to work, and the PoS stakers who forge blocks do not actually contribute security to the block chain in relation to their staking award.
HCLivess
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2114
Merit: 1090


=== NODE IS OK! ==


View Profile WWW
March 23, 2015, 11:31:57 AM
 #4

Hybrids  have the best balance between fairness and security.
HBN for me.

rustynailer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 725
Merit: 501


Boycott Qatar 2022


View Profile
March 23, 2015, 12:30:49 PM
 #5


POS for me, everyone helps secure the network and gets interest paid for doing so.  True decentralization.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198



View Profile
March 23, 2015, 12:56:34 PM
 #6

Most implementations of Proof-of-stake suck.  They are not the way it's supposed to work, and the PoS stakers who forge blocks do not actually contribute security to the block chain in relation to their staking award.

Can you elaborate on that.
vince232 (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 23, 2015, 01:32:20 PM
 #7

what im thinking is. PoS coins basically gives you more coins by just having one. inflation of course prevents the coin's value to rise.
on the other hand PoW coins with limited coin supply should they succeed has higher chance for the price to go up because of scarcity in the future.

but then again greece said that they cant make btc as their currency because it is inflationary.
people wont spend btc because they know the value will rise.
Daedelus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 23, 2015, 02:32:24 PM
 #8

what im thinking is. PoS coins basically gives you more coins by just having one. inflation of course prevents the coin's value to rise.
on the other hand PoW coins with limited coin supply should they succeed has higher chance for the price to go up because of scarcity in the future.

but then again greece said that they cant make btc as their currency because it is inflationary.
people wont spend btc because they know the value will rise.

"Inflation bad for POS but good for POW", one rule for POS and a different rule for POW? Undecided


Also, not all POS are inflationary.

vince232 (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 23, 2015, 03:01:40 PM
 #9

what im thinking is. PoS coins basically gives you more coins by just having one. inflation of course prevents the coin's value to rise.
on the other hand PoW coins with limited coin supply should they succeed has higher chance for the price to go up because of scarcity in the future.

but then again greece said that they cant make btc as their currency because it is inflationary.
people wont spend btc because they know the value will rise.

"Inflation bad for POS but good for POW", one rule for POS and a different rule for POW? Undecided


Also, not all POS are inflationary.



oh sorry typo greece said they cant make btc as their currency because it is NOT inflationary. because of that people wont spend it because value will rise sooner or later
dasource
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 821
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 23, 2015, 03:04:56 PM
 #10

Neither, PoS in its current state needs more work and PoW is just a waste of resources.
I suspect we will see an evolution of one or both soon (tm)....

^ I am with STUPID!
Daedelus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 23, 2015, 03:07:05 PM
 #11

Neither, PoS in its current state needs more work and PoW is just a waste of resources.
I suspect we will see an evolution of one or both soon (tm)....

What are the areas in POS that need more work?
dasource
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 821
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 23, 2015, 03:23:14 PM
 #12

Neither, PoS in its current state needs more work and PoW is just a waste of resources.
I suspect we will see an evolution of one or both soon (tm)....

What are the areas in POS that need more work?

1. I am not convinced incentivizing miners with a % reward based on holdings is the right solution (making the rich richer?)
2. There is still centralisation and this area needs work i.e. checkpoint node

There have been improvements such as BC PoS 2.0 but more work is needed.

^ I am with STUPID!
dasource
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 821
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 23, 2015, 03:26:53 PM
 #13

Most implementations of Proof-of-stake suck.  They are not the way it's supposed to work, and the PoS stakers who forge blocks do not actually contribute security to the block chain in relation to their staking award.

Can you elaborate on that.


I suspect he is referring to the use of "coin age" ... and that one can keep their wallet offline for weeks and just turn it on to stake before turning it off again.
BC PoS 2.0 addressed this but as my post above, more work is needed IMO on PoS.

^ I am with STUPID!
Daedelus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 23, 2015, 03:39:04 PM
Last edit: March 23, 2015, 03:51:24 PM by Daedelus
 #14

Neither, PoS in its current state needs more work and PoW is just a waste of resources.
I suspect we will see an evolution of one or both soon (tm)....

