ValidatedProofOfStake VS libbitcoin-system

Coins like Peercoin and Nxt have a system where each coin has a probability each second of granting the ability to mint a block. So those are a couple that don't have that kind of orphan preventing dynamic. Its the ones that use randomly chosen committees that preven orphans. Not that PoS and Nxt are very good - neither solve the nothing at stake problem. This is one that does solve the nothing at stake problem but has a similar random dynamic that doesn't prevent orphans.

Part of the conservatism is good. It comes from a dumb place (bandwagoning and ignorance) but Bitcoin is multiple orders of magnitude more valuable and important at the moment than 99% of experimental coins out there right now. Bitcoin isn't the right place for high-risk experiments. But I hope one day we find a solid PoS protocol we can use for something as important as Bitcoin. Maybe we already have ; )

Many proof of stake currencies do require "staking", which is locking up collateral in order to be able to mine. However, not all do. Some simply do not disincentivize minting on multiple chains (like Peercoin), which is a short sighted design flaw. Some PoS systems are Delegated Proof of Stake, which in principle might require locking up collateral, but might instead opt for punishing bad actors by loss of reputation (like seems to be the philosophy of BitShares), which indirectly leads to loss of revenue, rather than direct loss of coins. Other currencies, like my own Validated Proof of Stake might not use locked in stake, but may still have mechanisms to punish certain negative behaviors or outcomes.

> Yes it is. The more people with coins actively minting in the system, the higher the difficulty of getting chosen.

I'm well aware. But eventually a large validator will get chosen--it's not difficult to get chosen, it's rare. The fact that PoS folks call this "difficulty" does not make it so.

> If you really want to keep discussing this with me, read through the WHOLE of https://github.com/fresheneesz/validatedProofOfStake and show me a full attack on it.

Given your proposed solution is checkpoints from a centralized trusted entity, you're giving up decentralization. Sure, your solution works. But if you're willing to give up decentralization, you might as well just store the transactions in Postgres. It's faster and has more mature tooling.

I don't know of any techniques to prevent stake grinding that trade off security properties. Of course there are PoS protocols that both prevent stake grinding and also have security issues, but that's not the same thing. In any case, I don't see you backing up your claims here, so I guess I'll wait until you do. I'll give you one protocol that doesn't have the unpleasant properties you're talking about. I'd be happy to discuss any security holes you find in it.

So its still unlikely to cost more for energy than gold mining for a while yet. Maybe in 8 years we'll discover a PoS protocol that doesn't suck.

However I do think we can do better than proof of work. I think proof of stake can actually be much more secure while at the same time expending far less energy if designed properly. Granted, I haven't seen any pos protocol that has been designed properly. I have done some work to that effect tho: https://github.com/fresheneesz/ValidatedProofOfStake

Last release 2019, master branch marked as non-functional. Doesn't seem to be very active. Their homepage https://libbitcoin.info/ looks polished, but no signs of recent life. This vulnerability seems unmentioned. Well, they claim it's not a vulnerability but a demo implementation that should not be used to store anything of value. But there is no prominent note about that and some users did exactly that.

"fix block reward", my god why won't the stupidity ever end. block subsidy decreases censorship resistance. https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Censorship-Resistance-Property