BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: CLains on March 19, 2015, 02:05:39 pm
-
"There’s just one thing left to discuss: mining. Proof of Work implies the inefficient conversion of electricity into heat, Ether and network stability, and we would quite like to not warm the atmosphere with our software more than is absolutely necessary. Short of buying carbon offsets for every unit of Ether mined (is that such a bad idea?), we need an algorithmic fix: the infamous Proof of Stake."
Seems like Ethereum schedule includes PoW -> PoS transition.
Frontier (test net) -> Homestead (PoW) -> Metropolis (+GUI) -> Serenity (PoS)
https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/03/03/ethereum-launch-process/
-
From my point of view .. software manufacturing on this large scale … couldn't be done with just 26 mill bucks of funding … but maybe i'm totally wrong :)
Wish them all best !!
-
Vitalik Buterin has an interesting reply to the POW vs DPOS question:
https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/01/28/p-epsilon-attack/#comment-1821999755
-
Vitalik Buterin has an interesting reply to the POW vs DPOS question:
https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/01/28/p-epsilon-attack/#comment-1821999755
That's quite an interesting article of Vitalik's. I get the impression that any consensus system is theoretically corruptible, because in the end any system relies on people being willing to continue to support the system as opposed to defecting to an alternative. Maybe we eventually get a grubby coin war that tests these theories, and maybe then we'll know for sure the strongest models.
-
Vitalik Buterin has an interesting reply to the POW vs DPOS question:
https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/01/28/p-epsilon-attack/#comment-1821999755
That's quite an interesting article of Vitalik's. I get the impression that any consensus system is theoretically corruptible, because in the end any system relies on people being willing to continue to support the system as opposed to defecting to an alternative. Maybe we eventually get a grubby coin war that tests these theories, and maybe then we'll know for sure the strongest models.
That about sums it up.. people=corruption in his outlook/model .. to me that is a faulty premise.
-
Vitalik Buterin has an interesting reply to the POW vs DPOS question:
https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/01/28/p-epsilon-attack/#comment-1821999755
That's quite an interesting article of Vitalik's. I get the impression that any consensus system is theoretically corruptible, because in the end any system relies on people being willing to continue to support the system as opposed to defecting to an alternative. Maybe we eventually get a grubby coin war that tests these theories, and maybe then we'll know for sure the strongest models.
That about sums it up.. people=corruption in his outlook/model .. to me that is a faulty premise.
+5%
I wonder if Vitalik has ever read Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era, by Zbigniew Brzezinski...
-
I wonder if Vitalik has ever read Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era, by Zbigniew Brzezinski...
Gah! I cringe when I see the "useless eater" Zbig's name.
-
I wonder if Vitalik has ever read Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era, by Zbigniew Brzezinski...
Gah! I cringe when I see the "useless eater" Zbig's name.
Me too....
-
Vitalik Buterin has an interesting reply to the POW vs DPOS question:
https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/01/28/p-epsilon-attack/#comment-1821999755
That's quite an interesting article of Vitalik's. I get the impression that any consensus system is theoretically corruptible, because in the end any system relies on people being willing to continue to support the system as opposed to defecting to an alternative. Maybe we eventually get a grubby coin war that tests these theories, and maybe then we'll know for sure the strongest models.
Doesn't that entire article boil down to the trivial result that once you have 51% of the stake (or mining power) you control the network?
-
Well he did some valid lamentation:
DPOS technically has only the weaker altruism-prime level of formal cryptoeconomic security, since attackers can bribe rational actors to vote for them. It essentially relies on either (i) people enjoying civic activism as a hobby, or (ii) wealth concentration, as a security assumption, and the latter is hard to guess in the long term and the former is hard to model :)
-
I would mine eth and gain money to buy bts :P :P :P
I think many miners basically don`t care the safety of network , and opposite hope the total hash power is low ,because they can gain more coin.
I always hear " hash power increase more this week , I gain less coin :'( "
but I think would take high tax to miner , because they use power do useless thing
-
Well he did some valid lamentation:
DPOS technically has only the weaker altruism-prime level of formal cryptoeconomic security, since attackers can bribe rational actors to vote for them. It essentially relies on either (i) people enjoying civic activism as a hobby, or (ii) wealth concentration, as a security assumption, and the latter is hard to guess in the long term and the former is hard to model :)
If they have the money to bribe they would just buy bts themselves and vote for whoever they wanted, making it legit. That argument doesn't look that valid to me.
-
Bribes are potentially a recurring source of revenue, and buying large amounts of stake moves the price. BTS security does rely on the distribution. Shareholders take time to make decisions, they're not instant actors, so distribution lags behind real incentives opening up an opportunity for bribery. Whether or not BTS is currently vulnerable is a separate question from this theoretical concern
-
Bribes are potentially a recurring source of revenue, and buying large amounts of stake moves the price. BTS security does rely on the distribution. Shareholders take time to make decisions, they're not instant actors, so distribution lags behind real incentives opening up an opportunity for bribery. Whether or not BTS is currently vulnerable is a separate question from this theoretical concern
This is one reason the dollar has lasted for so long...bribes and allllll that interconnected business. Now am I down for bribes? That is a loaded question because many things can be seen as bribes in business. All human interaction seems to become more synergistic when the parties enter into win-win propositions. This means that all humans are happier when they feel they gained something positive from an interaction with another human--just simple human nature. Then again, bribes could facilitate these synergies even when another person is not seeing the benefit (against his/her will), but I have to be against both parties not entering into these willingly.
As for security...isn't there an axiom for security specialists that there is no such thing as total security?