Has everyone forgotten why Dash has mining?

[TheNetworkIsBiggerThanYou]

I’m more efficient using a vocal medium than text. I don’t have time to debate back and forth over text.

My guess is you’re focused on a narrow, theoretical, technical resistance to state level attacks, and are not considering social attacks. Mining does not make a project resistant to state level attacks. That’s a laughable claim, which is why I laughed at it.

You don't need to guess. I'm very explicit. POW and POS both provide security by creating a cost to attackers attempting to take over the network. POW creates a recurring cost to attackers whereas POS offers a one-time cost. This is a well established benefit of POW over POS. I find it strange you can conclude POW does not make a project resistant to state level attacks given the very straight forward rationale that infinite costs to attack the network would bankrupt the attacker.

The only way you can come to this conclusion is if you a) don't believe Dash can be successful enough to warrant attack b) you are like agnew or xkcd - old, childless and with a high time preference c) you are blinded by greed from easy treasury money.

You mention social attacks. Unless you feel POW creates an additional attack service for such attacks it is a meaningless point. If I am wrong, please elaborate.

I can understand if you are busy. So please, if you are going to make such claims, spend the time to make a coherent explanation how the infinite high costs of POW does not provide security to the network that can protect it against state level attacks. A debate won't be necessary. Seeing as you think it is laughable it should be easy for you.

 

[AgnewPickens]

You don't need to guess. I'm very explicit. POW and POS both provide security by creating a cost to attackers attempting to take over the network. POW creates a recurring cost to attackers whereas POS offers a one-time cost. This is a well established benefit of POW over POS. I find it strange you can conclude POW does not make a project resistant to state level attacks given the very straight forward rationale that infinite costs to attack the network would bankrupt the attacker.

The only way you can come to this conclusion is if you a) don't believe Dash can be successful enough to warrant attack b) you are like agnew or xkcd - old, childless and with a high time preference c) you are blinded by greed from easy treasury money.

You mention social attacks. Unless you feel POW creates an additional attack service for such attacks it is a meaningless point. If I am wrong, please elaborate.

I can understand if you are busy. So please, if you are going to make such claims, spend the time to make a coherent explanation how the infinite high costs of POW does not provide security to the network that can protect it against state level attacks. A debate won't be necessary. Seeing as you think it is laughable it should be easy for you.

v20 of Dashcore will pretty much provide all the entropy Dash needs, leaving a PoW allocation at all after Evo launches is more of a gift than a necessity.

 

[TheNetworkIsBiggerThanYou]

v20 of Dashcore will pretty much provide all the entropy Dash needs, leaving a PoW allocation at all after Evo launches is more of a gift than a necessity.

please explain how entropy is relevant to what I am saying.

 

[AgnewPickens]

please explain how entropy is relevant to what I am saying.

Entropy is the key to encryption, one of the big Tech Labs in Cali keeps a wall of Lava Lamps they record by video for theirs, that is all Miners do, provide enough entropy to secure the blockchain, the logical move is to replace it with something that doesn't need nearly as much electricity.

Lavarand - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In any case, miners are less necessary as it is with chainlocks, the worst an attacker could do is a DDOS attack and force another chain halt, there is no rewriting the Dash chain state like you see with pure PoW coins. When v20 is released, Dash will no longer even need miner entropy to secure the network, as that will be derived from LLMQs (correct me if I am wrong @Monotoko ) - but the subsidy paid to miners can no longer really be justified after Evo is released. Maybe some other X11 PoW algo will benefit from the transition, but it is getting harder and harder to justify PoW for the Dash network.

 

[TheNetworkIsBiggerThanYou]

I asked how Entropy is relevant to what I am saying. It is not. No where am I claiming anything about encryption benefits of POW vs POS.

I am talking about the ability to take over a network.

The network's security is driven by cost to attack a network. The more cost, the greater the level of security. Nothing encryption related.

Taking over a POS network is a finite cost. Is that true? Yes or no?

Taking over a POW network is a continous, infinite cost. Every day you want to control the mining you need to spend your own money on electricity at a minimum. Is that true? Yes or no?

If Dash views the central banks as an adversary (which obviously, it should) and if central banks have deep pockets and a literal printing press, then we would want a network that is extremely expensive to attack. Otherwise, what is the point?

I really am struggling here. Is there a reason my point won't be addressed head-on? is it inconvenient? Is there some climate-friendly ideology at play? What is it?

 

[AgnewPickens]

I asked how Entropy is relevant to what I am saying. It is not. No where am I claiming anything about encryption benefits of POW vs POS.

I am talking about the ability to take over a network.

The network's security is driven by cost to attack a network. The more cost, the greater the level of security. Nothing encryption related.

Taking over a POS network is a finite cost. Is that true? Yes or no?

Taking over a POW network is a continous, infinite cost. Every day you want to control the mining you need to spend your own money on electricity at a minimum. Is that true? Yes or no?

If Dash views the central banks as an adversary (which obviously, it should) and if central banks have deep pockets and a literal printing press, then we would want a network that is extremely expensive to attack. Otherwise, what is the point?

I really am struggling here. Is there a reason my point won't be addressed head-on? is it inconvenient? Is there some climate-friendly ideology at play? What is it?

Pure economics, bro, nothing to do with Climate, read the wiki I posted, and I will repeat, Dash cannot be 51% attacked with chainlocks already, the only thing it is using from PoW is hashing entropy as the Dark Gravity Wave, difficulty moves around producing Entropy, that has already been replicated in PoS. How then do you justify this extra cost of electricity the network doesn't really need any more after Evolution?

Just read the damn Wiki on Lava Lamp Entropy to understand why it is critical to encryption security?

