Bitcoin Forum

How does the shift from proof of work to proof of stake consensus will affect bitcoin?
Proof of work is a proven consensus mechanism, while proof of stake based blockchains are yet to be validated. How will success of proof of stake based blockchains will effect bitcoin
Will this  havr any real effect on future valuation of bitcoin?

Yes, it does have an effect on the valuation of Bitcoin.  If Bitcoin moves to Proof of Stake, me and probably more than half of the older Bitcoiners are going to get out of it.  Proof of Stake is in my opinion an unfair mechanism where the Rich are in advantage over the poor, which is precisely one of the reasons I am currently in progress of removing Fiat out of my life.  Plus, Proof of Stake is not only less tested than Proof of Work but also provides less security.

If Proof of Stake EVER proves to be just as fair as Proof of Work and just as secure or more secure, then why not transition to it.  But until then, let other coins self destroy by being the testing ground for it and let Bitcoin be the strong beast it currently is.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

its simple

a shift from the cost of 1.5million miners hardware and electric cost to mine a block for only 6.25coin
(hundreds of thousands of $ per block: dozens of thousands of $ per coin)

to a few dollars to sign a block..

result: massive cost reduction to make a block means those making blocks sell the cheaper, way cheaper and still profit. = value crash = price crash

..
lets use ethereum.. great example
currently over $1k hash cost to mine a eth

currently ~400k potential block signers of eth PoS
ethereum releases 2eth per block and does about 6k blocks a day. meaning each potential signer might get a chance once every 2-3 months

at a PC rating of 100w (2.4kwh a day) = $180kwh in ~75 days. means
at $0.04/kwh thats a $7.20 cost for waiting 2-3 months to get 2ethereum on PoS or $3.60 per eth

yep
when they say that eth2(pos) is 99.9X% less energy intensive than PoW.. what they are hinting at is the cost of creation is X000x less costly. so expect a X000x factor decrease in value and thus an effect of a X000x factor of price speculation crash too

You are leaving out the fact that you have to spend time to keep your client software up to date. And that you are leaving all that eth locked up. And that if your PoW miner is offline you just loose what you could have mined, with ETH PoS there are penalties if you miss to much work. And so on. There was a discussion about someone staking their ETH in a VM, and they moved that VM to another machine. All was good till they accidentally spun up the old VM and it broadcast something and the validator was slashed.

PoS is not as push to run as many people think. *If it's a 'real' coin.* There were tons of crap PoS coins that could just sit there and stake in their wallets that have died off. As they tried to make it 'better' like ETH they made it a lot more complicated.

-Dave

I do not want to be a spoilsport but here I go:

I worry that POS might be the only feasible option for Bitcoin once all the Bitcoin are mined or until mining costs no longer justify rewards (if that is possible). Once mining rewards fall out of the equation, the value of Bitcoin transaction rewards will likely determine whether or not using POW is worth it, in the long term.

And if POS does not crash and burn horribly in its test phase with the current POS altcoins, then it might actually be an improvement for Bitcoin, especially when it comes to scaling.

Although I do dislike the anti-democratic part of POS.  Basically it could turn out to be centralization with extra steps.

The (purely hypothetical) value of Bitcoin = Zero in some bizzarro-world where such a thing could conceivably happen.  

Proof of Stake is fundamentally at odds with the function Bitcoin was designed to achieve.  Which is why it's never going to occur.  Ever.  It's one of those lines in the sand which too many network participants would refuse to cross.  As such, any attempt to transition Bitcoin to POS is a topic for Altcoin Discussion (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=67.0), because that's where you discuss shit that isn't Bitcoin.

It will set crypto space into confusion, and will likely Make Bitcoin price to be dependent on altcoins that first invented the PoS scam

That is a reasonable option, but such a situation which doesn't align with the current protocol of the Bitcoin network will just make it another altcoin and not worth what the possible value could be then.

There are many uncertainties about how Bitcoin operation would function over the next century as the mining rewards gradually halves to zero and I cannot predict what changes would occur; But I would definitely not want to hold some coin built on PoS model, especially when I opted into PoW in the first place.

The effect would be from being decentralized to heavily centralized because it would be easier for the richer people to amass Bitcoin thru staking


It will definitely have an effect on the future valuation of Bitcoin.   Imagine having the raw materials being produced at 99% cheaper.  It will definitely affect how seller prices their order since they would compete on who sells the cheapest in order for their supply to be sold asap.  Bitcoin valuation that heavily relies on POW will also suffer the same thing.

I don't think bitcoin moving to PoS has ever been a reasonable option for it.

It'll bring so much in centralisation and in destabilising and desecuring the current chain. In most pos systems, there are only a few main staking pools that handle requests - those then take a fee too (increasing their own value at the cost of the chain's users and incentivising the main controllers of a chain to try to keep that control).

