Zooko talking about PoS. PoS vs PoW Discussion

Do you have a link of that video? Would be interesting to see if he bought in bullish and made the math in bearish.

But beside that. I’am as well testing weekly POS and i absolutly admit there are a lot of sh*t POS designs and coins on them. Like they hybrid Dash, who the hell can invest 140,000 USD? Rediclious unfair, no doubt. Not even talking about the POS on the “scam” coins, of course you are losing here soon or less. IF someone promises you (like i have seen) annually 200+% POS rewards it won’t work out mostly. IF greed is bigger than brain, there is a good chance things will get bad.

But than again, you wrote the guy didn’t make much, that’s still better than a lose at all, right?

Strange nobody is commenting on the lower transaction speed and transactions per seconds. This even shocked me yesterday when i made that list yesterday. With 15 minutes speed and an average of 17 transactions/s we are a joke compared to privacy POS coins …

10000 stakers = 10000 tx?

?? not sure i understand this post? Can you explain please?

There is another thread which is better suited for proof-of-stake discussion (ping @shawn): ASICs in Zcash Software / Proof of Work/ Proof of Stake/ Fork Discussion

This get’s a bit tricky now what where when to post and where to draw the line what where belongs.

Just for example, where to post that list where i compare transaction speed, transaction/s in POS, GPU PoW, Asic PoW???

Eventually it would be best to close this topic and indeed continue in this Asics in Zcash/Proof of Work/Proof of Stake/Fork Discussion where indeed all further steps could be discussed…

This thread is from 25th February and by now we have different conditions, not?

POS discussion has been moved to this more recent thread.

If its a ASIC vs GPU discussion for mining then it goes in the Let’s talk about ASICs thread.

PoS vs Mining goes in this thread.

Its nice you made this list and everything, but when I talk about nodes on the network taking time to come to consensus with PoS, and the more nodes you have the harder it is, its not about transaction speeds.

EDIT: Also some of the fastest coins you use as an example are NOT a pure PoS system, they are DPoS. DPoS You delegate X amount of nodes that act for the network, this way you dont have millions of nodes. This was a fix to the problem of having to many nodes and slow consensus speeds.

I agree that the fastest POS or POS like Coins in the List are dPos or even not a real POS like Ripple.

However, there are enough examples that proof that even with ALL nodes staking it’s still has a faster transaction speed and more transaction per second.

A good balanced coin in my opinion is NEM, if i remember right they have 30+M wallets online. Of course not all of them are staking. From what i read (testing them next week) for vesting (Staking) it’s done with 20.000XEM, but the wallets with 10.000-19,999 XEM are used for system’s security and accountability, called harvesting there, and again get rewards for this task. Interesting unique setup, hence the 30 seconds transaction speed, hence 3000+ transactions/s…

Now of course if transaction speed and transaction amount aren’t a factor for future, so it be, but i have some doubts we are going far with average 15 minutes and some average 17 transactions/s, lol. But for me, nowadays, these numbers look allready ancient seeing what the competition is able to achieve…

Once again its not the same thing. The network comming to consensus is not the same as transaction speeds, however it can effect them.

Most the coins you have shown with fast transaction times are NOT pure PoS coins. And the ones that are, have a huge stake required that helps prevent millions of nodes.

You have not linked a system you have described earlier where 1 coin = 1 stake in a PURE PoS system with fast transaction times. Maybe you dont realize you dont like a PURE PoS system, and instead liked a DPoS system.

1 Like

Could next generation/future asics include these in regards to ProgPOW?

These results show that an ASIC specialized for executing ProgPoW would need to consist of:

  • A high bandwidth memory interface.
    (allready asked in the asic mining topic if hbm2 would fix this issue)

what about these? How difficult to design this on an Asic?

  • A compute core with a large register file.
  • A compute core with a high throughput integer math.
  • High throughput, highly banked cache.
  • Small Keccak + KISS99 engines.

Uppps, maybe this post belongs into the asic mining topic, no matter i replied to a post here…:thinking:

1 Like
2 Likes

If Bitmain could make a better GPU, im pretty sure they would have by now. Nvidia and AMD have been researching GPUs for over 20+ years. Its not something you just slap a few components on and now you have a ASIC that can do everything a GPU can but faster.

