Quote from: squatter on July 01, 2019, 03:59:53 AM

Quote from: Khaos77 on July 01, 2019, 03:24:07 AM

It is funny, in your mind, 4 pool operators would never 51% attack a coin,
because of the financial damage it would cause them.
But you think , Stakeholders would cause direct financial damage to themselves.

I suggest you reexamine your statements, because logically no one wants to harm their-selves financially,
but you think all stakeholders are on financial suicide watch, while all pool operators are not.

You've misunderstood the point.

Pools don't own the hash power. They can't leverage a sustained attack. That would require billions of dollars they don't have. If a handful of pools 51% attacked the network, they would only control the best chain for a matter of hours -- or minutes -- after which their customers would leave with their hash power.

But they can easily perform an attack and double spend for a few hours.
Which that also they could easily cash out to a fiat profit and claimed they were hacked, simple exit strategy.

Colluding majority attackers in POS actually own the stake. They can attack the network indefinitely at zero cost. With infinitely lower costs to mount an attack, majority attacks are much more attractive in POS -- assuming there is sufficient value to be gained.

These are apples and oranges.

Exactly , they own the stake and had to earn it, meaning they directly harm themselves financially.
Something , you can't conceive of the pool operators doing, and yet your own words above, the pool operators don't own the hash power.
so you're saying they have less financial incentive than stakers do.

Quote from: Khaos77 on July 01, 2019, 03:24:07 AM

stakers require closer to 90% to dominate a network. Wink

That doesn't make any sense. Please elaborate.

In PoW , The ASICS run constantly,
In PoS , The Coins go dormant, immediately after staking for specified time.
This gives other Stakers a chance to stake, it also make staking a Cooperative System verses PoW which is a Combative System.
Therefore to achieve the same domination a PoW network yields in a 51% attack, requires that stakers need ~90% to be able to carry out any sustained attack on a Proof of Stake network.
In Peercoin, all coins go dormant for 90 days after staking.
In Mintcoin, all coins go dormant for 20 days after staking,
In Zeitcoin, all coins go dormant for 24 hours after staking.
So basically after you shoot your PoS wad to dominate a PoS network, it would be anywhere from 24 hours to 90 days before you could even try again (Varies per PoS coin). This means you need ~90% of the coins staking to achieve similar results as a PoW 51% attack.

Quote from: Khaos77 on July 01, 2019, 03:24:07 AM

You also missed the point that the Government can locate any warehouse of ASICS,
merely by having the power company report excessive energy usage,
where as no one can determine the location of a PoS client by it's energy usage alone.
Also a PoS Client could be running off of wireless laptop and moving between alternative locations on a daily basis,
something a warehouse full of ASICS could never do.

This doesn't make up for POS's inferior security model.

*My replies in Blue. *

PoS PoW
Energy Efficient Energy Wasteful
Requires ~90% to dominate a network Requires 51% to dominate a network
Secured by the # of coins staking + Coin Age Secured only by the elite that can afford extreme mining costs paid in Fiat
Rolling Checkpoints, blocking All Reorgs Only Client Checkpoints , blocking only reorgs after client updates
More resistant to Government Seizure More susceptible to Government Seizure, due to inability to hide ASICS energy footprint

The confusion seems to be that since bitcoin wastes more it is more secure,
that is a false assumption, it only means it wastes more nothing else.
At the end of every day, 4 pool operators control bitcoin destiny,
where as every decent PoS coin is secured by many more than 4 people.

FYI: Bitcoin Mining Is Vulnerable article
https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2018/7/229033-majority-is-not-enough/abstract

Quote

We present an attack with which colluding miners' revenue is larger than their fair share.
The attack can have significant consequences for Bitcoin:
Rational miners will prefer to join the attackers, and the colluding group will increase in size until it becomes a majority.
At this point, the Bitcoin system ceases to be a decentralized currency.

All PoW Pools are collusion for better rewards.
This means you are trusting a mere handful of Pool Operators not to abuse the system.