BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: BldSwtTrs on April 24, 2014, 05:37:23 pm
-
Worth noticing some people are starting to realize what Bytemaster was the first to say :)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=581635.0
-
As X.25 was displaced by IP, so will POW be displaced by POS and improvements upon it.
-
As X.25 was displaced by IP, so will POW be displaced by POS and improvements upon it.
thats what would makes the most sense .. not sure yet if others know that too
-
Whole crap that discussion on that thread was ignorant! We have a lot of work to do....
POS was seen as rent seekers, as socialist, as money from nothing.... as if the fact that you burned 100 USD entitles you to something.
-
Whole crap that discussion on that thread was ignorant! We have a lot of work to do....
POS was seen as rent seekers, as socialist, as money from nothing.... as if the fact that you burned 100 USD entitles you to something.
Too many investments in POW coins and mining equipment.
Fortunately I think in discussions outside of our little altcurrency world the POS arguments are stronger. The endless arms race for miners + power consumption is not a selling point for anyone not already invested in such things.
-
The Peter-R guy throws with around the most absurd arguments..
The only rational argument I have seen was this:
But the hashers are mobile if a pool turns out to be a bad player. If a bad player acquires a significant portion of the PoS coin that mobility does not exist.
-
The Peter-R guy throws with around the most absurd arguments..
The only rational argument I have seen was this:
But the hashers are mobile if a pool turns out to be a bad player. If a bad player acquires a significant portion of the PoS coin that mobility does not exist.
this exists in dpos
-
The Peter-R guy throws with around the most absurd arguments..
The only rational argument I have seen was this:
But the hashers are mobile if a pool turns out to be a bad player. If a bad player acquires a significant portion of the PoS coin that mobility does not exist.
this exists in dpos
If a malicious player has a significant portion of a dpos coin he can always vote for his malicious delegate or for more malicious delegates if he has more than 2 % of the coins. Not that POW or any other POS is better here. But that should be possible.
edit: thinking about it... There is the option for the benevolent shareholders to vote down whatever delegate the bad player comes up with. Is it known to everybody who votes for who?
-
The Peter-R guy throws with around the most absurd arguments..
The only rational argument I have seen was this:
But the hashers are mobile if a pool turns out to be a bad player. If a bad player acquires a significant portion of the PoS coin that mobility does not exist.
this exists in dpos
If a malicious player has a significant portion of a dpos coin he can always vote for his malicious delegate or for more malicious delegates if he has more than 2 % of the coins. Not that POW or any other POS is better here. But that should be possible.
edit: thinking about it... There is the option for the benevolent shareholders to vote down whatever delegate the bad player comes up with. Is it known to everybody who votes for who?
Yes...
Anyone with 51% of the shares by-definition controls the network. Anyone with less than 50% is unable to harm the network without getting voted out. If they own 49% and wish to cause mischief, then another 49% of the network can cancel them out and the remaining 2% will decide.
Compare this to other POS coins like Nxt and you realize that someone who has 49% of the shares would end up with 90% of the forging power.
-
The Peter-R guy throws with around the most absurd arguments..
The only rational argument I have seen was this:
But the hashers are mobile if a pool turns out to be a bad player. If a bad player acquires a significant portion of the PoS coin that mobility does not exist.
this exists in dpos
If a malicious player has a significant portion of a dpos coin he can always vote for his malicious delegate or for more malicious delegates if he has more than 2 % of the coins. Not that POW or any other POS is better here. But that should be possible.
edit: thinking about it... There is the option for the benevolent shareholders to vote down whatever delegate the bad player comes up with. Is it known to everybody who votes for who?
Yes...
Anyone with 51% of the shares by-definition controls the network. Anyone with less than 50% is unable to harm the network without getting voted out. If they own 49% and wish to cause mischief, then another 49% of the network can cancel them out and the remaining 2% will decide.
Compare this to other POS coins like Nxt and you realize that someone who has 49% of the shares would end up with 90% of the forging power.
Doesn't nxt claim to be able to avoid 90%+ attacks? Can't provide any argument though why...
So the good shareholders can set an automatic down vote for any delegate that is suggested by the bad shareholder? Otherwise the bad shareholder would keep the good shareholders busy adapting their down vote every time the bad sh replaces his sock puppet bad delegate.
-
Whole crap that discussion on that thread was ignorant! We have a lot of work to do....
POS was seen as rent seekers, as socialist, as money from nothing.... as if the fact that you burned 100 USD entitles you to something.
The wisdom of crowds?
-
The Peter-R guy throws with around the most absurd arguments..
