Quote from: inBitweTrust on September 08, 2014, 03:06:55 PM

Quote from: kokojie on September 08, 2014, 02:55:27 PM

2 miner (discus fish and ghash.io) controls 40%-60% of the Bitcoin network, how is it easier to collude with 51 delegates?

Delegates are usually highly reputable members of the community, they also earn a small amount of fees for being a delegate, and at the first sign of dishonesty, they will be voted out. If they can't be trusted, why would you ever trust an anonymous miner who possibly have 0 stake in the eco-system?

Those aren't miners but mining pools. Mining pools have historically grown and faded over time and miners can switch pools and often do instantly.

The beauty with bitcoin is I don't need to directly trust the intentions of people or delegates. Trust is built upon the fact that there are great incentives to play honest and it costs real money to make an attack. With DPOS or POS their is only the first and not the second, thus Bitcoins weakness is also its strength as an added layer of security.

Whether or not one person can be trusted as a respectful member of the community or not should should not be the concern. We should focus on decentralizing bitcoin to a point where trusting a small group of humans isn't needed as all.

Delegates can have the best of intentions and be corrupted over time, by special interests(lobbyists), misguided decisions, changes in character, or simply being a target by a hacker who holds them hostage or gains access to there vote through compromising their systems.

Except Ghash mostly owns the hardware and can do as they like with them, cloud mining is getting more and more popular in PoW mining.

I've already explained in the previous pages, for an attacker that is starting from scratch, it's MUCH cheaper to attack PoW system. It's nearly impossible to 51% attack a PoS system unless you spend an astronomical amount of "real money".

Now if you are constructing a scenario where the attacker already owns a substantial amount of the PoS currency, then it's no different from a PoW attacker that already owns a substantial amount of the network mining power, of course it's much easier for them to attack, PoW has no advantage here neither. On the other hand, in the PoS system, the attacker would be also attacking himself, since he has an extremely large stake in the eco-system, costing the attacker large amount of "real money". So PoS system would again win in this scenario.

I feel this "nothing at stake" argument is being used without proof of its existence. Even though theoretically it's possible, but it also goes against human nature and logic. Why would you attack and destroy the reputation/value of the currency, that you hold an extremely large stake in? it makes no sense to attack yourself and destroy your own wealth.