Quote from: dga on July 05, 2014, 03:05:14 PM

Quote from: superresistant on July 05, 2014, 02:52:19 PM

Quote from: equipoise on July 05, 2014, 01:15:27 PM

Quote from: superresistant on July 05, 2014, 01:04:15 PM

Quote from: rpietila on July 05, 2014, 12:53:53 PM

PoS put to rest:

A big text for nothing.
The only argument is :

Quote

there will be times where two nodes disagree

and it's wrong. Or at least not even debated.
Disagree what ? He talks like nodes have their own will.

Disagree by working on different chains for some amount of time.

Forking ? As if PoW cannot fork ?
There is no work (mining) in PoS. You don't compete on wasting resources, that's the goal.

And that's the problem.
The goal of a PoW-based system is to make it more expensive to amass 51% of the hash rate in order to be able to control the outcome of a fork. (After all, what is a fork but a disagreement about which transactions to include and who should get paid for the block?).
A PoS-system is aptly named, because it rewards amassing that 51%.
The PoS boosters handwave and claim that doing so would devalue the coins owned by the 51% attacker, but that really just means the attacker would need to be more subtle.
It's a deeply flawed idea in pursuit of a good, but I believe impossible, goal -- decentralized, untrusted consensus without waste.

That's the flaw of PoW : pool get to own over 51% of the network without doing any mining, just by owning a strong node.

Quote from: JorgeStolfi on July 05, 2014, 03:09:32 PM

Could a PoS miner "rent" coins from a hoarder to simulate that he has the required stake, without actually having it?

No.

Quote from: Este Nuno on July 05, 2014, 03:07:43 PM

What type of subtle attacks are possible?

You cannot do a 51% attack on PoS.