Bitcoin Forum

Bitcoin Suisse founder has mentioned bitcoin could possible go proof of stake some time in the future.
They are going to follow suit after seeing how ethereum's own iteration goes with casper and beacon? :-[
https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-will-follow-ethereum-and-move-to-proof-of-stake-says-bitcoin-suisse-founder
I dont think it would be possible with the way bitcoin was built to not allow this since it could mess up things in some capacity since it was never intended to but to keep the network going with miners in the loop. :-\

Bitmain
avalon/caanan
microbt
ebang
innosilicon

Would never be in favor of that.
They make a ton of gear.

POS = piece of shit

Anyone that likes POS coins without hard iron gear mining coin  is (put in what you imagine)

Nothing backs a POS coin it is simply a junk bond offering cloaked in an imaginary robe called cryptocurrency the reality is if  POS  grows world wide  then governments will attack it world wide.

I can't attack POS  hard enough long enough or mean enough. No mining algorithm means it does not even belong in the same universe as crypto coins.

But that is just my opinion for what it is worth.

Eth  would do well to do progpow declare it a success and build on it forever leaving the idea of POS  off in the distance.

Or  go hybrid  which could be the best of all worlds.  

Now if eth went progpow and then hybrid pos-pow   maybe btc would think about a hybrid mix.  Still think asic builders would really be against. it.

They have tried to wrap bitcoin in an ethereum contract and tote it as btcx or something like this.
I dont know what came out of this proposal or if it actually happened but that does sound like a hybrid or a sort of Frankenstein experiment.
Pick your poison. :-X

What makes bitcoin different from thousands of cryptocurrency on the market? It sticks with the Whitepaper and core vision of Satoshi Nakamoto.

Over time, there are upgrades for bitcoin but the core visions of Satoshi Nakamoto is remained and proof of stake will destroy his core visions. Bitcoin is the game-changer and leader and it don't have to follow any other coins' visions.

If they are looking for another reason to fork the coin for easy money, they can appear like they care about high energy consumption of BTC. They can fork it for thier POS type of coin.


Its just his wish to get rciher while just holding his coins and miners gets to shutdown. What it will do is another fork, there come a time when all the top 50 coins in CMC are prefixed with Bitcoin *******, the top 50th is the Bitcoin POS.

I hear about this person for the first time, and it's pretty clear that they are out of touch with Bitcoin's community and Bitcoin's developers. None of them wants to switch to PoS, no one even discusses it. Who cares if Ethereum switches to it, Bitcoin is Bitcoin, it has tremendous security requirements because it is the leader of crypto world, and it's known that PoS doesn't have the same security properties of PoW, so Bitcoin going PoS - this is just not happening, no matter how "succesful" Ethereum's switch will look.

Bitcoin is the innovative leader here, it needs not follow after ETH updates. POS gives more money to the rich and the more of the coin you have, the more reward you are guaranteed, this does not represent a fair sharing formula and its rewards the rich more, POW is okay with bitcoin let the original vision be preserved.

I would favor a change to POS, if someone can make a good argument that Bitcoin doesn't truly need decentralization, and censorship-resistance.

If I could bet against this outcome, I would. Niklas Nikolajsen has his head in the clouds. At most, a small community might fork off and it would be considered an altcoin.

Also, based on Ethereum's track record, I don't think we'll actually see full POS deployed for several years, and possibly never.

Bitcoin's current POW model is one of its largest criticism. And any move away from it would divide the bitcoin community into large fragments. And it's still too soon do discuss about a different model as many coins are still experimenting what suits them best while bitcoin still is the most beloved currency.

In as much as this is a good idea, I don't think all these huge mining farms will consent to the idea because this will take away all the supremacy they have over the network in gaining BTC rewards. Ethereum will definitely do well after they switch over to Proof of Stake but I don't think bitcoin enthusiasts will follow suite, never!

So have I.
The founder of bitcoin suisse is Niklas Nikolajsen. The only reason how I heard of this guy just last week was from the algorithm inwhich youtube used to find videos of his when I have done searches on bitcoin. ::)
The last video I watched was when he was doing an interview and had a physical 5BTC in his pocket and the interviewer asked why he was carrying it around with him. And his response was as a reminder he bought it for $5 and now it was worth $200,000. That was when bitcoins price was higher two years ago during the all time high. :D

Well, since these to things are considered the defining ones by many people in this community, I am pretty sure that even a good argument would result in Bitcoin Stake or something else created as a fork, rather than Bitcoin going proof-of-stake. I think it's okay that Bitcoin is proof-of-work, and the change is too drastic to be accepted within the community. Oh, and don't we need miners onboard to do that? And how can you possibly convince miners to quit? Speaking of Ethereum, it was supposed to go proof-of-stake already, so it's unclear if that's going to happen now that the previous deadline was missed.

