Quote from: BitRock on May 29, 2014, 04:21:08 AM

Quote from: ThePurplePlanet on May 29, 2014, 03:58:43 AM

Quote from: BitRock on May 29, 2014, 03:55:12 AM

Quote from: ThePurplePlanet on May 29, 2014, 03:17:06 AM

Quote

Why would the network without human intervention not accept my second chain? It perfectly follows the rules...

Because you cannot reverse public blockchain using your one secret longer blockchain twice.

The point is that you dont need to reverse it twice but only once.

Apart from that you misunderstand what a decentralized autonomous corporation like bitcoin means. There are certain rules and all clients follow those rules. The rule is to work on the longest chain aka most cumulative stake for PoS and most work for PoW.

If you have the stake in your history you can reverse it 2,3,5 and as many times as you like if you want. Noone stops you from that only human intervention aka centralized checkpoints.

Quote

Why would the network without human intervention not accept my second chain? It perfectly follows the rules... The other attack you are describing is the nothing at stake problem where you can keep trying double send without any cost. I am talking about a more severe attack that will force the network to become centralized or investors/exchanges/reputation take massive losses....

It do cost to attack Pos coin. You have to buy 5% coin from market.

You only need to own the keys at some point in the past. For example, a person who deposits/withdraws multiple times from exchanges (think of exchanges using multiple addresses) can get the keys for a lot of stake ownership in the blockchain history and use it to create an alternate chain. Exchanges own a lot of stake in their history... Pools do the same.... and many other services...

Quote

I am talking about a more severe attack that will force the network to become centralized or investors/exchanges/reputation take massive losses....

Please describe the more severe attack in detail.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Altcoin#Proof_Of_Stake

Ironically, Feathercoin, AudroraCoin and Quarkcoin, all of those PoW coin, have centralized checkpoints.

Thats true... It is like a chicken and egg problem... The value needs to rise so that more hashing power flows in and secure the network.... So I guess these coins are waiting if more adoption happens so that the price rises and become secure... On the other hand PoS cannot be decentralized at any value...

I am sure if these coins become more valuable they can remove the checkpoints....

When the mining reward of PoW coin is decreased dramatically, it will require centralized checkpoints like PoS coin.
That is what happened on quark.

Thats true unless you have a lot of transactions and economic activity to rely on that. Thats why it is bad for coins long-term to instamine. Definity instamine can give price boost early but hinders adoption and thus usage..