Quote from: ThomasVeil on January 17, 2015, 12:50:43 PM

I highlighted the key word for you.
Yes, if you're simply already owning a stake of a size ~~that never existed in NXT~~ - and you additionally simply ~~scam yourself into 41% more~~ - and then simply buy 100% of all that value in shorts, and then simply gain another 30% so you cover your costs. Then you can attack.
Why did no one think of that before?

10% is needed for an attack. Re-read the research paper sir. None of that 10% needs to be owned either as we have discussed.

Quote from: ThomasVeil on January 17, 2015, 12:50:43 PM

Clearly there is zero gambling in your perfect scheme.

There are risks with all attacks. We are discussing a specific scenario where attacking PoS is far less risky than a similar attack with PoW.

Quote from: ThomasVeil on January 17, 2015, 12:50:43 PM

Clearly you didn't because you still don't even know what the term "nothing" means.

You also understand that in physics "nothing" does not have the same connotation as within philosophy?
Of course some effort is needed to perform a N@S attack. I am using the definition as defined by Buterin and kushti.

Quote from: ThomasVeil on January 17, 2015, 12:50:43 PM

Yes, and in not a single word you said you ever talked about N@S. All the links you provided actually conclude specifically that N@S does not exist, or is not realistically executable.

Vitalik is going with PoW for ethereum despite all his research into TaPoS and weak subjectivity. Why?

Quote from: kushti on December 18, 2014, 05:12:37 PM

- we have formally defined nothing-at-stake attack(again, using Buterin's informal definition) and made initial simulations. We haven't included their results in paper as they are seems to be too raw, but I can reveal them here: N@S attack could happens only in short-range, e.g. for within 20 blocks for 10% stake, so with 30 confirmations we haven't observed the successful attack. Also please note the attack has pretty unpredictable nature for attacker, so he can hardly enforce it, even in theory(in practice it's even harder to get it done properly). The correlation with stake size is still the open question, but it's nearly impossible to attack a proof-of-stake currency with "1% stake even" as stated by Buterin

All this being said, TaPoS has some security differences, advantages and disadvantages to PoW and would nicely compliment Bitcoin as an additional wallet layer or sidechain.