FTC's future
-
Many thumbs up for @Bushstar! :)I will dump ftc if Bushstar leave.
Do you really think this helps the discussion any?
-
ORB was 0% PoS with fees destroyed and failed. There is nothing to debate because it did fail. When I took over, I implemented fixed block rewards and gave all fees to the miners. Finite coin supply, very predictable inflation. It works well so far.
It’s failure would be relevant if I was suggesting a similar model.
I’m not. Why don’t people get that?
-
We need to move to PoS still but 0% wont help anything anymore it seems.
I’m launching my own coin soon that will test a number of theories and I hope to set up the right conditions in which 0%PoS w/ TX fees could be viable. But until then, no one will ever know.
Feathercoin on the other hand. With all things considered. We need to go down a different road.
If we are to remain an “original coin” survivor in the next decade, we need to stay true to at least one aspect.
I’d hate to say it, but it’s the inflation model. PoS can keep that but avoid the shortcomings of PoW
As mentioned though. There is always that idea Etherum talked about.
-
I would never ever suggest using Peerconis PoS Model. There’s MUCH better models for doing PoS.
And that’s the problem: You continue to be wrong, yet you continue to defend your position.
Yes, it’s very easy to criticize decisions that were wrong to begin with, were pointed out to be wrong at the time, alternatives were offered and ignored, and the market continues to move against those decisions. They were the wrong decisions then, it was misinformation then, and it becomes lies when you continue to spread them when you’ve been repeatedly corrected.
When you make assertions can you please back them up with something like I am trying to on your request. It is not good enough for you to simply call me a “liar” on PoS without explaining how I am incorrect. I am happy to be corrected if you are able to. Please link us to a much better model of PoS than Peercoin’s so we can properly access it.
Was this other model of PoS available when ACP was on the table?
-
When you make assertions can you please back them up with something like I am trying to on your request. It is not good enough for you to simply call me a “liar” on PoS without explaining how I am incorrect. I am happy to be corrected if you are able to. Please link us to a much better model of PoS than Peercoin’s so we can properly access it.
Was this other model of PoS available when ACP was on the table?
It’s very simple: There’s no reason it has to work the way you described. You are just creating obstacles where there are none.
Yes, it was available when I was suggesting it, and you kept repeating the same untrue things then rather than listening. You wanted centralization, and you refused to even consider any other suggestions, learn about their merits, or discuss their implementations. At any time I’ve been available for you to come and ask me, “Hey, how would you implement this?” but you never do. You never reply to my suggestions on the forum, you never listen to my advice and you never learn why I’m pissed off about it all. You just do what you think is best and repeat the same untrue things that I’ve told you over and over are untrue.
-
OK this isn’t really helping!
How would you implement 0% PoS?
Would be great to know details like how long coins would be locked after staking (peercoin has 250blocks) how often the pos blocks would be minted and anything else that’s relevant as I don’t know too much about PoS. I’ve read a few articles since we last chatted but I’m new to the concept. -
OK this isn’t really helping!
How would you implement 0% PoS?
Would be great to know details like how long coins would be locked after staking (peercoin has 250blocks) how often the pos blocks would be minted and anything else that’s relevant as I don’t know too much about PoS. I’ve read a few articles since we last chatted but I’m new to the concept.How would I implement it? Via key signing using the outputs instead of spending them to create the verification hash that was then nonced for difficulty. That means an additional check in the verification step to make sure that the same output hasn’t been used to sign a block more than X blocks back. That way coins aren’t locked. It’s a trivial modification to the way PoS works.
And that’s why I’m so confused as to why everyone keeps ask me this: I’d implement it the way it makes the most sense to do given the requirements. That’s what we do as developers, and since the cryptographic protocols have been established and tested, so long as we don’t deviate from those we’re in fine shape. And if a compromise was needed along the way, we can discuss the ramifications of that compromise.
