clout



Offline



Activity: 209

Merit: 100







Full MemberActivity: 209Merit: 100 Which Proof of Stake System is the Most Viable April 25, 2014, 08:15:41 PM

Last edit: May 31, 2014, 08:02:47 PM by clout #1 There has been a lot of discussion lately on whether or not proof of stake is a feasible substitute for proof of work. I have come to believe that it is a necessary progression of the crypto currency space toward consensus systems that do not involve arbitrary work and artificially valuable resources. Proof of stake, as I see it, is a step in that direction. Of all the proof of stake coins/projects, I found three thoroughly documented approaches to solving issues associated with distributed consensus - PeerCoin, Nxt, and Bitshares. Each project has its on merits as well as shortcomings. I put it to the community to vote and discuss on which approach has the best promise.



The relevant white papers are as follows:



Peercoin - http://www.peercoin.net/assets/paper/peercoin-paper.pdf Abstract:

Quote A peer-to-peer crypto-currency design derived from Satoshi Nakamotos Bitcoin.

Proof-of-stake replaces proof-of-work to provide most of the network security.

Under this hybrid design proof-of-work mainly provides initial minting and is

largely non-essential in the long run. Security level of the network is not

dependent on energy consumption in the long term thus providing an energyefficient

and more cost-competitive peer-to-peer crypto-currency. Proof-of-stake

is based on coin age and generated by each node via a hashing scheme bearing

similarity to Bitcoins but over limited search space. Block chain history and

transaction settlement are further protected by a centrally broadcasted checkpoint

mechanism. Nxt - http://wiki.nxtcrypto.org/wiki/Whitepaper:Nxt

Abstract:

Quote Bitcoin has proven that a peer-to-peer electronic cash system can indeed work and fulfill payments processing without requiring trust or a central mint. However, bitcoin has several shortcomings that prevent it from becoming the basis of an electronic economy. In order for an entire electronic economy to be based on a peer-to-peer solution, it must be able to do the following:

Process thousands of transactions, quickly

Provide a means for generating income

Practical means for adding new features

Be able to run on mobile devices

NXT satisfies all these requirements and additionally eliminates the Ghash arms race that bitcoin's proof of work requires. NXT is based on 100% proof-of-stake and this required an initial distribution to be made. While many are not comfortable with the specific initial distribution of the genesis block, when asked: "How would you solve problem with scam accusations according to "unfair" distribution NXT to 73 big stakeholders?", BCNext answered: "This problem can not be solved. Even if we had a million stakeholders the rest seven billion people would call this unfair. A world with the money can not be perfect".[1]

The fundamental improvement of NXT is Transparent Forging. This is the key innovation of NXT that allows it to process thousands of transactions per second.

Bitshares (DPoS - http://bitshares.org/delegated-proof-of-stake/)

Dpos Abstract:

Quote This paper introduces a new implementation of proof of stake that can validate transactions in seconds while providing greater security in a shorter period of time than all existing proof of stake systems. In the time it takes Bitcoin to produce a single block a DPOS system can have your transaction verified by 20% of the shareholders and by the time Bitcoin claims the transaction is almost irreversible (6 blocks, 1 hour) your transaction under DPOS has been verified by 100% of the shareholders through their delegates. [/list] Abstract:Abstract:Dpos Abstract:[/list]

franky1



Offline



Activity: 2884

Merit: 1751









LegendaryActivity: 2884Merit: 1751 Re: Which Proof of Stake System is the Most Viable April 25, 2014, 09:54:15 PM #2 answer: none



if a certain mining script was any better then the other due to efficiency, then giv it enough time and greedy miners will pile on so many rigs to get the biggest slice of the reward pie. and others will do the same to compete until its no longer efficient.



no matter what th 'puzzle' is to get a reward, people will buy as much equipment as they can to compete. so changing bitcoin with an aim of efficiency is only going to last a few weeks before the competition meets or exceeds the old mining protocols.



so the big picture is that it wont change a thing I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.

Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at

franky1



Offline



Activity: 2884

Merit: 1751









LegendaryActivity: 2884Merit: 1751 Re: Which Proof of Stake System is the Most Viable April 25, 2014, 11:37:45 PM #4 Quote from: odolvlobo on April 25, 2014, 11:24:56 PM Quote from: franky1 on April 25, 2014, 09:54:15 PM answer: none

if a certain mining script was any better then the other due to efficiency, then giv it enough time and greedy miners will pile on so many rigs to get the biggest slice of the reward pie. and others will do the same to compete until its no longer efficient.

no matter what th 'puzzle' is to get a reward, people will buy as much equipment as they can to compete. so changing bitcoin with an aim of efficiency is only going to last a few weeks before the competition meets or exceeds the old mining protocols.

so the big picture is that it wont change a thing



You have no idea what proof-of-stake is.

You have no idea what proof-of-stake is.

you have no idea that in the grand scheme of things it doesnt really matter.. be honest what will the differences actually achieve, dont think of the narrow minded problem, think global and long term you have no idea that in the grand scheme of things it doesnt really matter.. be honest what will the differences actually achieve, dont think of the narrow minded problem, think global and long term I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.

Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at

jonald_fyookball



Offline



Activity: 1302

Merit: 1002





Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political







LegendaryActivity: 1302Merit: 1002Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political Re: Which Proof of Stake System is the Most Viable April 26, 2014, 12:33:21 AM #5

thanks for providing the links so

we can compare the 3 systems.



Here's just my 2 cents on the

matter:



I think the most important things

are how are new blocks formed,

and how is consensus achieved.

(Minting is a distant second,

and I didn't delve into that).



I'll give my summary of each

system and my conclusions to follow.



1. Peercoin:



- Instead of using the longest

chain method, they use the

chain with the longest "coin days"

of the transactions in the blocks

in the chain.



An interesting proposal, seems to work

in theory because someone

with a large wallet who sends

themselves coins goes back to

0 coin days, and thus cannot

be easily manipulated.



However, in practice is currently

relying on checkpointing... and

the whitepaper admits it

may not even work as well

as Bitcoin to prevent a 51%

attack.



2. Nxt



This uses a semi-random

deterministic protocol to

decide what node forges

the next block.



While this sounds quite neutral

and fair, the downside is this:



Quote Up to 720 recent blocks can be "re-organized" by the network in case of problems,

so a transaction is considered irreversible after 721 confirmations. Transactions that have been confirmed 1440 times are considered permanent .



with 60-second blocks, 1440 minutes = 24 hours to fully confirm. Not great.

If this could be improved, it would be excellent.



3. Bitshares:



Uses a "delegated proof of stake" protocol,

which is similar to the Ripple consensus algorithm

(basically a club of trusted nodes) except you

use your shares in the coin to vote for what

nodes you trust ("delegation").



The positive side of this system is faster

confirmation, but its more centralized.



They make the point that Bitcoin isn't really

that distributed due to mining pools, and

other proof of stake systems aren't really

that distributed due to people not running

full nodes...



Conclusion:



(these are just my initial OPINIONS,

which always subject to revision):



Bronze Medal: Bitshares.



I like the Bitshares solution the least out

of all 3. It seems far too centralized

and dependent on people rather than math,

although it still seems like it could work.





Silver Medal: Nxt



Currently, it takes way too long to fully

confirm transactions, but has some powerful

principles behind it, very well documented,

with smart people...and probably further

research could be done to improve confirmation

time.



Gold Medal: Peercoin



I like this solution the most because

it is the simplest. Simple solutions

are usually the best, which is why

proof-of-work and longest chain has

stood the test of time.



It would be nice to see if Peercoin

would work without checkpointing.



-----



There you go. Will be interesting

to see what other folks think.