Some pos coins under similar circumstances (eg the ones that get to vote on which node can verify blocks) are also problematic for when that node breaks down, fails or gets hacked (and I think the second has definitely happened in a few PoS chains before just going offline).

Proof-of-Stake is fundamentally flawed, that simple. It might work for a pump-and-dump shitcoin, but there's no way the downsides won't appear for a large-scale project such as bitcoin. There's this thing Bitcoiners call "consensus (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Consensus)" that cannot be produced with Proof-of-Stake.

"Don't trust, verify" conflicts with Proof-of-Stake, because the mechanism brings subjectivity to the game. Only with Proof-of-Work you gain complete objectivity, because it can't go more neutral than that; you can actually verify the work. The Byzantine generals (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/The_Byzantine_Generals_Problem) need this objectivity, otherwise their concerted strategy will overtime begin appearing problems.

I suggest reading: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5387588

If the question is about valuation (the value of Bitcoin, as in its price, real or 'fair'), then I don't think there's a direct impact. Maybe we'll get to see for ourselves if Ethereum ever makes good on its promise to switch from one to another. Proof of work is more trustworthy and less centralized, so it would be fair for Bitcoin (or Ethereum, for that matter) to cost more when it's PoW than in an even of switching to PoS. However, if we're talking about actual pricing, I think there won't be any direct impact from the switch, but there can be impact based on the media coverage and sentiments. If some companies bring in new investments because of thinking that a crypto is now environmentally friendly, it can be of short-term help to increase the price. If panic that PoS isn't trustworthy is overpowering, the price can temporarily decrease.

(i say all this in humour. not as a argument. so smile while reading it. its not a fight)

hey if you dont like my pencil math number of about $3.60/eth.. then try your own math out.
add in your own variables. set your own valuation. im not the cost controller. im just giving example of pen and brain math for easy demo..

but hey even ethereum themselves are highlighting their 99.95% less energy usage (cost)
..
i was just doing some pencil and brain maths, even if i dont explain it all
400k validators at 6k blocks a day is ~66 days. so guess why i rounded to ~75 days .. mhm. yep i included the initial block download and other factors and 75 seemed like a good buffer round number to use instead.. and so i didnt stick to the 66day number (which would have been far cheaper)
heck i didnt even use rasberry Pi possible lower costs. so i think its a fair valuation


point is though in normal daily cooperative function of good mining of both PoW/PoS. costs are 2000x difference. causing a 2000x difference in underlying value.

when talking about "good miners" the penalties dont trigger. so i was going with the good miner cost scenario(les variables to wall of text about. trying not to wall of text waffle all variables etc was me being considerate for once

the point being.. and why i even mention ethereum. is they are going through this very scenario right now
the general cost of not malicious-no bug, no error no reject no penalty trigger mining is a 2000x difference. heck even ethereum are picking up on that point and using it as part of their advertising strategy with their 99.95% energy usage(cost) reduction

you can spend hours trying to calculate other costs if penalties are triggered or blocks are rejected in both PoW and PoS

oh and we could have long debates of walls of text about other factors.like
how most of that stake is not actually on 400k pc's where each pc waits upto 75 days from its startup. but instead staked on exchange where its 1 exchange node doing the block signing on behalf of thousands of stakers who dont have to IBD or stay online 24/7
like how its not everyone waits 75 days as some might be lucky and sign multiply blocks within that time and some may wait longer. but hey its an average.

but hey.. the exact refined amount to the penny amount is not the point its the general point of being "a heck of alot cheaper to mine" causing the value people are willing to sell at be a heck of alot less

even ethereum are using the "heck of alot cheaper to mine" when they are promoting the 99.95% less energy usage than PoW..

(separate detail unrelated to the 99.95% energy/cost /value stuff..  and more about the security lacking of PoS)
oh and i also hinted at one of the FLAWS of PoS (staked on exchanges) where those exchanges also being a needed service in of itself as a gateway to fiat and merchant tools. becomes an influencer of blind following where people end up following the whims of an exchange just to stay on the fork the exchange wants to be on so they can still work with an exchange.. and ofcourse not want to lose their stake at the same time if they did fork away from an exchanges proposed blocks which becomes a double penalty for the customer(not the exchange) if the customers want to go-against a exchanges whims.. . thus giving exchanges double influencer/power of network control.. but shh thats a whole different debate for a different topic

Bitcoin Cultists would prefer that bitcoin dies before a conversion to Proof of Stake.
Let them have their way.  :)

In the meantime, Proof of Stake have been around since 2013, so ~10 years,
their are no new PoW coins, because every developer knows it is a dying tech due to it's excessive energy waste.
Majority of PoW miners lose money and only survive off of venture capitalist funding, which is drying up now due to baby boomer retirement.

