Quote from: kodtycoon on December 09, 2014, 09:08:52 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on December 09, 2014, 08:52:14 PM

Quote from: kodtycoon on December 09, 2014, 08:47:36 PM

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.

That makes as much sense as saying "mining costs shouldnt be counted except when a miner wins a block and it becomes part of the blockchain".

actually it does make sense..

if i forked the nxt blockchain and maintained it on a server and say that cost me 10 dollars a month to do, thats costing me 10 dollars to maintain the fork right? it wont ever get accepted as the main chain and any coins i forge on the fork would be worthless right? but it is still costing me 10 dollars a month to run the server to maintain the fork.

so its costing me 10 dollars a month to maintain that fork. why should the cost of me forging my own little fork on my own little server thats never going to be anything more than an unwanted fork thats worth nothing get included in the cost of maintaining the main chain? and if it does get included in the cost of the main chain, does that mean i didnt spend the 10 dollars running my server to run my fork? im running the server so that i can maintain my fork and spending 10 dollars so i can keep it running thus the cost of THE FORK is 10 dollars.

please explain how that 10 dollars that i spent on the server to run a fork gets included in the cost of maintaining the correct chain?

edit: im done debating with you.. your statement is false.. simple as that and iv proved your are wrong.

LOL. You don't maintain a child fork endlessly like that, that would be pointless. You forge multiple chains and some of them are accepted as the main chain. (duh.)
You constantly spend resources to forge child chains from the current main chain , as long as it is profitable to do so.

You can disagree with me, think I'm wrong, that's fine... But all I'm doing is reiterating the very
cogent points of the OP's article. So, I guess you proved the article wrong according to you. Undecided

If someone else would like to chime in and tell me how I'm wrong, I'm open to listening

P.S. If you take it to the extreme and have a PoS coin with no fees to fight over, then
you have zero sercurity cost, but what incentivizes nodes to even participate in
the network at all? Well, "stake", one might say. But the problem with that
is it then makes more sense to attack the network than to participate
in it honestly, since there's no rewards.