It’s like everyone thinks that PoS means a specific piece of code. It doesn’t, it means using your coins to generate block verification. Want it to not cause your coins to be unspendable? Fine, make it so you’re coins arn’t unspendable after staking. Want it so it doesn’t destroy mining rewards? Fine, make it so it doesn’t destroy mining rewards. Want it to not be a failure? Fine, find out what’s making it fail and fix it.
Don’t waste any more of my time telling me ways it doesn’t work without providing some damn good justification for WHY it CAN’T work that way. If you tell me why something can’t work a certain way, then I can problem solve around that problem and figure out a way it CAN. Anyone who insists it has to work a certain way without addressing why it has to work that way is just leading you down a bad path and wasting everyone’s time. What’s needed is for us to decide how it SHOULD work, and then we can see if it CAN work that way. We should NEVER waste time battling over how it DOESN’T work.
And that’s why, Bushstar, you have failed miserably at this: because you are too focused on other people’s solutions and you never come up with your own. You only know what other people have done, you have no vision for what can be done, and no understanding of the process when people explain it to you, like I’ve been doing since 2013.
-
Please link us to a much better model of PoS than Peercoin’s so we can properly access it.
Link you to the code you need to write? Or did you expect me to write a whitepaper on the solution for you?
Look, I don’t know why you’re leaning on me to do the job you’re supposed to be doing.
It’s just not that hard to do. I’ve proposed a solution, I’ve problem solved around every single one of the issues you and anyone else has raised, and I’m happy to discuss in more detail. There’s no issue that anyone has brought up that is either a misconception or a specific implementation detail for which I have provided an alternative solution for. I don’t understand why you don’t just start writing code for a PoS solution that works the way it needs to, and see what problems you encounter, and when you get stuck, or encounter a problem you don’t know how to solve, ask questions. As has always been the case, I’m here to answer them, and the community at large has proven very adept at finding many suggestions for solving specific problems. You’re being limited only by your own imagination, and perhaps by your ability to develop a solution using code.
I assure you that these solutions do not just present themselves to people fully formed and flawless. They come about as an iterative development process full of trial and error, and expecting me to just skip that process for you is simply not possible.
-
0% PoS will work just fine xBT when the time comes so there’s no need to debate about it here.
Aren’t we supposed to be sticking to the current inflation/coin production rate?
I’ll finish up my reading on PoS and come back with an idea.
-
https://wiki.nxtcrypto.org/wiki/Whitepaper:Nxt
In the Proof of Stake model used by Nxt, network security is governed by peers having a stake in the network. The incentives provided by this algorithm do not promote centralization in the same way that Proof of Work algorithms do, and data shows that the Nxt network has remained highly decentralized since its inception: a large (and growing) number of unique accounts are contributing blocks to the network[6], and the top five accounts have generated 35% of the total number of blocks[7].
The more tokens that are held in the account, the greater the chance that account will earn the right to generate a block. The total reward received as a result of block generation is the sum of the transaction fees located within the block. Nxt does not generate any new tokens as a result of block creation. Redistribution of Nxt takes place as a result of block generators receiving transaction fees, so the term forging (meaning in this context to create a relationship or new conditions[8]) is used instead of mining.
The security of the blockchain is always of concern in Proof of Stake systems. The following basic principles apply to Nxts Proof of Stake algorithm:
- A cumulative difficulty value is stored as a parameter in each block, and each subsequent block derives its new difficulty from the previous blocks value. In case of ambiguity, the network achieves consensus by selecting the block or chain fragment with the highest cumulative difficulty. This is covered in more detail in .
- To prevent account holders from moving their stake from one account to another as a means of manipulating their probability of block generation, tokens must be stationary within an account for 1,440 blocks before they can contribute to the block generation process. Tokens that meet this criterion contribute to an account’s effective balance, and this balance is used to determine forging probability.
- To keep an attacker from generating a new chain all the way from the genesis block, the network only allows chain re-organization 720 blocks behind the current block height. Any block submitted at a height lower than this threshold is rejected. This moving threshold may be viewed as Nxts only fixed checkpoint.
