4 ms·

So rather than addressing my points you start the cycle again by suggesting implementations of PoS coins? What’s wrong with Ripple and Stellar is that they are

So rather than addressing my points you start the cycle again by suggesting implementations of PoS coins? What’s wrong with Ripple and Stellar is that they are PoS coins. PoS doesn’t address any existing issues but adds layers of complexity. And both are centralized pre-mine scams anyway.

topmonk 8y ago
You made a pretty bold statement saying that no Proof of Stake systems are not immune to grinding, although they're are some currently major ones in existence, EOS, Carsano, etc. If you can grind away at these systems, why don't you do that and make a trillion dollars yourself?
- keymone 8y ago
  Just because something can be attacked doesn’t mean it can be attacked cheaply. Besides, your argument cuts both ways - if you think PoS are so much better and PoW will eventually be worthless, show me how much BTC you shorted today or ever. I bet it’s zero.
  - topmonk 8y ago
    I think PoS is much more environmentally friendly than PoW. That's not the same as whether I think either will increase or decline in the short term, which is a different question entirely. Anyway, you have yet to prove the core of your argument, that any current PoS system can be defeated by an equivalent amount of work as a PoW system through grinding. Again, this is a bold statement. Can you at least begin to try to defend it?
    - keymone 8y ago
      First, talking of environmental impact of PoW is misguided. It’s producers of energy that do harm, not consumers. Second, stake grinding is an attack. You’re the one who has to prove your PoS system is not affected by it. As far as I’m concerned cost of attack is the same as in PoW except PoS shifts costs into political spectrum via totally redundant layer of complexity.
      - topmonk 8y ago
        No, it's the chemical reaction that the oil plants use, not the owners of the said plants. See how silly that sounds? You can't assert that every PoS system is vulnerable to a grinding attack without specifying what the attack is. Every PoW system has a centralization of mining problem due to economy of scale. Now prove that isn't true.
        keymone 8y ago
        > No, it's the chemical reaction that the oil plants use, not the owners of the said plants poor attempt, try again. > without specifying what the attack is stake grinding, long range and other attacks are widely known. all complexities that deviate from trivial PoS system exist solely to address these attacks. are you really pretending they don't exist? > Every PoW system has a centralization of mining problem due to economy of scale. Now prove that isn't true. the only centralizing factor is energy subsidies. it's still a far cry from issues with PoS systems.
        topmonk 8y ago
        >> No, it's the chemical reaction that the oil plants use, not the owners of the said plants > poor attempt, try again. I like how you deleted the "See how silly that sounds?" part, which is what I'm getting at. Anyway, who to blame is philosophical question and has no absolute truth, we might as well blame God for making humans greedy and shortsighted. I think we have to agree to disagree here. The fact remains though that in today's world if BTC switched over to PoS, we'd save about 1% energy usage today and the corresponding co2 production to go along with it. If BTC continues to grow, this number will go up correspondingly. Are you denying this? > stake grinding, long range and other attacks are widely known. all complexities that deviate from trivial PoS system exist solely to address these attacks. are you really pretending they don't exist? I'm saying they've been solved. You can see their justifications against the attacks you talk about in the white papers. If you have a specific attack against a specific coin, then we have something to talk about. Otherwise, just repeating over and over, "But there are attacks!" doesn't disprove anything they are saying. > the only centralizing factor is energy subsidies. it's still a far cry from issues with PoS systems. Again, economies of scale. Please at least try to address my arguments.
EGreg 8y ago
Ripple and Stellar are NOT based on PoS. They use a different consensus called PoC. Have you looked at their design at all?
- keymone 8y ago
  oh yeah, ofc, those two are just centralized pre-mine scams. that's even worse than PoS imho. the biggest question is why do people even consider them cryptocurrencies.

topmonk 8y ago

You made a pretty bold statement saying that no Proof of Stake systems are not immune to grinding, although they're are some currently major ones in existence, EOS, Carsano, etc. If you can grind away at these systems, why don't you do that and make a trillion dollars yourself?

keymone 8y ago
Just because something can be attacked doesn’t mean it can be attacked cheaply. Besides, your argument cuts both ways - if you think PoS are so much better and PoW will eventually be worthless, show me how much BTC you shorted today or ever. I bet it’s zero.
- topmonk 8y ago
  I think PoS is much more environmentally friendly than PoW. That's not the same as whether I think either will increase or decline in the short term, which is a different question entirely. Anyway, you have yet to prove the core of your argument, that any current PoS system can be defeated by an equivalent amount of work as a PoW system through grinding. Again, this is a bold statement. Can you at least begin to try to defend it?
  - keymone 8y ago
    First, talking of environmental impact of PoW is misguided. It’s producers of energy that do harm, not consumers. Second, stake grinding is an attack. You’re the one who has to prove your PoS system is not affected by it. As far as I’m concerned cost of attack is the same as in PoW except PoS shifts costs into political spectrum via totally redundant layer of complexity.
    - topmonk 8y ago
      No, it's the chemical reaction that the oil plants use, not the owners of the said plants. See how silly that sounds? You can't assert that every PoS system is vulnerable to a grinding attack without specifying what the attack is. Every PoW system has a centralization of mining problem due to economy of scale. Now prove that isn't true.
      - keymone 8y ago
        > No, it's the chemical reaction that the oil plants use, not the owners of the said plants poor attempt, try again. > without specifying what the attack is stake grinding, long range and other attacks are widely known. all complexities that deviate from trivial PoS system exist solely to address these attacks. are you really pretending they don't exist? > Every PoW system has a centralization of mining problem due to economy of scale. Now prove that isn't true. the only centralizing factor is energy subsidies. it's still a far cry from issues with PoS systems.
        topmonk 8y ago
        >> No, it's the chemical reaction that the oil plants use, not the owners of the said plants > poor attempt, try again. I like how you deleted the "See how silly that sounds?" part, which is what I'm getting at. Anyway, who to blame is philosophical question and has no absolute truth, we might as well blame God for making humans greedy and shortsighted. I think we have to agree to disagree here. The fact remains though that in today's world if BTC switched over to PoS, we'd save about 1% energy usage today and the corresponding co2 production to go along with it. If BTC continues to grow, this number will go up correspondingly. Are you denying this? > stake grinding, long range and other attacks are widely known. all complexities that deviate from trivial PoS system exist solely to address these attacks. are you really pretending they don't exist? I'm saying they've been solved. You can see their justifications against the attacks you talk about in the white papers. If you have a specific attack against a specific coin, then we have something to talk about. Otherwise, just repeating over and over, "But there are attacks!" doesn't disprove anything they are saying. > the only centralizing factor is energy subsidies. it's still a far cry from issues with PoS systems. Again, economies of scale. Please at least try to address my arguments.

EGreg 8y ago

Ripple and Stellar are NOT based on PoS. They use a different consensus called PoC. Have you looked at their design at all?

keymone 8y ago
oh yeah, ofc, those two are just centralized pre-mine scams. that's even worse than PoS imho. the biggest question is why do people even consider them cryptocurrencies.