Easy solution is just ignore the dying btc pow cult and buy/stake your favorite Proof of Stake coins.
And let BTC PoW tech find it's own way to the refused to evolve graveyard.  8)

Proof of Stake has solved how to keep pools from becoming centralized   :Cardano
Proof of Stake has solved the energy efficiency issue.                             :All PoS coins.
Proof of Stake has solved transaction finality.                                         :Algorand


While Proof of Waste has only solved how to waste even more energy every year with zero increase in performance. :P

what legendaryK does is try to promote his favoured cordano

funny because he pretends he is not interested and dislikes bitcoin. much like i dont care for.. pfft. pidgeons(insert any example).. where i for instance wouldnt bother trying to get on a pidgeon website. id just get on with my life going places that do interest me..
yet here he is on a bitcoin website. trying his dang hardest to advertise his pidgeon, ops i mean cordano

here is some there thoughts
yet in all my travels in all the merchants i visited i have not seen cordano once mentioned as a things they accept. nor have i seen any large number of hundreds of thousands of businesses even show a sign of liking cordano as a utility they prefer. (i must admit i dont waste much time asking merchants about it) but i seem to always find many merchants, without prompting show their interest in bitcoin

i have seen soo many businesses running, using and starting up in the bitcoin arena.

but hey.
if he wants to use something with no underlying costs ba pennies. thus no base value. he can speculate all he wants

but if you want to speculate on the features and benefits to come to a price point of sentiment about how much PRICE cordano should play with.. well just look at the number of businesses/people involved. and then you will see why it sells at under $1
..
that all said
cordano is not a investment or meant as a having a value based economics.. its more of a product/tool of the speculative realm. . so do away with that stuff of economic speculation in regards to cordano. you will never win long term. if you just deal with it potential of the utility features. then its a fair price. just dont expect people to speculate it up to $XXK values.
treat it as a cheap coin. for its functional features.  but yea, its a niche thing not a main thing.

edit to answer below:
funny how you notice that the ones that debate me and want me banned are those that advertise altnets and sidechains and altcoins and really hate it when i call them out on their flaws and issues that do not help bitcoin, but instead stifle bitcoin just to highlight THEIR view of the future being away from the bitcoin network. .

as for me being on this forum alot. well its called technology. you know wi-fi, satellites, 5g. it means i can travel and talk at the same time. (though covid lockdowns ddid put a delay in many of my plans)

as for my need to reply with a comment that opposes the person i quote or reference..
personally im not an ass kisser, replying just to agree or to kiss and hug and lick people when they have made a good comment. thus there is no point replying to good comments because the good comments have already said all thats needed.  but obviously if someone misses a point then the topic requires added thoughts and comments to add detail or correct things.
so when you see me comment yes its because im seeing that the previous posts lack something. if you take it as a insult/harm/attack. maybe try researching better. thus get less replies trying to correct or add detail to things you miss out

If that were true, you would have left btctalk years ago.

How many times have the blockstream babies slam you down, almost daily by my count.
Even banned you from the development forum.  ::)

You have a need to argue that borders on a mental disorder.  :)
Which is why I have to be careful at how much of my time, I let you waste.

Putting the security of the network and the centralization aside when it comes to POS, how are the rich not in a favorable position over the poor in Bitcoin as well? In mining, for example. Do I have a chance to mine a block with my poor man's computer when I am competing against mining farms that have tens and hundreds of thousands of ASICS? Unlikely. So what do I need to improve my chances? Expensive hardware that costs money. Me being the poor bastard I am from a third world country can't afford it. That's how those with more resources will always dominate the ones that have not much to spend.     

Of course, "the rich will always have more power than the poor" is always confirmed. Even though, here's some significant differences:

Proof-of-Work:

• You can't forbid or affect the entrance of new voters. Therefore, the money you've allocated for mining might not provide the same percentage of security they once did. Thus, your reward isn't ensured. If the difficulty rises, your reward drops.
• You can't cheat the system without being punished, since you're spending energy.
• It's incredibly difficult to steal ASICs/GPUs, on your way to acquire the votes.

Proof-of-Stake:

• The entrance of new voters is down to you and the rest of the stakers to approve, since to stake new voters need to acquire the units directly from you. Your reward is very well known, and you risk nothing to continue staking.
• You can cheat the system with no punishment. See "Nothing-at-stake problem (https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/2402/what-exactly-is-the-nothing-at-stake-problem)".
• It's incredibly easy for, say an exchange's hacker, to steal the system's units and stake them for their benefit.

