Author Topic: Transactions as Proof-of-Stake & The End of Mining  (Read 56516 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bytemaster

I am really looking for attacks on my pos system


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
can we develop a system to avoid the 51% attack totally , I have some thinking , in democratic society, one person have  larger  power and he only have one vote,  a node have larger power of hash ,it is only mean  he have the larger capacity for mining,  not the larger power of main chain,
we can think as following
1. one node cannot find two continuous bolck
2. the difficulty of every node is different,  for example if the node not find the bolck in 10min , the difficulty is same as the normal  difficulty, but if the node can one bolck in 10 min the difficulty become the 2*normal difficulty ,  if find 3 bolck in 10min ,the difficulty become the 4*normal difficulty , and so on ,   if we need to 6 bolck confirm , though a man have 51% power of hash , he also cannot carry out 51% attack.

There is no way to identify nodes, all we have is 'information'.   Difficulty is irrelevant because proof-of-stake determines longest block and nodes cannot cheat this.   Just like any company where a shareholder who owns 51% of the stock can do anything they want (more or less), the same applies to DACs.   There is no way around the 51% ownership attack in a world subject to sybil attacks.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline WaPTS

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
I am really looking for attacks on my pos system


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
can we develop a system to avoid the 51% attack totally , I have some thinking , in democratic society, one person have  larger  power and he only have one vote,  a node have larger power of hash ,it is only mean  he have the larger capacity for mining,  not the larger power of main chain,
we can think as following
1. one node cannot find two continuous bolck
2. the difficulty of every node is different,  for example if the node not find the bolck in 10min , the difficulty is same as the normal  difficulty, but if the node can one bolck in 10 min the difficulty become the 2*normal difficulty ,  if find 3 bolck in 10min ,the difficulty become the 4*normal difficulty , and so on ,   if we need to 6 bolck confirm , though a man have 51% power of hash , he also cannot carry out 51% attack.

Offline bytemaster


So the basic idea is that the more coin-days destroyed in a given block, the lower the difficulty. But even if someone had enough computing power to find blocks that only destroyed a few coin-days, their chain would still be rejected, because proof of stake is used as the primary judge of chain size, not proof of work. Therefore, the fastest growing chain will be the one that includes the most transactions, which keeps the network healthy. The only flaw I can find is the possibility of somebody finding a way to factor public keys to derive the private keys, but I think we can all agree that if this happens, we have much bigger problems to deal with.

Exactly


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline phoenix

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
So the basic idea is that the more coin-days destroyed in a given block, the lower the difficulty. But even if someone had enough computing power to find blocks that only destroyed a few coin-days, their chain would still be rejected, because proof of stake is used as the primary judge of chain size, not proof of work. Therefore, the fastest growing chain will be the one that includes the most transactions, which keeps the network healthy. The only flaw I can find is the possibility of somebody finding a way to factor public keys to derive the private keys, but I think we can all agree that if this happens, we have much bigger problems to deal with.
Protoshares: Pg5EhSZEXHFjdFUzpxJbm91UtA54iUuDvt
Bitmessage: BM-NBrGi2V3BZ8REnJM7FPxUjjkQp7V5D28

Offline bytemaster

I am really looking for attacks on my pos system


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline phoenix

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
Phoenix: If you're interested read up on current Proof-of-Stake methods work to see how they distribute their coins, Peercoin is the largest by far right now.

Thanks, I think I have a general idea of how Peercoin does it, but it looks like Bytemaster will be doing it differently, with all the Bitshares released at the start, based on Protoshares.
Protoshares: Pg5EhSZEXHFjdFUzpxJbm91UtA54iUuDvt
Bitmessage: BM-NBrGi2V3BZ8REnJM7FPxUjjkQp7V5D28

Offline bytemaster

Dividends come from trx fees and would still exist. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline Pocket Sand

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
    • View Profile
In that case do you still think you would offer dividends on Bitshares?

Phoenix: If you're interested read up on current Proof-of-Stake methods work to see how they distribute their coins, Peercoin is the largest by far right now.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2013, 06:17:08 pm by Pocket Sand »

Offline bytemaster

If proof of stake can work on its own then why would we need new coins.  I want to maximize bts value. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline phoenix

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
How will new BTS come into existence after the initial release? Or will they all just be based from PTS?
Protoshares: Pg5EhSZEXHFjdFUzpxJbm91UtA54iUuDvt
Bitmessage: BM-NBrGi2V3BZ8REnJM7FPxUjjkQp7V5D28

Offline bytemaster

If theory in the OP holds it will be proof of stake where initial stake is determined by pts


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline Pocket Sand

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
    • View Profile
Quote
All of that said a premine coin sold into existence like mastercoin secured by mining may be the best of all. 
No that is not our plan for bitshares because we do not need to raise capital for bts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So is bitshares at the moment still planned to be traditional mining for generation of new coins? I apologize I might have been thrown off by the thread's earlier discussion.

Offline bytemaster

No that is not our plan for bitshares because we do not need to raise capital for bts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline Pocket Sand

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
    • View Profile
Bitcoins was in the least sense of the word: Centralized.
Satoshi developed the software over a year and a half and allowed other developers to aid him completely open source.

On the other hand you're talking about controlling the money supply.

So is the plan at the moment to begin like Mastercoins and have a sell off of coins from Invictus? If so will you be selling the coins relative to the market price of Protoshares?

Offline bytemaster

All systems start out centralized including bitcoin and proto shares.   

Decentralized is all about control and is something that is achieved as a system matures. 

Without our vc funding which is centralized protoshares would not have raised enough money for us to deliver. 

Most major undertakings require centralization of capital.   I know no open source projects that did not start life centralized. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.