What are the areas in POS that need more work?

1. I am not convinced incentivizing miners with a % reward based on holdings is the right solution (making the rich richer?)
2. There is still centralisation and this area needs work i.e. checkpoint node

There have been improvements such as BC PoS 2.0 but more work is needed.

1. It depends on the percentage. How rich will they get if the percentage is 0.5% or less? POS coins that use very high inflation, rather than transaction fees, as rewards are different. In the long run, these will make everyone poorer.

2. Not all POS use centralized checkpoints. BC's POS 2.0 moved it away from Peercoin/Novacoin and made it very similar to Nxt (Come-from-Beyond reviewed it and this was his conclusion, almost identical). If BC implemented all of Nxt's idea then it would no longer need centralized checkpoints that (I believe) Peercoin still requires.
Cheesus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 692
Merit: 254


terra-credit.com


View Profile
March 23, 2015, 04:23:18 PM
 #15

PoW, definitely PoW. Only CPU/GPU PoW, since ASICs are plague.

███████████████████████
  █████████████████████ 
    ███████████████████ 
      █████████████████ 
███████████████████████
          █████████████ 
            ███████████ 
              █████████ 
                ███████ 
                  ████ 
                    ███ 
                     
terracredit


















Powered by,
Cryddit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1129


View Profile
March 23, 2015, 05:24:00 PM
Last edit: March 23, 2015, 05:40:23 PM by Cryddit
 #16

Most implementations of Proof-of-stake suck.  They are not the way it's supposed to work, and the PoS stakers who forge blocks do not actually contribute security to the block chain in relation to their staking award.

Can you elaborate on that.


Okay....  With PoS as usually implemented, the "coin days destroyed" are the basis for selecting one chain over another.  So that's the "security" measure that people ought to get paid for providing.  But it is not what people get paid for providing.  They get paid for locking up coins, providing something else.  Something completely unrelated to the security of the block chain, because they can lock up the same coins on both sides of any fork.

Also?  "Coin days destroyed" are not a finite resource in the way that something needs to be finite in order to help secure a block chain.  Someone with 1 coin that's a month old should not be able to play for a 3-to-1 advantage in a game that nets him ten coins one day old.  Nor should someone be able to spend the same coin in both of two different forks to generate different priority in both just because the coin is spent at a different block chain height.  

"Total transaction volume" is also not limited in the way you need it to be limited for security.  If you have a system where an attacker can generate more priority for an attack chain by repeatedly shuffling his coins between different wallets after the fork, that's a broken system.

Also?  If an attacker can prepare a block chain without letting anyone else see it, which has comparable transaction volume, just by replaying other people's transactions that he sees on the main block chain into his attack chain?  That's also broken.  If it's a coin-days-destroyed system so by playing them into later blocks make his attack chain have more priority than the real chain?  That's even more broken.

The only real measure of stake that matters when picking between two forks of a block chain, which is limited in the way we need a security measure to be limited, is the amount of coins that existed before the fork, which are  used as inputs after the fork.  Even that is useless unless the transactions actually specify which side of the fork their stake supports by specifying the ID of a recent block and not being valid in any chain not derived from that block.  

So, a Proof-of-stake system that works looks like this:  Every transaction 'stakes' a recent block and is not valid in any block chain that is not derived from that block (so an attacker can't replay it into an attack chain that started before the stake block).  The choice between forks is made on the basis of which chain has more coins that existed before the fork and are used in transactions staked after the fork.  Because that's the basis of chain security, that's what users get paid for providing. And you do that by making them get interest on the coins they use as inputs in transactions, up to the stake block. 

If they stake a block that's not very recent, the transaction is valid in all possible forks arising after the stake block, so it's not very useful for security.  On the other hand, it's valid in all possible forks arising after the stake block, so they can be comfortably certain that whatever fork wins in such a split their transaction will be in it.  So they get the security payment interest up to the stake block, and the miner gets the security payment interest after the stake block.

Miners are motivated to include absolutely all the transactions they can find on the network because including all the transactions means their block has priority if a fork happens.  Miners will also make a transaction staking their own entire wallet every time they make a block, both to collect the interest on their coins and to generate priority for their block.  