I think this is they guy on utube that I was talking about.I didn’t save the link. Anyways here you go -

1 Like

Thx for the link, quiet interesting, didn’t watch the whole video yet, but this guy is making a profit from staking, no matter half of the coins are absolutly never heared coins for me.

Will watch the whole video tomorrow, but from what i got out the guy made profit to fit it up.

2 Likes

This very good written article convinces me even more that the near future is POS/POS like consensus design and that we are losing ground.

"Bitcoin uses a Proof-of-Work algorithm which has well-documented challenges that threaten to be fatal. Proof-of-Stake has gained in popularity as a result and entails users showing that they have staked crypto on validating transactions, but favors the already-rich and runs the risk of creating a 51 percent shareholder.

The deep, structural issues with these methods are part of the reason that many startups have started looking for other ways of achieving consensus."

I thought the article would actually mention what the Bitcoin’s PoW flaws were, but that is all it said, How do we know that these other validation methods are more secure? They are all too new to say they are better. Once they become hacked we will see how good (or bad) they are.

Proof of Authority sounds good in concept for decentralization (if it limits the amount per person) and preventing attacks, but it needs to have very solid safeguards for privacy. Proof of Authority with zk-SNARK’s would be an intriguing method.

No system is perfect and this article doesnt even go into detail on how or why it thinks PoW has fatal flaws.

It then begins to talk about other systems that have yet to be proven or tested in the wild. Alot of the things they talk about are all theoritical and might be even more flawed and hackable then PoW.

In theory, Equihash algo was suppose to be ASIC-resistant and we all seen how that turned out.

Proof of Authority
“In theory, this provides a near-unhackable attack surface.”

Proof of Contribution
“An attack on the network is theoretically prevented by the high cost required to overload the system.”

To say PoW has flaws and have no supporting arguments is pretty weak. Then to say here are other systems that have solved the PoW problems. PoW has been tried and tested for 10 years now, and so far it has been the most successful blockchain.

2 Likes

I personally think most flaws of BTC POW are obvious and are even bigger outside BTC, they are obvious in my opinion, but here a list of them that apply to BTC and most other POW coins:

  • Tracing a coin’s history
  • design limitations
  • Several ways for a theoretical Sybill attack
  • Packet sniffing
  • Illegal content in the block chain
  • Energy Consumption, billions of watt to have just 7 transactions per block?
  • Scalability
  • Spamming transactions
  • High transaction costs on peeks, increasing over time.
  • Slow transactions
  • Limited transactions per second
  • Mining pool centralization. 5 mining pools have together over 50%, 6 miningpools together even 70%
  • Uselessness of computations
  • It’s an arms race between miners to develop more powerful and efficient equipment, and to operate in the lowest cost structures globally. This will lead to geographical centralization.
  • Expenses grow unmanageable, and mining becomes possible only for large groups of miners. In addition, specialized computers consume a lot of energy, which increases costs. The consequence of this is a gradual increase in the centralization of the system, as it is beneficial. And this is what happens in the case of bitcoin.
  • Various other attacks theoretical possible: Double spending or Race attack, Finney attack, Brute force attack, Vector 76 or one-confirmation attack, 50% hashpower or Goldfinger, Block discarding or Selfish mining, Block
    withholding, fork after withholding (FAW) attack …
  • huge increasing history data in the blockchain that must be downloaded
  • 81% of the BTC mining power is located in China
  • PoW has also proven to be not as decentralized as other consensus models. Due to the inherent reward system based on computational power, miners typically pool together into mining pools in order to compete for block rewards. This has created a centralized hierarchy within Bitcoin, with only three or four mining groups controlling the majority of block production. Because of this, the miners themselves are a source of centralization.
  • long queue of transactions in an overflow
  • The block reward is 25 coins now, and will be 0.78 coins in 20 years (some blocks already have fees of this magnitude).
  • Administrator of the pool can enact policies that demand higher transaction fees from users…
  • Why having a few (dozens) centrally controlled pools is bad? Less nodes in the decentralized network ⇒ weak network topology ⇒ network DoS attacks, network isolation attacks.

Some resources that describe these pretty well:

A Survey on Security and Privacy Issues of Bitcoin (36 pages!)

Proof of Activity: Extending Bitcoin’s Proof of Work via Proof of Stake (40 pages very interesting!!!)

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses

https://quintric.com/blockchain-technology/

2 Likes