[CryptoPunk]

PoS is effectively permissionless given the number of parties that have the stakeable asset and are willing to sell it.

>>no, it's also costs of fighting (via politics, marketing and hacking) for that initial pre-mined stake.

There is no fight if there was a transition from PoW to PoS, and thus no premine, or if the premine was distributed via an open crowdsale, with revenue allocated to a non-profit foundation.

Your analysis makes too many tenuous assumptions to push one side of the debate.

[keymone]

> PoS is effectively permissionless given the number of parties that have the stakeable asset and are willing to sell it.

the market doesn't have enough liquidity for you to gain a meaningful stake and those that organized the pre-mine scam will always remain in control. or they will sell you the stake for exorbitant price and perform a long-range attack against you because they still hold the original keys.

Eth is going through transition and yet it’s the largest pre-mine scam in existence.

Crowd sales are just pre-mines.

Non-profit is just pre-mine beneficiary that people will fight for control over.

And you conveniently ignored all the other problems with PoS: long range and grinding attacks, no ability to reduce power of malicious staker, no universal objective measure for which chain is genuine so you have to rely on third parties, etc.

[CryptoPunk]

>>the market doesn't have enough liquidity for you to gain a meaningful stake

This is unsupported. There are billions of dollars worth of ETH sold every day. If you intended to hold what you bought, the liquidity would gradually go down as you took what was bought off the market, but you could certainly acquire a significant share of the stake.

>>Non-profit is just pre-mine beneficiary that people will fight for control over.

That assumes zero altuistic oversight from ETH stakeholders at large deterring attempts to corrupt the grant issuing process, which is not a sensible assumption.

>>And you conveniently ignored all the other problems with PoS

Long-range attack is addressed with dependence on weak subjectivity:

https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/11/25/proof-stake-learned-lov...

The rest of your criticisms have similarly been addressed in state of the art Proof of Stake protocols, in particular for ETH 2.0 PoS.

[keymone]

> There are billions of dollars worth of ETH sold every day

not nearly enough to purchase a meaningful stake that could protect you from premine scammers that launched the project. not to mention - you'd be giving up your money for their benefit. double rekt.

> zero altuistic oversight from ETH stakeholders at large deterring attempts to corrupt the grant issuing process, which is not a sensible assumption

ah, nice, a system that simply relies on altruistic motives of premine scammers that will be in control and largest beneficiaries of those staking grants. what could possibly go wrong.

> Long-range attack is addressed with dependence on weak subjectivity: ... The rest of your criticisms have similarly been addressed in state of the art Proof of Stake protocols

it's not addressed, it's just partly waved away and partly obfuscated in a non-solutions like slashing or checkpointing.

pos still doesn't work, pow is the only known decentralized and trustless consensus reaching protocol.

[CryptoPunk]

>>not nearly enough to purchase a meaningful stake that could protect you from premine scammers that launched the project. not to mention - you'd be giving up your money for their benefit. double rekt.

There is no need for any protection. Proof of stake doesn't enable stakers to attack non-stakers. Nor would stakers have any incentive to.

Moreover, there was absolutely no scam in the premine. It was publicly announced, and the majority of it was distributed via a programmatic crowdsale.

This characterization of yours is simply an emotional attack.

>>you'd be giving up your money for their benefit. double rekt.

Same with any currency. You provide something of value to acquire some currency. This applies to dealing with early adopters of other currencies, early investors in companies, etc.

This is simply a bad-faith criticism of proof-of-stake that is equally applicable to anything else, unless you make the tortured argument that a publicly announced crowdsale and dev grant is somehow a "scam", and therefore there is some distinct quality about buying currency from those who acquired their stake through a premine over acquiring it through some other method.

>>ah, nice, a system that simply relies on altruistic motives of premine scammers

How can any one can take ETH's critics seriously when you make blatantly libelous accusations that participating in an open premine crowd makes someone a scammer.

[keymone]

> Proof of stake doesn't enable stakers to attack non-stakers

yes it does. it allows stakers to prevent non-stakers from becoming stakers. all rewards go to stakers. rich get richer even faster.

> there was absolutely no scam in the premine. It was publicly announced, and the majority of it was distributed via a programmatic crowdsale.

public announcement means nothing if participation is permissioned. there was 12% blatant premine and 60% so called "pre-sale", of which undisclosed amount went to scammers that organized it and didn't have to pay anything.

> applies to dealing with early adopters of other currencies

this doesn't apply to BTC which literally anybody could mine without asking approval and permission. ETH is just another scam.

> dev grant is somehow a "scam"

of course it is.

> open premine crowd

well, at least you used the right word to describe it - premine. any crypto premine is a scam by definition. some of those scams just manage to bamboozle enough people to stay afloat longer and get a chance to scam even more.

good job shifting conversation away from discussing PoS flaws into complaining about randoms on internet being rude to scammers.

[CryptoPunk]

>>yes it does. it allows stakers to prevent non-stakers from becoming stakers. all rewards go to stakers. rich get richer even faster.

No it doesn't. As I already explained, there is no practical way holders can collude to force all holders of the currency to not sell. There will always be significant liquidity for any currency that has as wide a distribution of holders that Ethereum does.

>>public announcement means nothing if participation is permissioned.

The crowdsale was not permissioned. It was completely programmatic.

>>there was 12% blatant premine

Which was publicly disclosed compensation for the developers who created Ethereum, as well as an allocation for grants to further develop Ethereum.

>>and 60% so called "pre-sale", of which undisclosed amount went to scammers that organized it and didn't have to pay anything.

This allegation of the pre-sale being a scam is totally unsubstantiated. It's irresponsible character assassination.

>>randoms on internet being rude to scammers.

The credibility of avowed critics of Ethereum, who make totally unsubstantiated allegations of the organizers of Ethereum's crowdsale of being scammers, is relevant to these discussions.

Moreover, your criticism is not relevant to PoS. It's specifically critical of Ethereum, since Ethereum had a premine and crowdsale. PoS doesn't have to have either. So once again, your analysis seems entirely biased and agenda-driven.