And that's before we even talk about the importance of objectivity in a decentralized decision-making system.

the one thing i dislike about all crypto numbers of price and value.
is we associate it with dollars. where the mindset is to price/value it at a rate americans recognise.
it ignores places like africa's sentiments. desires, access

take for instance the fee's... americans think bitcoin fee's are ok. because its like $1. which is not even 6 minutes of minimum wage labour($10/h).. completely IGNORING that its actually like 3+ HOURS of african minimum wage labour($0.3/h) for most africans to just make a bitcoin transaction.

even the PRICE of an asic is priced in btc but based on AMERICAN currency comparison.
a $11k asic might be 6 months min wage labour for an american. meaning an average american can save up and buy an asic.. yet for an african.. its 330,000 hours of african labour nearly 38 years labour to afford an asic
thus pricing africans out of buying an asic.

if only in when markets started emerging in 2010 we didnt market price bitcoin in dollars. but instead in "min mage labour hours"
EG
if 1btc wasnt $6 in 2012 but "1minwage labour hour" where that converts in africa to $0.33(their dollar price)
                                                                             where that converts in america to $7.50(their dollar price)

bitcoin could have truly revolutionised wallstreet and disrupted it. by letting people arbitrage forex. to take advantage.
where an african can mine 1btc locally and sell it remotely for USD and then convert it to african currency and cycle cycle cycle. and americans can convert USD to african buy btc remotely at african rate africa.. sell it back to the US market and cycle cycle cycle..
causing FOREX disruption. while having bitcoin as the fair system for the world to work equally on
but hey. that didnt happen and so the african unbanked are not getting the benefits of bitcoin due to the americanised pricing ignorance of those that want to use the USD as a price point

If ETH switches to PoS and operates for a few years without any attacks on the consensus, then the voices that call for Bitcoin to switch to PoS for environmental reasons will become louder, but I doubt that they will be loud enough to actually stir Bitcoin in that direction. Only if PoS will be proven 100% safe will there be serious discussions if Bitcoin should swap to it, but that's a hella big IF. So don't worry about it too much, let ETH do it first and see how it goes.

If there’s only one sane coin left, it will make choices even easier. Bitcoin will benefit from it, it’s that simple. Each time some project or politicians goes rogue, Bitcoin stands there as a sane choice. And the amount of quality choices is getting smaller and smaller currently.

People aren’t blind. They already come into Bitcoin because of this. It won’t bend to bad decisions and virtue signaling, just like now. When the competition is crippling themselves it just makes things easier.

Fiat being ridiculous is a strong reason to go into Bitcoin. And PoS projects being ridiculous is even a stronger reason to do it. So in my opinion it will reach a higher market value, if there’s any effect at all.

when eth merges to PoS where the cost conditions kicks in causing a redraw of the value down to single digits.. thus create a market crash... those holding coins they bought for thousands that will become only a few $'s.. they will get peed off. they will drop ETH as a pegging chain. as all those pegged sidenets and altnets would drop in price/value too.

they would prefer to seek a chain that has good value that wont just do a PoS detonation
they will wake up to the value lack of PoS

once people with under 32eth realise they cant "solo" stake or get passive income independently and instead stake into pools(exchanges)... again they will see the centralisation of ETH increase where exchanges start being the decision makers/controllers (follow my rules or be forked.. where you cant see my transactions and cant get your coins back..  also lose your locked funds if you punish me via punishments, thus lose your own value by not following me)

when people lock up their stake with an exchange.. they are giving the exchange the control. but none of the costs. its not an exchanges own earnings being staked its their customers.. so customer are unlikely to punish an exchange if the customers own funds are locked in..
meaning customers become sheep following the exchanges plans

again they will want a currency thats more decentralised without those games too, thus PoW would look more appealing

Seems like there's at least one problem you forgot... to me at least. BlackHatCoiner details it and I simply sum it up as objective security. PoS is... subjective incentive. You can call it whatever you want. PoS certainly knows how to churn out the labels... delegated voting, block producers, federations, rotating validators, quadratic votes, treasuries, slashing, epochs, etc. They're still figuring themselves out like a kid who discovered Sartre after a break up (not me, friend of mine, of course).

Oh and what, Cardano solving centralised pools? You referring to the big Press Release they took out in 2021 to announce they've become 100% decentralised? How... decentralised of Cardano to get the community to collectively pay for sponsored press releases.

Energy efficiency has to take into account cost-benefit. I'm struggling to find the benefit of most PoS coins in terms of utility. If it's just cost and no benefit (other than speculation), that's not a matter of efficiency but a waste.

As franky1 points out (damn franky now I have to reference you), shitcoins have no utility. It's a bad word I hate to use but yeah, show me a pizza place taking ADA. In fact, show me a transaction you've made to pay for something someone sold you. I'm curious.

 :D :D

The cost of the mining equipment and the cost of energy , and the warehouse rental forbid anyone but the rich from PoW mining.
Entry by the poor has been banned for years due to lack of profitability of PoW mining.