The most important thing is to develop something that is hard to attack without sacrificing on the ideals of decentralization.
I think there are some ways the proposed PoS and the current PoW could be successful attacked. Both could easily be attacked in serious crisis when most people are distracted or when tyranny and lawlessness reigns globally

I would say doing the opposite of Ethereum is the most sensible option in most cases. At least they're out there taking lumps with their whacky ideas so no one else has to do it. Ethereum has the luxury of chucking a mountain of shit at the wall and if it all slides into a heap at the bottom there's enough nutters to club together and resurrect it. Bitcoin will never follow that model.

I remember having read something along the lines of that, though apparently it wasn't a success (as most bitcoin forks are, lol) since the idea is pretty much diverging too much from what a cryptocurrency really is. Anyway, I'm not entirely sure whether PoS would be a good idea to any coin, ever, seeing that most power would belong to those early enough to take a stash of the coins into their coffers and hoped for the best, whereas in PoW mining could be centralized, but at least the means to get there takes a lot of effort and money and your large share of the hashing power won't mean much unless some other shithead decides to mess around the bitcoinspace with you.

I'm not expert enough in the technical aspects of crypto to understand why you have the opinion you have, but I respect it nonetheless--and I know there's a big rift between PoS supporters and those who only favor PoW.

But I'm thinking bitcoin won't ever move to a PoS algorithm, as that would be like adding baking soda to the formulation for Coca-Cola.  It just wouldn't be bitcoin.  I am interested to see how ETH turns out as a PoS coin, though.  I don't own any and probably wouldn't be motivated enough to buy 32 of them in order to stake it, but I'm curious to see whether it's going to be a success.

Yeah, there's that big rift I was referring to above.

And in other news, the US Mint are going to start making coins out of chocolate after seeing that done elsewhere.    ::)

Who even writes this crap?  It's just another clickbait headline quoting a brainfart some random person had.  It's even not news.  All these crypto sites who like to pretend they're some sort of legitimate journalistic publication are just making it plain that they're on borrowed time and have no capacity to produce even remotely informative content.  Time to cut their losses and fold now, I say.  It's just getting embarrassing now.

POS is basically a zero back bond a junk bond much like an uninsured bank account.

If you can convince me I have recourse  with a POS coin fine.

POW is backed by power.

all the POW in the entire world uses less power then Niagara falls  power plants USA and Canada based.

POW allows power shunting for power grids.
POW creates an economic incentive to create solar arrays


Downside  oil coal and gas get burned  to mine.

That is the fault of all the governments in the world that simply choose to not incentivize solar arrays for mining coins.

So here is a hammer  (pow)

crack heads with it and zero murder laws which basically most of the world's governments are allowing.

or use the hammer to build solar arrays which basically most of the world'd governments don't do


So POS pushers   refuse to acknowledge  the real issues  which  are fucked up governments allowing coal to be burned in favor of solar power.

New Jersey USA is a solar leader due to its incentives for solar power.

I could rail on this over and over.

But I won't>  POS = piece of shit  an uninsured bank account or bond.  convince me otherwise.  As I am easy to bend if you have a legit argument.


A  10% high risk investment   for a POS coin is not a good arguement.
even 50% return is not a good argument.

Explain to me what  is the difference between  a junk bond and a pos coin.

by the way a junk bond is better in some cases as it may have company assets behind it.

In 1990's kmart issued 15%  junk bonds that actually were paid off.

POS coins are designed to fail there is no value in them.  They are all clonable with no gear to back them.

Show me I am wrong.  This is directed at Khaos77 (nice name as we will be in total chaos if we all go the way of pos coins)

Which is useless if you consider how much bitcoin have been contaminated with paper speculation, where contracts are sold with 100x leverage and can crash its price to zero at any moment.

Your argument would be valid if bitcoin was only sold and bought in its pure form.

