Quote from: pokapeski on June 14, 2017, 07:25:58 PM

Quote from: dinofelis on June 14, 2017, 07:10:12 PM

Quote from: pokapeski on June 14, 2017, 07:06:21 PM

Quote from: XbladeX on June 14, 2017, 01:04:51 PM

this agreement is joke from community . This reminds me LTC round table when 12 miners called themselves all users.
I have never been fo staing at 1MB forever but this binding segwit to HF in 6 months is joke.
HF to just increase to 2MB is weak. With HF you can add some good features to protocol why rush so much.
I don't want BTC hijacked by miners and their GREED...
this agreement is joke from 90% users running core client that are my 2 cents

Agreed. UASF is the way with a blockchain with no miners

Undecided

That's perfectly possible, but that's a proof of stake consensus chain, not a proof of work consensus chain.

My personal opinion is that bitcoin's scaling problems will be solved once the "bitcoin" brand has eroded away his first mover value, which seems to come quicker than I thought. Most probably, by August or November, this will already be the case. Once the unicity of bitcoin's brand name is not the main stake any more, forking will not be hampered by "but we should get the bitcoin brand name with our chain", and one will be able to fork without fear.
That's just my personal intuition at this point.

Please meet my friend, the byzantine general :p

edit: just in case. I was not intending to be offensive with the post. just a joke.

You mean the "nothing at stake" difficulty ? There's a solution to that in fact. But it would alter so much the idea behind bitcoin, that it wouldn't be bitcoin any more. The only difficulty with "nothing at stake" is the silly idea that consensus needs to be rewarded. If you do proof of stake without reward, then there's no "nothing at stake" problem, because there's also nothing to gain from double-staking. The problem in bitcoin and most alt coins, is that one wants to reward consensus, which makes consensus part of a gain strategy, which renders consensus decisions, exactly, part of a game-theoretical notion.

This is not necessary. The only thing that was needed in the consensus decision, is to avoid Sybil attacks, to make your "evil" consensus decisions more probable and sustainable than would be the case if most users wanted the system to function honestly. With proof of work, you have to waste economic resources to prove your 'unicity'. Of course, nobody is going to waste huge amounts of resources from his pocket to help the system coming to consensus, so this is why PoW NEEDS to reward consensus decisions, which, in its turn, leads to all the game-theoretical problems, that end up by economies of scale, to centralize the consensus decision in the hands of an oligarchy. Which is what happened to bitcoin.
Without proof of work, there's no resources to be wasted ON PURPOSE. But we need another way to protect against Sybil attacks, and to avoid that an evil minority pretends to be a large majority "voting over consensus". One way would be to use "real world ID" or something, but that goes against the spirit of crypto. But a very simple way is to "prove stake". To associate your ID and your weight by stake. You cannot Sybil it because you cannot prove more stake than you really hold.

The silly thing in proof of stake coins, is that they KEPT the reward scheme of PoW consensus. Let us not forget that the reward in PoW was necessary to compensate the economic losses of proof of work, that nobody would be willing to pay for otherwise, "for the community". But in PoS, there's only a node you need to keep running. All non-mining full nodes are voluntary contributions to the bitcoin network that do not get paid. If these nodes were signing with PoS, they would establish a consensus decision, and there's no need for rewards.

In fact, rewards, which are necessary in PoW, render indeed, PoS problematic with the "nothing at stake" strategy. But without rewards, there is no "nothing at stake" strategy to be had, and the problem doesn't exist.

In non-rewarded PoS, the (only) reason to stake, is that you want the chain to work correctly, because you have value on it (your stake). You have no incentive (because no reward) to keep on double-staking, because the only thing you do, is to increase the chances that your crypto fails, and the only thing you have, is a stake.