---

Cardano has over 3000 staking pools, while BTC less than 20 mining pools,
cardano is coded to prevent large pools from becoming a majority, bitcoin has no code to safeguard the 51% danger.
If you can't understand how 3000 is more decentralized than 20, you might want to study harder for your GED.  ;)

If you fail to understand how wasting energy becomes an attack vector, then go play with your crayons.
PoS easily outperform btc in security, onchain transaction capacity , speed of transaction , and transaction finality like in Algorand,
something bitcoin will never achieve.

How lame are the btc cultist that pizza is what they thinks makes a coin network.
https://www.investing.com/news/cryptocurrency-news/papa-murphys-now-accepts-cardano-ada-as-pizza-payment-2487720

https://www.acceptedhere.io/catalog/currency/cardano/

Personally prefer Japanese Food.
https://emurgo.io/cardano-ada-payment-tamuken/
https://re-how.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/d71550-23-7248f6db06d27a81c128-2.jpgamps371550-23-8d5adf5c2543344fc52a7a9725b7f3bc-567x378.jpg

Compare transaction fees of Proof of Waste verses Proof of Stake , so you can see how stupid it is to use btc for payments.
In addition , btc superslow blockspeed makes it unsuitable for use in a payment service at a Restaurant,
Cardano on the otherhand superfast blockspeed is more than suitable for transaction completion as fast as a visa card. :D

Sad thing, about btc cultist, try reading something other than the BTC circlejerk that goes on in these forums daily,
you might learn why PoS has left PoW in the dirt and that PoS won the supposed war years ago.

There is a reason their are no new PoW coins, PoW tech is a dead man walking, and everyone knows it except the bitcoin cultist.

I am sure that's true for some POS coins, but not all of them. I know that some have different slashing mechanisms where stakers and validators will lose part of their stake if they act maliciously. Since it's not in their interest to lose money, the slashing feature forces them to do the right thing.

Are you talking about a validator (exchange or private entity) stealing the tokens from the pool and staking them in their own name? That's always a possibility when the coins are not under your control, sure.

Love the hypocrisy and virtue signaling, the poor for sure have enough capital to risk in some highly speculative, low utility, unregulated, snake oil shitcoin that forces them to luck up their capital to have any consensus power. It’s way cheaper to run a node on Bitcoin and actually being able to enforce rules or refusing/ accepting protocol changes.

Does the absolute amount of pools matter, when most capital will be controlled by just a few hands and locking up capital is also a privilege that mostly wealthy people have?

What prevents the majority of capital holders to just use many pools for attacks?

You still forget that there is a separation of powers, nodes matter.

Yes, it's the lack of profitability. Not the difficulty to understanding mining bitcoin and acquiring the required knowledge. Sure.

None does. That's where the game theory relies upon. You're just too brainless to acknowledge that checkpoints don't protect you against such attack, for if they did, no energy would be required.

That's why they'll withdraw their security deposits before their cheating attempt. There's no punishment to double-signing a past block. Nothing-at-stake is a fundamental problem that comes from lack of objectivity, and it's potential for every Proof-of-Stake cryptocurrency.

Exactly, but not necessarily pool. If a centralized exchange gets hacked, and the hacker gets all the PoS units, besides financial power, he also gains voting power.

Thanks for your explanation..What i understood is that when energy consumption will decrease..  will this lead to a real shift to  POS  based consensus?
But POS based solana is a POS based blockchain still it's not doing really great

yes.
not everyones private wallet of just a couple PoS coin could be staked. so they wont get passive income. so they are incentivised to pool it up into exchanges to have custody of it so that the customer can get a share of the combined stake in exchange custody rewards,

with exchanges holding custody of millions of coins. users wont want their coins vanishing so wont want to punish an exchange if an exchange does something odd.. punishing an exchange becomes punishing its customer(the users themselves)

they wont want to fork away from an exchange because then they cant see their own coin withdrawals/stakes. so they end up blindly following whatever whims an exchange wants just to stay in contact with the exchange and still have funds..

by exchanges having the pools stake of its customers.. its not actually exchanges personal value to lose. its their customers funds. so an exchange has nothing to lose. but knows its customer does.. so the exchange knows the customers are not going to go against the exchange.
people jsut end up blindly trusting an exchange wont do anything bad/accidental

this makes the exchanges become the decision makers and the users/customers the blind followers fearful that if they go against the exchange the customer loses its value.

The other thing not being discussed is are PoS coins REALLY greener if they are not using centralized pools?

Oh, running a PC is WAY less power then running a miner. But how many PCs that are running a PoS node are now going to be running 24/7 vs a few hours a day when someone is home and taking care of things? How many more older more power hungry devices will be turned into staking machines? There are huge mining farms in upstate NY that are almost 100% hydro power.

