In the Nothing-at-Stake chapter of Pillow’s Peercoin Myths he tries to bust the myth with some arguments.
But as I understand it, this post tells us, that there is indeed a problem, as
it doesn’t cost anything to mint an orphaned block, since the coin-age is consumed only in one branch but not in the others.
which in the end
leads to a destabilization of the blockchain, and users will have to wait for a larger number of confirmations before assuming that a transaction is irreversible.
One of the arguments against this attack is, that in the worst case the value or exchange rate would collapse, and that no owner of a considerable amount of Peercoins would risk this. But what if this bad owner hedges against the price collapse?
I am still not fully understanding the details described in the aforementioned post, but it seems that the problem exists, and that a solution was found. As this problem is often mentioned by opponents of Peercoin (it makes them afraid), I think we should consider implementing RFC0002.
Especially because this is one of the main arguments of opponents against Peercoin:
- PoS is considered flawed by large parts of the cryptocurrency community
- losing funds due to bank run when the stake prover signs multiple chains … these risks cannot be prevented even by following all best practices
- PoS will always arguably be vulnerable due to the “Nothing at Stake” problem
- there is indeed nothing preventing anybody from making arbitrarily long chains
Implementing RFC0002 would be a solution for increasing the overall trust in Peercoin (and in PoS systems generally —if they have implemented this idea).
As the RFC states, a draw back could be that a hard fork would be required. The question is: Has anybody any problems with this RFC? Is there a debate about it? Because if not, I don’t see any problems with an unanimous decision of doing a hard fork.