But someone not using their coins to support any block chain is contributing nothing to security for that whole time, so there has to be a top limit on the amount of time people can get paid interest for.  Not too short, or you spam the block chain with transactions far too frequently made just for the purpose of not losing interest. But not too long, either, or you wind up with the whole burden of security sitting on the miners as people just sit there with their wallets not supporting either branch of any fork.  Let the rest of the stake interest go to the miners along with tx fees, because the miners are providing security for all the people who leave their coins sitting there.  

It doesn't matter how you decide who gets to form a block; I think proof-of-work mining is fine for that.  But, once again, the amount of security counted for a chain fork, should equal the amount of security the payment is a reward for, so if you have a block subsidy (and you should, to distribute a coin supply) then you have to count the miner's work, or whatever resource the miner irrevocably committed to his block that he cannot also commit to any forking block, toward block chain security too - in roughly the same proportion as the proportion of block subsidy to stake interest generated.  

My own preference is for the miner to get a constant block subsidy, which will start out being the whole money supply.  Hence the system works like a proof-of-work coin until coin interest/stake awards start to be generated. But if the system lasts, then the block award eventually pales into insignificance relative to the amount of stake income being generated, because compounding interest.  So it asymptotically approaches a system that works like a proof-of-stake coin. The transition is very gradual, but at that point the miners are basically living on transaction fees and stake scraps.

Cryddit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1129


View Profile
March 25, 2015, 01:55:52 AM
 #17

Great, miners are whining again in this thread.

Is that really what you got out of that whole explanation?  Darn, my communications skills must suck.

I'm not a miner.  I never have been.  I really do want to make a proof-of-stake system that works.  But getting past the initial part is hard, and that genuinely is my best idea for getting there. 

What I outlined winds up being a Transactions-as-proof-of-stake system; it makes the transition gradually, but that's where it goes.  Payments for block chain security, aside from the block subsidy which gradually fades into insignificance because inflation, are made to people in proportion to the amount of block chain security they provide  by using their stake in support of one version of the block chain instead of another. 

I proposed proof-of-work as a ramp-on because I don't think transactions-as-proof-of-stake will be "steady" enough to secure a block chain until you have thousands of people making transactions.  There's just too much variation in transaction volumes from one period to the next, so an attacker could force a split by making a really big transaction during a slow block.  Without something "steady" in the initial stages, you'd have to counter that variability with long block times to allow transactions to average out somewhat and give the inevitable forks time to resolve.  At least until you have a whole lot of people making transactions, and at that point the "miner" is living on tx fees plus what he gets by staking his own coins.

You could have a different ramp-on if you like.  Another possibility is copying the txOut set of an existing coin to make the initial distribution.   But distributing your stake payments to the people whose stake actually supports security means that the people who make transactions get almost all of it, and the people who form the blocks eventually wind up getting almost none of it.  So, as I said, it doesn't really matter how you decide who gets to form blocks.
Cryddit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1129


View Profile
March 26, 2015, 07:07:03 PM
 #18

Ultimately the market will converge on some kind of PoS system.  It doesn't have to support the mining costs that Bitcoin does, so it has a competitive edge. 

But right now Bitcoin has an enormous network advantage - it may take many years before a period of market chaos big enough to overcome that arrives.

oblox
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442
Merit: 1018


View Profile
March 26, 2015, 07:34:24 PM
 #19

POS might have merit after long (and I mean long) periods of actual POW mining (we're talking years, if not decades). These flash POW periods of 2 weeks before converting to POS are ridiculous.
Cryddit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1129


View Profile
March 26, 2015, 07:40:35 PM
 #20

POS might have merit after long (and I mean long) periods of actual POW mining (we're talking years, if not decades). These flash POW periods of 2 weeks before converting to POS are ridiculous.

Absolutely.  I think permissionless block formation, for at least transaction fees, is an important feature of a winning implementation.  This is one of the reasons I think block formation should not be determined by stake share.  It's okay for people to have a motive that varies in proportion to their stake, but it should never be zero-stake=no way to form blocks nor zero-stake=no reason to form blocks.
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!