How many old PCs burning 'only 150 watts or so' for people in an area that uses old coal plants to generate power will cause it to be less green then a 10 PH/s hydro powered facility?

-Dave

using loose numbers from memory (you can do exact math if you wish)

currently there are ~10m GPU's PoW ethereum
as oppose to the ~1.5m asics PoW bitcoin
enjoy doing the maths if you want to work it out yourself

ethereum is not greener than bitcoin while at PoW stage

as for when Ethereum does PoS it will be ~400,000 pc's staking because the min threshold just to be a low laying voter is like 32eth.. (13m staked /32eth=~400k stakers (if all were unique individual rather then combined/custodianized))

but yes. if they all pooled stake. then it would be just a hand full of exchange

as for the topic of valuation.
the 10m GPU (1 peta network /100mhash GPU) which use about 300watt each.
vs post PoS estimates by some of 400k using about 100watts each

is a 75x decrease in cost.. but thats on the scenario of unique stakers for all 400k stakes..
better estimates done and even agreed with by those in ethereum is that its not going to be 400k unique pc's staking.
they assume the xfaxtor to be more like 2000x less
(the ~15,000 full archival nodes bitcoin is undercounted as using by bitnodes)

---

other food for thought about other altcoins and the environment stuff of "greener"

take elons bitcoin vs doge environment speaches

Doge is not some ASIC farm system where farmers choose area's of reliable renewable energy contracts..
its home hobby miners not in control of the energy source.
DOGE is dirtier % of renewable because those mining doge are stuck with what is available where they live.
DOGE people do not relocate to green regions specifically to mine.
so on a % of dirty vs clean. bitcoin is cleaner then DOGE

but % is always subjective.
..
if ethereum was to be individual stakers of individual people in residential area's where relocating is not an option.. the % of clean energy vs dirty will make ethereum look dirty on a % bases. even if the AMOUNT number seems lower on a KWH bases..

but % is always subjective.
.. in a number amount. to be fair.. yea bitcoin is dirtier. but thats because its more widely used and secured and protected where that energy is actually used for security, protection and utility

Was not just talking about ETH but PoS coins in general. Think of the dozens and dozens out there.

How many more machines are going to be running?
How many older less efficient machines are going to kept on 24/7?
How many new PCs will be bought because someone is keeping their old one instead of donating it to a charity.
How many hours will people loose out of their lives setting up what is needed to get PoS running on that machine and verify it's all working properly.
And so on.....
And then you also have the flip side. I use older miners that have hash boards removed and slower more quiet fans as space heaters for parts of the condo during the winter.
Can't really do that with a PC running a PoS coin.....

I need to have my work PC running 24/7 so I use 1 core (of 8) of the CPU to work with Folding@home to mine some curecoin which is also PoS since what the hell it's up and running anyway. But that's an edge case. For most people running a PC 24/7 is a waste of power.

-Dave

im sure there are many coins where people can pull numbers and build charts for and combine numbers and such. i just gave one example for "simples" sake as it was an example that was close to the topic of a PoW to PoS switchover scenario. that being ethereum.. i personally dont care or use it myself but for topic sake of a scenario ethereum seemed closest to use as a reference for, for demo sake of a PoW to PoS value comparison of change

as for math of other/all PoS altcoins usage of PC's .. well yes it all adds up.

the comedy moments i seen in the past was the elon speeches of him preferring DOGE because he thought the % of green vs dirty energy was greener in DOGE.. he was wrong
(though on a non % bases but a KWH bases. small useless, less popular altnets/coins use less power)

PoS is (Techno)Feudalism 2.0

I guess the Dark/Medieval Ages have taught us nothing... that's why WEF's Great Reset agenda (abolition of ownership/freedom) has been very successful so far.

PoW will lead us to energy innovation (think of Dyson Sphere (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere)) long-term wise.

Bitcoin (thanks to PoW's increasing energy demands) will lead us to the next-next level of civilization (Type II) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale#Type_II). Silicon is abundant on Earth, so we could manufacture an unlimited amount of chips for ASICs and whatnot.

Humanity will be immensely grateful to Bitcoin, even though currently they wish it should die/go to zero. :) Historians of the future might even quote this post (assuming this forum exists somehow by then :P).

There's no scarcity of energy, unless you only think in coal/oil terms (narrow-minded mindset).

The only reason globalists are so keen to reduce energy consumption, is because they want to reduce the population (https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth104/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.earth104/files/Unit2/Mod8/Earth104Mod8Fig5.png) (because there's not enough food/land for everyone, electricity could have already been abundant thanks to nuclear energy). There's no other logical/mathematical explanation (as the graph indicates).

There is a huge difference between being "banned" from doing something and being unable to do it.  

It is the difference between locked in a country and prohibited from leaving - e.g. China for some people, eastern Europe under the USSR etc - and being unable to afford a plane ticket to fly somewhere else.  You can alway do something to earn the money to buy one.