- Due to the extremely low probability of any account taking control of the blockchain by generating its own chain of blocks, transactions are deemed safe once they are encoded into a block that is 10 blocks behind the current block height.
Peercoin uses a coin age parameter as part of its mining probability algorithm. In that system, the longer your Peercoins have been stationary in your account (to a maximum of 90 days), the more power (coin age) they have to mint a block. The act of minting a block requires the consumption of coin age value, and the network determines consensus by selecting the chain with the largest total consumed coin age.
When Peercoin blocks are orphaned, the consumed coin age is released back to the blocks originating account. As a result, the cost to attack the Peercoin network is low, since attackers can keep attempting to generate blocks (referred to as grinding stake) until they succeed. Peercoin minimizes these and other risks by centrally broadcasting blockchain checkpoints several times a day, to freeze the blockchain and lock in transactions.
Nxt does not use coin age as part of its forging algorithm. An account’s chance to forge a block depends only on its effective balance (which is a property of each account), the time since the last block (which is shared by all forging accounts) and the base target value (which is also shared by all accounts).
-
http://eprint.iacr.org/2014/452.pdf
Proof of Activity: Extending Bitcoin’s Proof of Work via Proof of Stake
The PoA protocol seeks to decentralize the power that synchronizes the transactions in a quite pronounced
fashion. To monopolize the block creation process, an attacker needs to control a substantial fraction of the
total amount of coins that have been generated thus far. We argue that in likely scenarios the cost of an
attack would be much higher with the PoA protocol than with Bitcoin’s pure PoW protocol. Furthermore,
the PoA protocol is likely to accomplish other benecial properties, namely an improved network topology,
incentives for maintaining full online nodes, low transaction fees, and a more ecient energy usage.
-
PoS Strengths and Weaknesses
https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/05/stake/
If it can be implemented correctly, in theory proof of stake has many advantages. In particular are three:
- It does not waste any significant amount of electicity. Sure, there is a need for stakeholders to keep trying to produce blocks, but no one gains any benefit from making more than one attempt per account per second; hence, the electricity expenditure is comparable to any other non-wasteful internet protocol (eg. BitTorrent)
- It can arguably provide a much higher level of security. In proof of work, assuming a liquid market for computing power the cost of launching a 51% attack is equal to the cost of the computing power of the network over the course of two hours â€" an amount that, by standard economic principles, is roughly equal to the total sum of block rewards and transaction fees provided in two hours. In proof of stake, the threshold is theoretically much higher: 51% of the entire supply of the currency.
- Depending on the precise algorithm in question it can potentially allow for much faster blockchains (eg. NXT has one block every few seconds, compared to one per minute for Ethereum and one per ten minutes for Bitcoin)
Note that there is one important counterargument that has been made to #2: if a large entity credibly commits to purchasing 51% of currency units and then using those funds to repeatedly sabotage the network, then the price will fall drastically, making it much easier for that entity to puchase the tokens. This does somewhat mitigate the benefit of stake, although not nearly fatally; an entity that can credibly commit to purchasing 50% of coins is likely also one that can launch 51% attacks against proof of work.
Please dont mind me. I’m just grabbing bits from here and there and putting in this once place so i look over them all a bit more thoroughly.
-
I’m interested in seeing a debate over PoA and NXT’s PoS model.
Maybe we can do a variant of one of em or tweak one or the other or both or something.
-
What about block selection could we use coin age or just number of coins staked.
As for security peercoin has ACP nxt seems to limit reorgs to 720 blocks and etherum has proposed a solution that could punish miners for staking on two chains. (Which sounds a little too late)
I think the argument about no one staking may be incorrect I’d be happy to stake for the good of the community and the coin. Its the good Samaritan PoS. Plus you could have the chance of tx fees.
But this works in our favour on the security front as with little or no incentive attackers won’t see the benefit of attacking via pos.
-
This may be off piste a little but I’ve been looking at the latest implementation of bitcoinj which has support for deterministic addresses. Bit30? Or some thing. With the new core could we support this as well?