The only rational argument I have seen was this:
But the hashers are mobile if a pool turns out to be a bad player. If a bad player acquires a significant portion of the PoS coin that mobility does not exist.
this exists in dpos
If a malicious player has a significant portion of a dpos coin he can always vote for his malicious delegate or for more malicious delegates if he has more than 2 % of the coins. Not that POW or any other POS is better here. But that should be possible.
edit: thinking about it... There is the option for the benevolent shareholders to vote down whatever delegate the bad player comes up with. Is it known to everybody who votes for who?
Yes...
Anyone with 51% of the shares by-definition controls the network. Anyone with less than 50% is unable to harm the network without getting voted out. If they own 49% and wish to cause mischief, then another 49% of the network can cancel them out and the remaining 2% will decide.
Compare this to other POS coins like Nxt and you realize that someone who has 49% of the shares would end up with 90% of the forging power.
This is (to me) an effective rebuttal for the angst toward "reinventing the wheel", which (meaning no offense) should be known to anyone who has a basic understanding of the evolution of protocols and the history of the internet. Evolutions in protocols are in effect "reinventing the wheel", but in a way that changes it from stone --> to wood with spokes --> to metal --> to metal w/ rubber sheath --> w/ composites --> w/ nanocomposites. So, in essence, reinventing the wheel is actually redesigning it with a deeper understanding of the original design's flaws.
The argument against "reinventing the wheel" so you can be among the first to release another stone wheel with a slightly different color/size/density stone confuses me...especially if you want a platform to serve as an infrastructure that is stable enough to build on.
This discussion is directly connected to Invictus' willingness to work on solutions with Longevity, which is precisely why I have patience with this project.
-
The Peter-R guy throws with around the most absurd arguments..
The only rational argument I have seen was this:
But the hashers are mobile if a pool turns out to be a bad player. If a bad player acquires a significant portion of the PoS coin that mobility does not exist.
this exists in dpos
If a malicious player has a significant portion of a dpos coin he can always vote for his malicious delegate or for more malicious delegates if he has more than 2 % of the coins. Not that POW or any other POS is better here. But that should be possible.
edit: thinking about it... There is the option for the benevolent shareholders to vote down whatever delegate the bad player comes up with. Is it known to everybody who votes for who?
Yes...
Anyone with 51% of the shares by-definition controls the network. Anyone with less than 50% is unable to harm the network without getting voted out. If they own 49% and wish to cause mischief, then another 49% of the network can cancel them out and the remaining 2% will decide.
Compare this to other POS coins like Nxt and you realize that someone who has 49% of the shares would end up with 90% of the forging power.
Doesn't nxt claim to be able to avoid 90%+ attacks? Can't provide any argument though why...
So the good shareholders can set an automatic down vote for any delegate that is suggested by the bad shareholder? Otherwise the bad shareholder would keep the good shareholders busy adapting their down vote every time the bad sh replaces his sock puppet bad delegate.
Here is how nxt explains to which degree nxt is 90% attack resistant https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=345619.msg5133909#msg5133909
-
God this is depressing...
People rationalize all kind of broken theories to justify PoW.
-
The Peter-R guy throws with around the most absurd arguments..
The only rational argument I have seen was this:
But the hashers are mobile if a pool turns out to be a bad player. If a bad player acquires a significant portion of the PoS coin that mobility does not exist.
this exists in dpos
If a malicious player has a significant portion of a dpos coin he can always vote for his malicious delegate or for more malicious delegates if he has more than 2 % of the coins. Not that POW or any other POS is better here. But that should be possible.
edit: thinking about it... There is the option for the benevolent shareholders to vote down whatever delegate the bad player comes up with. Is it known to everybody who votes for who?
Yes...
Anyone with 51% of the shares by-definition controls the network. Anyone with less than 50% is unable to harm the network without getting voted out. If they own 49% and wish to cause mischief, then another 49% of the network can cancel them out and the remaining 2% will decide.
Compare this to other POS coins like Nxt and you realize that someone who has 49% of the shares would end up with 90% of the forging power.
This is (to me) an effective rebuttal for the angst toward "reinventing the wheel", which (meaning no offense) should be known to anyone who has a basic understanding of the evolution of protocols and the history of the internet. Evolutions in protocols are in effect "reinventing the wheel", but in a way that changes it from stone --> to wood with spokes --> to metal --> to metal w/ rubber sheath --> w/ composites --> w/ nanocomposites. So, in essence, reinventing the wheel is actually redesigning it with a deeper understanding of the original design's flaws.