Proof of stake is also proven dude  ;D you can see that altcoin nowadays using proof of stake although there is some model like masternode, Delegeate POs and so much more. i think if bitcoin gonna move from the PoW to PoS is still fine nothing gonna take effect. the miner in the other hand will take a deep efect

It has nothing to do with safety, it is all about centralization. For example PayPal is considered safe too but it is 100% centralized. ETH is already pretty centralized and when it moves to PoS, that is another step in the direction of more centralization of it. I double there would be any traditional kind of attacks on ETH PoS considering they hold 72 million of its supply so they practically would have complete control over the network. The only attacks are going to continue to be exploiting the existing flaws in the protocol like DAO and dozen other projects have been doing.

Let alone the advantage or disadvantage, I will not support Bitcoin if it ever goes into Proof of Stake.
Proof of work is a working mechanism and is far way better than just staking your asset to gain more power.
It requires you to run a mining machine or machines if you really want to support the network, instead of just keep buying it.

In the end, it's just going to be PoW forever, so no need for this discussion.

There was enough time for POS to prove itself as something better, but I don't see any cryptocurrency using it that is better in any way, especially if we take into account the security provided by POW. People who advocate this transformation are mostly those who believe that Bitcoin consumes too much energy with an emphasis on dirty energy, and actually do not want Bitcoin to become greener, but to gradually destroy it.

I hope that reason will prevail and that this will never happen, because there would be no end to radical changes - I'm sure that after that the max supply change would follow, because there are a lot of people who think that 21 million Bitcoin is not enough for Bitcoin to be successful...

there are hundreds of altcoins that are forks of bitcoin due to changing the hashing algo.. many of them changed to PoS.

so go check them out and go see how great they are.. hint. if you didnt realise bitcoin already forked to many PoS altcoins a few times, it just shows that it didnt take off

I would guess that POS proved itself as better in the sense that it is not spending any energy. That should be good enough to think that it is quite good and understandable. I personally believe that the best thing about the world is that we have only one, and if we keep ruining the world then we are not going to end up with making a recovery, it is not the crypto market, it is not going to get better.

So, with POS at least we are staking and not using energy and that means we are going to end up saving the world from all that excess energy that mining causes. Sure there are other stuff as well but we shouldn't really be focusing on anything like that at any given time soon. So, just go with staking.

If energy is being used to provide security, it is not being wasted.  Proof-of-Stake may use less energy, but it's a bigger waste of energy in that the energy used doesn't provide comparable levels of security.  In other words, there's zero point in having it if it doesn't serve the purpose it is meant to serve.  In no way, shape or form is that "better".  The word you're looking for is "useless".

If there were a way to provide that level of security without sacrificing decentralisation and without using that much energy, we'd look into it.  But until people grasp the importance of security and decentralisation, your "arguments" will fall on deaf ears.  If you would compromise the fundamental premise of Bitcoin in order to "fix it", you don't understand Bitcoin.

(this is not a rebuttal/opposition, this is adding detail/context/proof that we already have "looked into it" and found a way, as proof of and agreement of what you are saying)

we already found it the answer to the "energy waste"
.. imagine if we wanted the 200exahash security level we have now.. but were still stuck on wasteful CPU hashing..(like many silly altcoins)
the energy wastage of that would be hundreds of millions of PC's..

we found the solution. .. GPU's,, and then found a better solution again.. ASICS.
the watts per hash efficiency is super efficient

back just 12 years ago

a 100watt PC draw = 10mhash
today a 100watt draw = 4,600,000mhash (3kw for 140thash = 100w for 4.6thash)

that is 460millionx more efficient than a PC CPU

the metal hardware production saving alone is another efficiency too..for asics

worded the other way: 30 PC's of equivalent 3KW draw only gets 300mhash compared to 1 asic of 140thash

..
as for the decentralisation of the blockchain data.
asics have no hard drive(they dont touch chain data) so the hashrate and electric rate do no affect the decentralised archiving.
changing the hashing speed or the electric used for mining does not impact the blockchain decentralisation so mining again has no affect on the "centralisation" of block data..  

asics can move pools and distribute themselves in 5 seconds. so even the 'pool' centralisation factor is not an issue. they are not fixed or stuck only operating within one pool

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I would like you to explain how POW in the context of Bitcoin is destroying the planet we live on? The amount of energy consumed by Bitcoin is less than 200 TWh, which is only 0.1% of the total energy produced annually. If we consider that even 50 000 TWh are lost every year, tell me where you see the problem in all this?


The idea of switching to POS would destroy everything that Bitcoin actually is, but that is obviously also the idea of those who advocate such a change. Take a good look at the picture and tell me you still think POW is a problem for planet Earth?

