Quote from: Pierre11 on December 30, 2014, 08:41:36 AM

Quote from: siameze on December 29, 2014, 05:44:58 PM

I wonder how much energy has been wasted in this circlejerk of a thread.

If you really want to see energy waste, go check out reddit.com/r/bitcoin.
It is one huge circle jerk, and r/buttcoin makes fun of them (us)

So the mass-debating continues

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on December 30, 2014, 04:03:57 PM

There is no white paper because the wiki is speaking in general terms.
One example is Meni's implementation of adding proof of stake
checkpoints.... One of the key words here is adding proof
of stake, NOT replacing proof of work entirely.

If you were meaning to say that replacing proof of work entirely
with proof of stake shouldn't even be considered (rather than
being in the category of "disputed"), then I would generally
agree, as it is too huge of a change.

And by the way, this is a perfect example. Meni's idea sounds
appealing, but the core devs (and even Meni) dispute it being
implemented because they do not believe it will make bitcoin
more secure.

I wonder what happens if stakeholders hire a small group of miners and simply start checkpointing the blockchain they produce, even though it's not the longest one?

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on December 30, 2014, 04:22:00 PM

Would it help mitigate 51% attacks?

51% attacks is a cornerstone of PoW design.
If attack is not possible then the entity/mechanism preventing the attack becomes the central point of failure.