The argument against "reinventing the wheel" so you can be among the first to release another stone wheel with a slightly different color/size/density stone confuses me...especially if you want a platform to serve as an infrastructure that is stable enough to build on.
This discussion is directly connected to Invictus' willingness to work on solutions with Longevity, which is precisely why I have patience with this project.
Any invention or idea is either a combination of two pre-existing concepts, or of a pre-existing concept applied to a new situation. The wheel was a combination of a ball and a truckload of stones that needed to be somewhere else.
Our code-monkeys are doing both, they are trying to apply the concept of 'blockchain' to new situations and while doing that they discover all sorts of connections that will make our lives easier in the long run.
So indeed we should keep the monkey's den well ventilated and well supplied with bananas and cool-aid, and not slap them around to much with deadlines. The end product will benefit.
This made me laugh and cry at the same time:
'Which one of you asic companies just brought something online?'
https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=19177.0
Difficulty just spiked by quite a bit, just a little over %15 in a matter of 2-3 days.
https://bitcoinwisdom.com/litecoin/difficulty
I dont follow all of the asics, but anyone want to tell me when each company is set to deliver and speculate which one this is?
So an asic company again uses customer's pre-order money to bring an asic farm online that is big enough to be able to cause a lot of mischief to the network. They'll mine for a month or two and ship out. As a miner you pay three times (or get robbed three times), once for the manufacturers asic farm, once with a loss in ROI for your GPU setup caused by the asic farm, and once since the scrypt asic you ordered is technically worthless by the time you receive it.
Crypto needs POS, and it needs it now.
-
The Peter-R guy throws with around the most absurd arguments..
The only rational argument I have seen was this:
But the hashers are mobile if a pool turns out to be a bad player. If a bad player acquires a significant portion of the PoS coin that mobility does not exist.
this exists in dpos
If a malicious player has a significant portion of a dpos coin he can always vote for his malicious delegate or for more malicious delegates if he has more than 2 % of the coins. Not that POW or any other POS is better here. But that should be possible.
edit: thinking about it... There is the option for the benevolent shareholders to vote down whatever delegate the bad player comes up with. Is it known to everybody who votes for who?
Yes...
Anyone with 51% of the shares by-definition controls the network. Anyone with less than 50% is unable to harm the network without getting voted out. If they own 49% and wish to cause mischief, then another 49% of the network can cancel them out and the remaining 2% will decide.
Compare this to other POS coins like Nxt and you realize that someone who has 49% of the shares would end up with 90% of the forging power.
This is (to me) an effective rebuttal for the angst toward "reinventing the wheel", which (meaning no offense) should be known to anyone who has a basic understanding of the evolution of protocols and the history of the internet. Evolutions in protocols are in effect "reinventing the wheel", but in a way that changes it from stone --> to wood with spokes --> to metal --> to metal w/ rubber sheath --> w/ composites --> w/ nanocomposites. So, in essence, reinventing the wheel is actually redesigning it with a deeper understanding of the original design's flaws.
The argument against "reinventing the wheel" so you can be among the first to release another stone wheel with a slightly different color/size/density stone confuses me...especially if you want a platform to serve as an infrastructure that is stable enough to build on.
This discussion is directly connected to Invictus' willingness to work on solutions with Longevity, which is precisely why I have patience with this project.
Any invention or idea is either a combination of two pre-existing concepts, or of a pre-existing concept applied to a new situation. The wheel was a combination of a ball and a truckload of stones that needed to be somewhere else.
Our code-monkeys are doing both, they are trying to apply the concept of 'blockchain' to new situations and while doing that they discover all sorts of connections that will make our lives easier in the long run.
So indeed we should keep the monkey's den well ventilated and well supplied with bananas and cool-aid, and not slap them around to much with deadlines. The end product will benefit.
This made me laugh and cry at the same time:
'Which one of you asic companies just brought something online?'
https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=19177.0
Difficulty just spiked by quite a bit, just a little over %15 in a matter of 2-3 days.
https://bitcoinwisdom.com/litecoin/difficulty
I dont follow all of the asics, but anyone want to tell me when each company is set to deliver and speculate which one this is?
So an asic company again uses customer's pre-order money to bring an asic farm online that is big enough to be able to cause a lot of mischief to the network. They'll mine for a month or two and ship out. As a miner you pay three times (or get robbed three times), once for the manufacturers asic farm, once with a loss in ROI for your GPU setup caused by the asic farm, and once since the scrypt asic you ordered is technically worthless by the time you receive it.
Crypto needs POS, and it needs it now.
Good post!