Why do i already know that cringe/ debunked/ uninformed reasons will follow, without knowing what you said?



That youre using the word puzzle already shows that you dont even understanding what mining is, but im glad that you did homework to appeal to some 0 iq authorities.


Sure, it just magically produces security and decentralization without having to adhere to any software engineering principles, just because its cool to use less energy, theres no downsides here.


I forgot that capital doesnt concentrate way harder than energy.

Didnt you just disprove your own point?

The amount of people that made some low quality media articles their new brain is ridiculous.

sidenote from your question.. lets deal with them numbers you quote.. you might like what i say..

take the network hashrate of 230exa(one of its high points)

take some normal asic of this generation (not the old stuff of 2018)

like the 140thash at 3kwh
the 110thash at 3.25kwh
the 95thash at 3.25kwh

call it a 115thash for 3.16kwh average for easy math

and express that as a number.. like if the network for a full year was constantly running at 230exahash it would be USING just 6,320,000kw per hour (6.32gw/h = 55,363.2GW a year  (55.36TW)

oh by the way the network has never been at a constant 230exahash so that number i shown (being 3x less) the real number for the network is even less then the one i just shown.. because the network hasnt always been working at those top speeds constantly

yep bitcoin mining uses less then the 180 number they say it does..
.. reason i believe and in my opinion why they would say a silly benchmark of 180TW+..
so that next year they can come up with a truer number of nearer the 55, without actually having to physically change mining, and say to regulators "look we got greener, pat us on the back"

like how businesses hide profits one year. purposefully to show and claim bad results to set a bad benchmark, just so they can make next years results have 2x profit and make all report readers happy

If we assume that your figures are correct, it is still hard for me to imagine that they would go with such a high consumption only to show in the future that the consumption is even more than x3 less. In global energy consumption, Bitcoin mining is almost unnoticeable even with 180 TWh per year, not to mention only 55 TWh - and I don't understand how those who talk all the time about Bitcoin as something that is destroying our planet are not already destroyed with the facts that are saying the exact opposite?

In addition, with increasingly efficient mining devices and the fact that by the end of the decade, 99% of all Bitcoins will be mined - doesn't that mean that the number of crypto miners will decrease, and with it, energy consumption?

Most likely not.

Bitcoin could be worth millions in 10-15 years from now, so mining will become more profitable.

In 100 years from now, it could be worth billions, so even a miniscule block reward shouldn't matter...

you first say how the number of 180+ is not high in comparison to other industry. then you say why would they use a number so high as 180+..
stick with your first thought the 180+ number not being "high" but just bigger than reality, allowing for a buffer to come down to over stages of time by revealing reality or for bitcoin to grow into without bursting above the 180+ number any time soon

EG if they went for the 55TW number in the first place. they are at a standing point of 'the only way is up' which can then leave negative arguments about government thought XX was bad and now its XX*2

however going with 'government think XXX was bad'(then debunking it in comparison to other industry).. and then in later reports saying 'well this year we are at XXX-20% so things are even better', or saying 'the following years we are still below XXX'

its a way of dowsing the flames of negative burns before the FUDDERs light the match.. first you debunk the XXX is bad. then you show that over time bitcoin has not gone over XXX in any short period of time, ending the argument before it begins

Unlike Ethereum, Bitcoin lacks a central party or leadership structure. It is highly unlikely for Bitcoin to follow Proof-of-Stake because of its very structure, and I don’t think it will ever happen in the future.

You are slightly twisting the truth here and your conclusion is wrong too. Bitcoin is never going to move to an inferior algorithm that everyone knew to have fundamental flaws a decade ago.

Ethereum is centralize while bitcoin is decentralized. Ethereum has a 72 million premine while bitcoin has no premine. The combinations of these two reasons means the centralized authority that has full control over ethereum and its future will benefit a lot by moving to PoS which is why they are forcing this move on everyone. You can't do that in bitcoin that is decentralized. Not to mention that due to lack of premine in bitcoin nobody benefits from moving to PoS like ethereum scammers do.

folks beware of the ethereum switch

the plan is to pump eth1(PoW) by making it more difficult and costly to mine. heck they are now even making ETH asics to assure the costs go up above GPU costs.

meaning pumping the price to the extreme to then 'replay'/'giveaway' Eth2(PoS) coins cheap(but locked in them exchange vaults until detonation of ETH1(PoW).
then at the detonation when its all just Eth2(PoS), the coins will be cheap to sign into existance, so expect a MASSIVE dump far below any price Eth has been in the last few years

do not be fooled by the ETH1(PoW) difficulty rise to be something that lasts and keeps PoS varient strong after detonation.
do not expect prices to remain high after detonation.

although its not going to happen overnight(this week) use this ethereum event (for future readers looking back in hindsight) as an prime example of this topics question playing out