Quote from: RoadTrain on November 10, 2013, 08:28:32 AM

Quote from: Meni Rosenfeld on November 10, 2013, 07:42:48 AM

Quote from: gmaxwell on November 09, 2013, 04:35:41 PM

Quote from: cunicula on November 09, 2013, 03:18:47 PM

I'd like to think that people will agree to proof of stake before surrendering bitcoin to government or corporate management, but you may be right. People are extremely stubborn and consensus is a damned hard thing to obtain.

Proof of stake has thus far proven unworkable.

The main problem with Proof of Stake appears to be that is that there is nothing at stake: In PoW systems you burn energy to mine, and that mining is only worth while if the chain your mining on survives long term, so you are generally incentive mine the chain most likely to survive. In PoS the rational strategy is to mine all possible forks constantly, because doing so costs you nothing.

My proposal very clearly and explicitly penalizes stakeholders who try to sign conflicting blocks. This line has been there for 1.5 years - "If an address signs two conflicting blocks, its weight is reset to 0. This is to limit the power of malicious stakeholders. "

I'm not saying this will work perfectly, but to claim that no consideration has been made to this issue is, as cunicula says, dishonest.

Research into PoS methods is still ongoing.

I understand how the weight is reset to 0. But I can't understand how signature fees will be distributed.
If there's a thread discussing it, please point it to me. Thanks.

One possibility is to have a special sig fee transaction in every signature block, paying out based on a determinstic calculation of signers of the previous signature block, with evidence of double-signing included.