--- Log opened Tue May 07 00:00:10 2013
14:19 < gmaxwell> So. An idea to make proof of stake more workable... what if coins selected to function as consensus stake were temporarily destroyed at heights where they were eligible for stake and then returned via regeneration, if and only if no one presents to the network evidence that the same stake signed more than one distinct consensus?  It still wouldn't prevent abuse of stake to create deep reorgs, since you can't make coin invaldation so ...
14:19 < gmaxwell> ... powerful that it invalidate the coins of downstream users.
18:43 < warren> gmaxwell: does that deal with the "rich getting richer" issue?
18:45 < gmaxwell> warren: I don't think there is any real RGR issue in POS inherently, so long as linearity is preserved. (PPCoin doesn't do a good job preserving linearity)
18:49 < gmaxwell> having to have the stake still for a while does create some richness bias, alas.
18:50 < warren> gmaxwell: Is any form  of PoS flawed because any form of it incentives pooling of stake to ensure receiving stake rewards, which is an anti-incentive to decentralization?  Yes, it's hard for stakeholders to *trust* each other, but if they do they become an unstoppable cartel.
18:53 < gmaxwell> warren: they're all linear, having more stake in one place doesn't increase your ability to mine stake than having it in many. Now— you might not care to run validation if you don't have a sufficient consolidation to make your income great... but thats no different than any POW scheme: if _validation_ costs are high relative to users tolerance such that they have to be paid to validate, then it can't be decenteralized.
18:58 < warren> haha.  one of the litecoin clones bubbled to be 400% more profitable than mining BTC for a week.  Attracted a great many miners then popped.  Now it is limping along with new blocks  > 4x slower than designed.
18:59 < warren> those stupid exchanges have been adding days old alt coins to trading
19:07 < jgarzik> warren: Somebody's making money, so they add it.
19:08 < jgarzik> warren: Don't be surprised if there aren't "I'll give you 1 million alt-coins, to add it to your exchange" deals either.
19:12 < warren> CFTC’s Chilton: Want to ensure Bitcoin is not ‘a house of cards’
19:12 < warren> As the Commodity Futures Trading Commission weighs regulating Bitcoin, Commissioner Bart Chilton sought to spell out its interest in the virtual currency.
19:14 < warren> jgarzik: this made me wonder if our tribe can come up wit a set of best-practices guidelines to help media and potential regulators weed out the pump-and-dumps from the honest efforts.
19:19 < warren> jgarzik: a privately operated, not-for-profit rating agency that looks at various factors of <arbitrary decentralized virtual currency> and makes it easy for readers to understand the differences, not only in technology, but also transparency, accountability, activity of development, how responsive it is to security CVE's, vendor adoption, etc.  This could help to better legitimize the safety and stability of Bitcoin while simultaneously mak
19:19 < warren> ing it easy to see the *stark* contrast with all the alt coins.
19:50 < jgarzik> warren: I think there should be quite a number of ratins agencies
19:50 < jgarzik> warren: or, if possible, a ratings bot
19:50 < jgarzik> *ratings
20:01 < gmaxwell> jgarzik: "Don't be surprised" not only is it not surprising, in some cases it's publically know. E.g. one of these coins premined coins specifically for that purpose.
20:03 < gmaxwell> warren: as far as "weed out" well thats the 'problem' (actually advantage in some cases) of decenteralized systems. You can't generally regulate the general public. When you try ... poof.. they vanish.
20:03 < warren> gmaxwell: right, not really regulate, more 'scare people away from things' with objective measures
--- Log closed Wed May 08 00:00:13 2013