I would like to try to fork it directly to Feathercoin rather than use a old litecoin version. But they seem to have changed the structure somewhat between version 9 we have and the latest version 12. They also have a very cool javaFX sample wallet which would be nice to implement.
I know I keep banging on about java. I just think we could have more people involved in the development if we had a stable java platform.
Anyway tell me what you think and I’ll continue to look into it.
-
Link you to the code you need to write? Or did you expect me to write a whitepaper on the solution for you?
Here’s the thing, you are smoke and mirrors. 100% PoS is bad, your ideas are bad and you know it. You assume that people are ignorant so you can mislead us into a terrible situation. It is sad to see you corrupting people with ideas you know do not work out. When suggesting a change you need to prove to the Feathercoin community that something works but you say you will not even provide Feathercoin to any working code, because the code does not exist or work and you will never actually commit any coding for this project. The 100% PoS coins out there that use zero confirmations on stake blocks are very poor and give the impression of being produced by people who are reckless and do not care about the coin’s long term future.
Here’s an example of one…
Another example of how you try to steer us to death, your suggestion to set the blocking of reorgs in the client to five instead of doing so by ACP. This idea was well accepted and people were running with it until Ghostlander said how terribly dangerous it was. The result of your idea would have been “forks everywhere”, your words when I asked you why that idea was stupid on Slack instant messaging. I was checking to see if you actually knew why it was dangerous and wanted us dead or you actually do not understand the tech. Turns out you knew exactly how dangerous that idea was but you pushed it on people anyway.
You are not a friend of Feathercoin, you are a bully and try to divide the community and try to sell terrible ideas.
-
The immediate future is clear in my opinion, we get Feathercoin 0.9.3 working with SX and ACP. This work is almost complete and it should not be hard to polish it off and close the remaining issues. Lizhi reports that there is a conflict with SX and ACP, I am setting up a testnet with new genesis block and will run it with an ACP node and trial some SX TXs to see where the issue lies. This to me is the last hurdle for release.
-
I wish FTC to remain true to its main goals, an open source coin that encourages distributed production. I agree with Bush we should stick to our our original PoW methodology.
However, I think crypto currency is moving to the next stage where the stability and longevity of FTC will be a significant factor.
It is no longer possible to keep up on all the developments in crypto currency, so we do need to concentrate on our core values, maintaining the block chain network and supporting members by information and developing wallet and mining software. Members are then free to use that technology to use for value transfer, projects like Hull coin, or other uses of this advanced technology we are supporting. I see this as how open source will work for all projects in the future.
I would advise collaboration of a web site update. To include those that arn’t into the software testing, I think that including a re-branding / publicity campaign for the 2nd anniversary. I advise Feathercoin to be re branded as FTC. It is a more professional brand and easier to make a good logo.
By using Github, (as Chrisj has shown with the world passport), any project (like the web site) can be easily controlled and contributed to in an open way.
-
Having just read through the entire thread I think one fundamental issue has not been raised or discussed. You are missing the commercialisation piece.
We are cut off from our customers, i.e. the people who are actually going to USE the coin. Correct me if I’m wrong, but transactions have fallen significantly, and no amount of theorising about the economics or inventing new technical solutions is going to change the fact that people aren’t using FTC for anything. You want to solve the problems with the world economy, great, who is going to use PoS, PoA, or PoW? As a consumer, I don’t have time to read around the topic to understand the solutions being suggested in real terms, and nor should I.
If you want me (as a new customer of the coin) to use your product, I’m going to need to be convinced it has benefit without having to understand the technology behind it. Give me a 2 line value proposition for these ideas!
Enough with the intellectual wanking; it is of the utmost importance that we start to re-engage with our potential users. I remember a time when our VP was that you could buy beer with FTC. It sounds simple, but that was such a key selling point to many people… where are we headed now? If I come to the forums and read the news, its way out of date. We need a new ChrisJ to keep the outside world up to speed with developments and to engage with customers to find out what they want. Customers --> requirements --> idea/solution --> technical development. That is the order of things and we don’t have customers right now.
-
Great point.