Thanks clout. Very good topic andthanks for providing the links sowe can compare the 3 systems.Here's just my 2 cents on thematter:I think the most important thingsare how are new blocks formed,and how is consensus achieved.(Minting is a distant second,and I didn't delve into that).I'll give my summary of eachsystem and my conclusions to follow.- Instead of using the longestchain method, they use thechain with the longest "coin days"of the transactions in the blocksin the chain.An interesting proposal, seems to workin theory because someonewith a large wallet who sendsthemselves coins goes back to0 coin days, and thus cannotbe easily manipulated.However, in practice is currentlyrelying on checkpointing... andthe whitepaper admits itmay not even work as wellas Bitcoin to prevent a 51%attack.This uses a semi-randomdeterministic protocol todecide what node forgesthe next block.While this sounds quite neutraland fair, the downside is this:with 60-second blocks, 1440 minutes = 24 hours to fully confirm. Not great.If this could be improved, it would be excellent.Uses a "delegated proof of stake" protocol,which is similar to the Ripple consensus algorithm(basically a club of trusted nodes) except youuse your shares in the coin to vote for whatnodes you trust ("delegation").The positive side of this system is fasterconfirmation, but its more centralized.They make the point that Bitcoin isn't reallythat distributed due to mining pools, andother proof of stake systems aren't reallythat distributed due to people not runningfull nodes...(these are just my initial OPINIONS,which always subject to revision):Bronze Medal: Bitshares.I like the Bitshares solution the least outof all 3. It seems far too centralizedand dependent on people rather than math,although it still seems like it could work.Silver Medal: NxtCurrently, it takes way too long to fullyconfirm transactions, but has some powerfulprinciples behind it, very well documented,with smart people...and probably furtherresearch could be done to improve confirmationtime.Gold Medal: PeercoinI like this solution the most becauseit is the simplest. Simple solutionsare usually the best, which is whyproof-of-work and longest chain hasstood the test of time.It would be nice to see if Peercoinwould work without checkpointing.-----There you go. Will be interestingto see what other folks think. proof LN isn't Decentralized official Electron Cash wallet

clout



Offline



Activity: 209

Merit: 100







Full MemberActivity: 209Merit: 100 Re: Which Proof of Stake System is the Most Viable April 26, 2014, 08:21:12 AM #6 i messed up the link to the other half of the bitshares solution which is transactions as proof of stake. i think the tapos paper is probably the best of all the ones that i posted. it seems to solve all the problems that peercoin has and at a much lower cost given that peercoin is a hybrid that still issues coins to miners. the network is secured by coin days destroyed as with peercoin but instead of requiring individuals to volunteer there stake to the network and expose their private key, tapos simply uses the coin days destroyed from transactions. this shifts proof of stake from being a manual process to an automatic process. additionally, each transaction includes the hash of a recent block so as to make attacking the network by way of a secret chain unfeasible. since with pos systems the coin days destroys determine confirmation, someone with a secret chain could not leverage the coin days destroyed of the public chain. tapos uses proof of work mining only to produce blocks, not for network security. the difficulty of mining a block is inversely correlated to the coin days destroyed in that block, thereby preventing denial of service. although bitshares gets rid of the mining aspect from the original tapos paper with the delegate model, i do believe that tapos is still the underlying consensus mechanism.

Brangdon



Offline



Activity: 362

Merit: 250







Sr. MemberActivity: 362Merit: 250 Re: Which Proof of Stake System is the Most Viable April 28, 2014, 04:57:07 PM #8 Quote from: clout on April 26, 2014, 08:21:12 AM additionally, each transaction includes the hash of a recent block so as to make attacking the network by way of a secret chain unfeasible.

I like that idea. Does it mean transactions run a risk of picking the wrong recent block? As I understand it transactions can only be included in block-chains that contain the block they nominated, so if they nominated a block that gets orphaned, they will never be accepted into the main block-chain and the transaction itself becomes orphaned too.



This feels like it could have potential for double-spends worse than in Bitcoin. In Bitcoin, when the block-chain forks, both forks can contain the same transactions so most transactions are unaffected by a fork. In TaPoS, as I understand it, a fork means a lot of transactions will be reverted, and will have to be re-broadcast with a new nominated block. If the sender does nothing, the receiver will never get paid, so double-spending becomes the default result of a fork rather than something that only happens if a sender is actively criminal.



