I disagree. Let’s examine the POW spending pressure:
you have pressure from your current/future hardware investment
you have monthly pressure paying electricity bills.
you have pressure paying mining pools while mining, 1-2% isn’t that low if you think about it.
some others minor issues and expenses…
Analyzing this sell pressure doesn’t do any good for yourself. You don’t buy or use anything of the above for yourself, absolutly nothing of this, neither you paid your taxes with it, nor anything. Even worse, it’s a sell pressure that forces huge amounts of money out of crypto space. Worst case for every crypto believer that thinks a bit more about it.
IF you want crypto to be used, the sell to FIAT pressure must be eleminated in my opinion. Crytpo should stay in Crypto and this would really free up resources/crypto to purchase other things.
Come on, i’am a POW miner myself. Sometimes i think about using my mined crypto and than i have to do the calculation that at current price my investment didn’t ROI yet and that at this price with the current expenses i can’t use that given coin yet… And as said in the post above this, i allready spend daily my POS rewards for other things, absolutly daily, and i’am pretty sure that’s more real spending than most POW miners are doing.
“We began a coordinated disclosure in October 2018 to notify development teams of affected cryptocurrencies ahead of this public release. The majority of them (weighted by marketcap) have already deployed mitigations.”
Heres the paper 180-preproceedings.pdf (109.5 KB)
Thx a lot for this article. Exactly the coins someone anyway should avoid seem to use a copy & paste POS approach, at least more or less without much dev involved.
Only coin that made me wonder being on the list is PIvx, thought they had a better approach on POS than this…
Idea - a second, independent blockchain assigned half the reward that operates a PoR algo like GRC
GRC isnt suitable for a payment system because of long indeterminate block times (due to the meaningful work executed by all sorts of devices taking indeterminate time) but may be ideal for timelocking, also currently incorporates PoS and Zerocash protocol (for account protection from hijacking)
Once released, the reward could be staked or sent to the main chain but no Zcash could ever return (? About this), seems it would incentivize staking while permanently limiting the amount staked as no main chain Zcash can go to chainB (maybe timelock releases to a zb addy, maybe the only that exist for chainB, then the only possibilities are stake or send to a zs only so stakes could never be merged)
The only 51% attack for this system is a stake buyout and if the payouts are equal from point of implementation, then chainB will never have >51% so perhaps disallowing the transference around on chain may be unnecessary or perhaps even detrimental to pools and such idk (or scrap the pools we probably dont need them for this system) https://altcoinwiki.org/en/Proof-of-Research
Thoughts?
Uhmmm, i have some problems understanding the whole thingie, lol. Any chance you describe it easier?
I more or less abondanded the thought ZEC + something POS like as it’s clear by now that something else than pure POW isn’t the target the next 2 years …
Okay here’s an idea pertaining to the proof-of-work nd proof of research\ proof of stake idea I described above
Let’s assume the blocks keep in time or even shorter time than the main chain instead of longer and the time lock mechanism would be simply part of the stake and burn
What if the second chain along with the research stuff also contained each block of the first chain and then the staker’s who would normally verify transactions (which aren’t happening on chain 2) verify the main chain transactions and produce a shard and proof
Idk its late
This seems like it may potentially solve the sharding of potentially conflicting transactions because these transactions are in fact already verified on the first chain (albeit maybe only once thats how it is now)