 

[TheNetworkIsBiggerThanYou]

Repeat it all you want. Perhaps try reading for comprehension instead!

Chainlocks prevents 51% attacks because an attacker would need to control both the Miners and MNs! If you get rid of POW and only have POS you now have a finite cost to taking over the network.

Am I wrong?

 

[xkcd]

b) you are like agnew or xkcd - old, childless and with a high time preference

We broke bread together, we worked on a successful governance proposal together, I thought we were friends. It's disappointing to read these personal attacks from you.

If you get rid of POW and only have POS you now have a finite cost to taking over the network.

No one is suggesting to get rid of POW, merely to reduce the reward paid to it.

 

[TheNetworkIsBiggerThanYou]

No one is suggesting to get rid of POW, merely to reduce the reward paid to it.

False.
Agnew said one post earlier "How then do you justify this extra cost of electricity the network doesn't really need any more after Evolution?".

Rion has stated that POW weakens the network - "I think giving MNOs the choice to spend more on potentially-value-creating activities is better than allocating that Dash to mining for net negative security." and has described its benefit as laughable.

Perhaps you may have a more nuisance view but others don't.

Taking your view into consideration, lowering the cost of POW would also reduce this infinite cost to the would-be attackers, perhaps making it more palatable. And for what? To try to engineer the tokenomics when attempts at driving demand has failed? That is not acceptable. We're opening up the weaponization of dash tokenomics. It is not right.

The only way I'd think it is appropriate for touching dash tokenomics is if it were to make an impact somehow on Dash demand from end-users. We need to leave supply and allocations alone and work within these constraints. It is a loser mentality that we need to cheat some users of the dash ecosystems (the miners) to benefit others.

 

[rion]

Perhaps you may have a more nuisance view but others don't.

I think you meant “nuanced”, not “nuisance”. But yes, our views are nuanced. Neither my statement nor @AgnewPickens‘ implies getting rid of mining completely right away. We’re all proposing to reduce it, like @xkcd said.

You claim that infinite resources would be required to attack/break mining. This is false. Think of the old $5 wrench xkcd comic. People think their technological fortress is impenetrable because they focus on academic, theoretical calculations. The world doesn’t work this way. Governments don’t think this way. They don’t jump through the hoops and walk in the traps you’ve set for them. They walk around them, and attack you with sticks and carrots.

 

[TheNetworkIsBiggerThanYou]

I think you meant “nuanced”, not “nuisance”. But yes, our views are nuanced. Neither my statement nor @AgnewPickens‘ implies getting rid of mining completely right away. We’re all proposing to reduce it, like @xkcd said.

"right away" is a qualifier that implies getting rid of it eventually. And what would you replace it with that offers the same level of security?

if you don't want to get rid of it, I'd also like to know why? Is it because it provides security to the network via said infinite costs? If so, how do you quantify what is too much security and not enough? Can you see how this seemingly unprincipled stance that ultimately leads to larger payouts for yourself can viewed as inappropriate?

You claim that infinite resources would be required to attack/break mining. This is false. Think of the old $5 wrench xkcd comic. People think their technological fortress is impenetrable because they focus on academic, theoretical calculations. The world doesn’t work this way. Governments don’t think this way. They don’t jump through the hoops and walk in the traps you’ve set for them. They walk around them, and attack you with sticks and carrots.

So continuing this train of thought, it is therefore appropriate to remove the hoops and traps and open the front door?

If anything you are contradicting yourself when you say it is "false" to claim POW requires infinite resources to attack. You seem to be suggesting it in fact works and they would be forced to attack in a different way. How exactly does this make what I say false?

The $5 xkcd comic applies to an individuals threat model. We are discussing game theoretical security considerations that have underpinned POW networks for over a decade. For BTC we saw they attacked through backdoor via taking over the devs. I'm sure Dash will have other attacks against it, no where am I claiming this is the only threat.

Again, seeing as how none of you have addressed my claim head on, it is easy to come to the conclusion that this is a half baked idea of yours and that POW does in fact offer security against a direct take over by state-backed attackers.

 

[AgnewPickens]

"right away" is a qualifier that implies getting rid of it eventually. And what would you replace it with that offers the same level of security?

if you don't want to get rid of it, I'd also like to know why? Is it because it provides security to the network via said infinite costs? If so, how do you quantify what is too much security and not enough? Can you see how this seemingly unprincipled stance that ultimately leads to larger payouts for yourself can viewed as inappropriate?


So continuing this train of thought, it is therefore appropriate to remove the hoops and traps and open the front door?

If anything you are contradicting yourself when you say it is "false" to claim POW requires infinite resources to attack. You seem to be suggesting it in fact works and they would be forced to attack in a different way. How exactly does this make what I say false?

The $5 xkcd comic applies to an individuals threat model. We are discussing game theoretical security considerations that have underpinned POW networks for over a decade. For BTC we saw they attacked through backdoor via taking over the devs. I'm sure Dash will have other attacks against it, no where am I claiming this is the only threat.

Again, seeing as how none of you have addressed my claim head on, it is easy to come to the conclusion that this is a half baked idea of yours and that POW does in fact offer security against a direct take over by state-backed attackers.

I gave you an explanation on what PoW provides the network, with a Wiki. Conversing with you is like playing chess with a pigeon, you just knock all the pieces off the board and strut around like you won.

 

[TheNetworkIsBiggerThanYou]

I gave you an explanation on what PoW provides the network, with a Wiki. Conversing with you is like playing chess with a pigeon, you just knock all the pieces off the board and strut around like you won.

shut your dumb ass up. You claimed the only thing POW does is produce entropy. It is ridiculous. Do you notice neither xkcd nor Rion are backing your claims.