To avoid nominating a wrong block, a transaction would like to nominate a really old block, ideally the genesis block, so it can be included in either/both sides of the fork. Presumably the protocol disallows that by enforcing "recent". If so, does that mean that transactions expire? If "recent" means within 5 blocks, a transaction that fails to be included for 6 blocks can never be accepted. Transactions seem to be in a bit of a bind. They want to nominate a young block to minimise their risk of expiring, and an old block to minimise their risk of being discarded by a fork.



Is there anything to stop the same transaction (ie, same inputs/outputs) being issued multiple times, each time nominating a different block, to minimise the chances of it being orphaned? At most one of the versions will be accepted into the longest chain, so it would seem to be free. If so, isn't that the rational thing for a client to do (supposing it genuinely wants its transactions to be executed), and doesn't it make the "Transactions as Proof of Stake" thing pointless? Every transaction will vote for every block, just in case that block wins.



Is there a thread where these issues are discussed? I'm probably mis-understanding or re-inventing wheels. I like that idea. Does it mean transactions run a risk of picking the wrong recent block? As I understand it transactions can only be included in block-chains that contain the block they nominated, so if they nominated a block that gets orphaned, they will never be accepted into the main block-chain and the transaction itself becomes orphaned too.This feels like it could have potential for double-spends worse than in Bitcoin. In Bitcoin, when the block-chain forks, both forks can contain the same transactions so most transactions are unaffected by a fork. In TaPoS, as I understand it, a fork means a lot of transactions will be reverted, and will have to be re-broadcast with a new nominated block. If the sender does nothing, the receiver will never get paid, so double-spending becomes the default result of a fork rather than something that only happens if a sender is actively criminal.To avoid nominating a wrong block, a transaction would like to nominate a really old block, ideally the genesis block, so it can be included in either/both sides of the fork. Presumably the protocol disallows that by enforcing "recent". If so, does that mean that transactions expire? If "recent" means within 5 blocks, a transaction that fails to be included for 6 blocks can never be accepted. Transactions seem to be in a bit of a bind. They want to nominate a young block to minimise their risk of expiring, and an old block to minimise their risk of being discarded by a fork.Is there anything to stop the same transaction (ie, same inputs/outputs) being issued multiple times, each time nominating a different block, to minimise the chances of it being orphaned? At most one of the versions will be accepted into the longest chain, so it would seem to be free. If so, isn't that the rational thing for a client to do (supposing it genuinely wants its transactions to be executed), and doesn't it make the "Transactions as Proof of Stake" thing pointless? Every transaction will vote for every block, just in case that block wins.Is there a thread where these issues are discussed? I'm probably mis-understanding or re-inventing wheels. Bitcoin: 1BrangfWu2YGJ8W6xNM7u66K4YNj2mie3t Nxt: NXT-XZQ9-GRW7-7STD-ES4DB

sockpuppet_5



Offline



Activity: 9

Merit: 0







NewbieActivity: 9Merit: 0 Re: Which Proof of Stake System is the Most Viable May 02, 2014, 04:48:29 AM #11 I've heard that PeerCoin's version of POS is more vulnerable because it calculates the size of the stake using the number of days the coins have been held. This supposedly makes it more vulnerable to attack, but I can't find the post where this was discussed. come-from-beyond mentioned it on the NXT forum (I think).



I love them all. POW is doomed eventually, but it might be a few years off yet.

cryptohunter



Offline



Activity: 2100

Merit: 1167



MY RED TRUST LEFT BY SCUMBAGS - READ MY SIG







LegendaryActivity: 2100Merit: 1167MY RED TRUST LEFT BY SCUMBAGS - READ MY SIG Re: Which Proof of Stake System is the Most Viable May 02, 2014, 11:29:10 AM #16 Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 26, 2014, 12:33:21 AM

thanks for providing the links so

we can compare the 3 systems.



Here's just my 2 cents on the

matter:



I think the most important things

are how are new blocks formed,

and how is consensus achieved.

(Minting is a distant second,

and I didn't delve into that).



I'll give my summary of each

system and my conclusions to follow.



1. Peercoin:



- Instead of using the longest

chain method, they use the

chain with the longest "coin days"

of the transactions in the blocks

in the chain.



An interesting proposal, seems to work

in theory because someone

with a large wallet who sends

themselves coins goes back to

0 coin days, and thus cannot

be easily manipulated.