More like people would start forking Bitcoin into POS and calling it Bitcoin stakes or something like that (I might have given someone an idea). Bitcoin will always be Bitcoin, there will no changes to it whatsoever because it would change the technical aspects of it. I don't have a deeper knowledge of Bitcoin but it would change the way Bitcoin is used and in a bad way.

That news is just another fiasco made to advertise.

I dont want to sell my bitcoins for fiat. Would you recommend exchanging it for ethereum?

I don't believe movements from retail investors will drive the price lower. At most, they will keep the price sideways.
Small investors dont have enough money to move the market, even collectively.

I have to remind you that 1% of bitcoin users controls 99% of bitcoin's supply, both inside and outside the exchanges. And we dont know who these users are, if they are compromised with the fiat system and, in case it is so, to what extent. I can say the "hodlers cult" is somewhat involved with derivatives speculation, since they defended it fiercely when I attacked it.

I have enough fiat for some years. I'm worried, though, with the rise of the medical totalitarian global state. This will cause a melting of the fiat currencies, maybe in a unprecedented level in history. Some global centralized cryptocurrency might be launched to replace all fiat currencies, and also dethrone bitcoin from the first position in the market.

The altcoins, though, might be used as a hedge against both bitcoin and fiat currencies meltdowns, thus keeping their positions in the market. It is a theory I have been considering recently, and that is why I'm looking to place some positions in ethereum, monero and others.

it is funny how some people still think the community cares about what ethereum does. the only thing that people care about involving ethereum is its pump and dumps and the profit they may or may not make from that process.
not to mention that the only reason why they are going towards PoS is that they are trying to save their failing project. they know well enough that the chain can not survive long term and it will start losing price and consequently the miners. in PoW that means death of that coin. so they are acting faster to mitigate that.
additionally PoS rewards whomever has large amounts of that coin or "stakes", and since the centralized power has the most amount of ETH they obviously want this profit making for absolutely no work.

Your argument doesn't make a valid debate to what phillipma1957 was saying. He was talking about Bitcoin's incentive-structure, and how Bitcoin is energy-backed. Why would miners sell below its real price based on costs? That would bankrupt them out of business.

You the actual cryptocurrencies that are trading with paper value? POS coins. Made from thin air, and valued based on promises.

Indeed.  It's perverse that people are attempting to cite Ethereum as an example that could be followed, rather than an example of what to avoid at all costs.  ETH painted itself into a corner and is looking for a way out.  Switching algo is a subsequent act of desperation on their part. 

Or to put it another way, if someone stranded in the desert is forced to drink their own piss in order to stay alive, that doesn't mean drinking your own piss is an advisable course of action under normal circumstances.    :D

I doubt they are operating at a loss, the fact that there's so many of them and the new ones keep appearing means that this business is quite profitable. I can totally see them making good profits with ads and paid shilling for shitcoins, exchanges and other companies. Majority of people in crypto don't see any problem with them, they trust that the content they get is actually good, because so few people understand even the basics of cryptocurrencies, most come here for trading.

Transaction can never be instantly, at least, it will take 10 minutes for a transaction if good transaction fees is used for the transaction.


For the POW, you have to stake a coin before making, that is rubbish because POW does not require coin stalking. The only thing you can talk about is to reduce the fee and if you are not comfortable with it, make use of lightning network for transactions which we can proof to be POS because you will have bitcoin before making lightning network transactions, and it is at a lowest feels with fastest transaction that can take less than a minute at times.

I don't see anything wrong with Proof of Stake, and I'm interested to see how it goes with Ethereum.

But no way in hell will Bitcoin ever go to proof of stake. That would require a massive hard fork and we all know the bitcoin devs are extremely reluctant to do a single hard fork, otherwise we would have gotten a needed block size increase long ago. And if (and hopefully when) sometime in the future a hard fork update does occur, there will be plenty of other updates much more important and needed for Bitcoin than just randomly deciding to switch it from PoW to PoS.

It really doesn't make any sense to want to switch Bitcoin to PoS. PoW works, most of the energy used is cheap green energy, there's already massive economic cost sunk into the PoW system, it's already the most secure network in history. It makes sense for there to be one ultra secure PoW system running on the planet, and that of course is Bitcoin.

Clearly, everyone in the topic who says that "nothing is wrong with Proof of Stake", obviously hasn't thought hard about the faulty incentive-structure in POS. The staker doesn't lose anything from behaving dishonestly/badly.