Quote from: jonald_fyookball on December 09, 2014, 08:05:16 PM

Quote from: kodtycoon on December 09, 2014, 06:59:40 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on December 09, 2014, 05:30:54 PM

Quote from: kodtycoon on December 09, 2014, 05:21:53 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on December 09, 2014, 05:16:55 PM

Quote from: jabo38 on December 09, 2014, 03:12:59 PM

To me the chain with the lower operational cost (all other things being equal) is better. And that chain is the one that is more efficient.

Amazing how people STILL, after 10 pages of the thread, are missing the point of
the article in the OP.

There is no "lower" operational costs regardless of the security model!
Security costs will always rise to the level of the rewards being
given, due to competition.

erm.. Actually no.. How do security costs rise in a pos system when rewards are tx fees? Did security costs rise for nxt when the asset exchange came out and transactional fees doubled or quadrupled and in turn rewards doubled or quadrupled? No they didn't so your theory that securty costs rise as rewards rise is wrong..

Because people will game the system -- they will create alternate chains to try to earn more fees.
Why WOULDN'T they, as long as there's money to be made?

well why haven't we seen any increase of multiple nxt forks or any at all for that matter during the period of increased reward? Why? You say why wouldn't they.. But yet no one has done that.. Pretty much of proves your statement wrong..

I would guess its because there's barely any rewards. What's the daily amount of fees being spent on NXT?
Also, most of the stake is centralized to a few big players anyway, so they don't need to compete.

Quote

And even if someone forged on multiple chains, only one is valid so they only get the fees from the valid chain because the rest won't be accepted. they won't earn any extra than if they only forge on the valid chain.. Your theory is pure tripe.

Yes, they only get fees on the valid chain, but they spend resources trying all the chains. That's the point. That's why resources spent will keep rising until its unprofitable.

so your saying yes the cost would rise.. and the cost "should"/"would"/"could" come from people forging on forks?

why does the cost of forging on a fork get included in the security costs of securing the main chain?

the cost of forging on alternate chains should not be included in the cost of securing the main chain because they are not securing the main chain. the extra cost they incur is the cost of securing a fork. if the main chain costs 100 dollars a month to secure, and someone spends 10 dollars a month on forging on a fork and in turn securing the fork, how does that 10 dollars cost for securing the fork get factored into two different calculations for two different chains? that 10 dollars didnt get spent twice.. so was it spent securing the fork or the main chain? cos it can be both.. it cost him 10 dollars to forge on the fork so that does mean that it cost 10 dollars to secure the fork because hes securing the fork. not the main chain.

securing a chain, forging on it, and earning rewards on a chain are all part and parcel of the same mechanism right?

il repeat that.. 100 dollars is spent to secure the main chain. 10 dollars to secure the fork. that 10 dollars cannot be spent twice.. so which did it get spent on? the main chain or the fork? how much has it cost to secure the main chain in this situation? its pretty simple dont you think?

if someone decided to fork bitcoin and pump 10 billion dollars into mining the fork, would that be included in the cost of securing bitcoin even though the bitcoins he mines would be worthless? regardless of whether it makes sense to do that(image someone is insane and wants to do it for the heck of it) would that cost be included? (remember we are not debating the economic incentive of mining or forging 2 chains.. we are debating whether the cost to secure a chain rise as rewards rise - your only argument so far is that someone would forge on more than one chain.)

your argument, that the cost of security rises as the reward rises regardless of security model would suggest that it should be included.. if i decided to pump 1 trillion dollars into mining on a fork, would people be saying tomorrow that the cost to secure bitcoin is over 1 trillion dollars? i highly.. HIGHLY.. doubt that..

"the cost of security rises as the reward rises regardless of security model"

that is a false statement.. plain and simple..