However, in practice is currently

relying on checkpointing... and

the whitepaper admits it

may not even work as well

as Bitcoin to prevent a 51%

attack.



2. Nxt



This uses a semi-random

deterministic protocol to

decide what node forges

the next block.



While this sounds quite neutral

and fair, the downside is this:



Quote Up to 720 recent blocks can be "re-organized" by the network in case of problems,

so a transaction is considered irreversible after 721 confirmations. Transactions that have been confirmed 1440 times are considered permanent .



with 60-second blocks, 1440 minutes = 24 hours to fully confirm. Not great.

If this could be improved, it would be excellent.



3. Bitshares:



Uses a "delegated proof of stake" protocol,

which is similar to the Ripple consensus algorithm

(basically a club of trusted nodes) except you

use your shares in the coin to vote for what

nodes you trust ("delegation").



The positive side of this system is faster

confirmation, but its more centralized.



They make the point that Bitcoin isn't really

that distributed due to mining pools, and

other proof of stake systems aren't really

that distributed due to people not running

full nodes...



Conclusion:



(these are just my initial OPINIONS,

which always subject to revision):



Bronze Medal: Bitshares.



I like the Bitshares solution the least out

of all 3. It seems far too centralized

and dependent on people rather than math,

although it still seems like it could work.





Silver Medal: Nxt



Currently, it takes way too long to fully

confirm transactions, but has some powerful

principles behind it, very well documented,

with smart people...and probably further

research could be done to improve confirmation

time.



Gold Medal: Peercoin



I like this solution the most because

it is the simplest. Simple solutions

are usually the best, which is why

proof-of-work and longest chain has

stood the test of time.



It would be nice to see if Peercoin

would work without checkpointing.



-----



There you go. Will be interesting

to see what other folks think.



Thanks clout. Very good topic andthanks for providing the links sowe can compare the 3 systems.Here's just my 2 cents on thematter:I think the most important thingsare how are new blocks formed,and how is consensus achieved.(Minting is a distant second,and I didn't delve into that).I'll give my summary of eachsystem and my conclusions to follow.- Instead of using the longestchain method, they use thechain with the longest "coin days"of the transactions in the blocksin the chain.An interesting proposal, seems to workin theory because someonewith a large wallet who sendsthemselves coins goes back to0 coin days, and thus cannotbe easily manipulated.However, in practice is currentlyrelying on checkpointing... andthe whitepaper admits itmay not even work as wellas Bitcoin to prevent a 51%attack.This uses a semi-randomdeterministic protocol todecide what node forgesthe next block.While this sounds quite neutraland fair, the downside is this:with 60-second blocks, 1440 minutes = 24 hours to fully confirm. Not great.If this could be improved, it would be excellent.Uses a "delegated proof of stake" protocol,which is similar to the Ripple consensus algorithm(basically a club of trusted nodes) except youuse your shares in the coin to vote for whatnodes you trust ("delegation").The positive side of this system is fasterconfirmation, but its more centralized.They make the point that Bitcoin isn't reallythat distributed due to mining pools, andother proof of stake systems aren't reallythat distributed due to people not runningfull nodes...(these are just my initial OPINIONS,which always subject to revision):Bronze Medal: Bitshares.I like the Bitshares solution the least outof all 3. It seems far too centralizedand dependent on people rather than math,although it still seems like it could work.Silver Medal: NxtCurrently, it takes way too long to fullyconfirm transactions, but has some powerfulprinciples behind it, very well documented,with smart people...and probably furtherresearch could be done to improve confirmationtime.Gold Medal: PeercoinI like this solution the most becauseit is the simplest. Simple solutionsare usually the best, which is whyproof-of-work and longest chain hasstood the test of time.It would be nice to see if Peercoinwould work without checkpointing.-----There you go. Will be interestingto see what other folks think.

interesting and educational post. interesting and educational post.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1764757.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2829282 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4895354.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5098315.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5105851.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5110041.0 MY RED TRUST WAS LEFT BY UNTRUSTWORTHY SCUM BAGS CHECK