Bitcoin Forum

This question comes, Do btc network can move to POW to POS?
I am just asking and there is a issue that electricity bill too. Energy problem is most hottest topic all now. so lets discuss this

PoS is far more centralized. If you want possible more decentralized system, bitcoin PoW is it.

Bitcoin mining hashrate is increasing. It means bitcoin mining is profitable for miners. Even despite the recent significant bear market, bitcoin mining hashrate still reached all-time-high.

Proof of Stake is more easily to be manipulated. I don't naively say that Bitcoin network (with Proof of Work) does not have risk of 51% attack. In the past, there are some pools which have same owner groups, had enough total hash rate to run 51% attack. Fortunately for Bitcoin network, those mining pools wisely to not do such attacks.

You can compare how to collect enough hash rate with Proof of Work from mining rigs, mining pools to collect enough hash rate with Proof of Stake from stakers. I am sure the procedure would be more easily with Proof of Stake. There are more complicated things to run 51% attacks on PoW network than on PoS network.

The estimated cost of 51% attack using NiceHash price: https://www.crypto51.app/
The estimated confirmations of altcoin networks which are equivalent to 6 confirmations of Bitcoin network: https://howmanyconfs.com/

You can easily see how strong and safe the Bitcoin network is. By that I imply, why do Bitcoin miners, investors want to move from the strongest, safest to a weaker one?

It can move, and actually, it does have forked to Proof-of-Stake, which failed miserably: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoinpos/

The reason why reasonable people don't want it to switch to Proof-of-Stake is because they're reasonable. Proof-of-Stake, if you didn't know, comes with significant downsides. Here's a useful thread: [Megathread] The long-known PoW vs. PoS debate (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5387588.0).

Also, the TL;DR differences between these two mechanisms:

Moving to Proof of Stake network like BNB and Binance Smart Chain. Binance team can decide to halt their chain whenever they want such as BNB Chain Halts After 'Potential Exploit' Drained Estimated $100M in Crypto (https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/10/06/binance-linked-bnb-price-falls-close-to-4-on-hack-rumors/).

Another example is Terra in May this year. Terra Validators Halt Blockchain for Second Time to Plot Next Steps (https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/05/13/terra-validators-halt-blockchain-for-second-time-to-plot-next-steps/)

Reasonable people don't want Bitcoin to switch from PoW to PoS, I agree with you completely. Two case studies above are enough for PoS enthusiasts to get rid of that idea.

Bitcoin can easily move to PoS. This code is already has that implemented (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5414147.msg61180287#msg61180287).
The problem is not technical. The problem is that moving to PoS is stupid. Moving to PoS will make bitcoin centralized, hence pretty much useless.
Maybe you should read a bit into https://bitcoincleanup.com/

Those that moved to POS because of the energy consumption of POW know little about POW, and it's the only reason people complain about POW. To maintain the decentalized nature of Bitcoin POW should remain. POS looks childish, unlike the POW that requires mathematical knowledge and good amount of power to mine a block. This is actual work and it's more secured than the POS. I think it'll be difficult for the government to regulate bitcoin with POW in place and easier if BTC uses POS.

It boils down to incentive.  Miners are not incentivised to torpedo their entire business model.  Users are not incentivised to give power over the network to centralised entities like exchanges that hold vast sums of BTC.  In PoS systems, those who hold the most tokens control the network.  Bitcoin provides greater utility, value and reward the way it is.



Beat me to it, heh.


//EDIT:

*** IMPORTANT NOTICE ***
Pay no attention to the replies later in this topic by user LegendaryK (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3450524)/TangentC (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1303943)/Khaos77 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2522969)/Zin-Zang (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1777865).  They are an imbecile and a troll.  Place them on ignore as they don't deserve your time or attention.

I think bitcoin can move to POS just like ETH did. But POS is centralized, moving bitcoin to POS will be the end of bitcoin's decentralization and then bitcoin will be no different from existing assets, which will be controlled by the government. It is a bad idea and I believe that if this proposal is made, it will be strongly opposed by miners and the community. Until now, apart from the limited supply leading to the price increase, decentralization is the biggest beauty of bitcoin that no other asset class has.

It can be moved or it can be merged as ETH2.0 so yes it can be but it will completely destroy the decentralisation and bring censorship along with reversibility so the trust will be no more so just let it be. Energy consumption maybe a small problem and we community doesn't meed to get manipulated by what media shows and what government wants to prove even though it's not entirely true.

You can change the code and create a new coin which uses POS algorithm. But that would no longer be bitcoin. That would be a shitcoin like many other cryptocurrencies.


If you think that bitcoin consumes so much energy, I recommend you to read the topic created by fillippone.
Debunking the "Bitcoin is an environmental disaster" argument. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5325350.0)

the government is very hawkish to BTC, so turning it to POS will really destroy everything that Satoshi worked for. SEC will eat our lunch money after turning BTC as security. don't give so much trust to these greenpeace and call for renewable energy, they are also backed by motives. so you have to figure who benefits when BTC goes POS.

That is a very nice insight from you which is a fact also
Apart from the tendency of Bitcoin being highly centralised if it is moved to proof of stake, there is also going to be a problem of too many forks of Bitcoin.
If there were supposed to be migration of Bitcoin from proof of work to proof of stake it should have been done early enough when the network was not so large but with the large network of Bitcoin today any attempt to do that we throw the miners into big confusion and the resultant effect will be up to three forks of Bitcoin.

It is a very fearful thing to behold. Bitcoin can undergo many changes, but migrating from PoW to PoS is one of the last things we will see if it will everly happen.

When there is a fork, the chain with more cumulated work is considered Bitcoin.
In the remote event of a consensual change to PoS, how would we determine the “true” bitcoin?
Even if the move would be consensual there would still be miners on the “old POW chains) so, there would be a POW bitcoin.

Highly speculative.

If Bitcoin moves to PoS then I'm sure it won't be approved by many. After all, PoS only creates centralization which no longer results in anonymity. Control can be disconnected at any time. And don't expect Bitcoin to be like Ethereum which miners now don't like. Bitcoin must remain PoW and whenever it must remain PoW, we only have Bitcoin consistently whereas when other altcoins move to PoS then it does not apply to Bitcoin. The electricity bill is just talking about having stakeholders have complete control and that's not what Bitcoin is all about. Still, raising the issue of environmental pollution? an alibi that until now has never been proven bitcoin damage the environment. Believe Bitcoin is always friendly to the environment.

Bitcoin can switch to proof-of-work if consensus is reached, I think. But since it won't ever be reached, it can't, there can only be a fork but Bitcoin will remain PoW. Why will it remain PoW? It's a more secure and less centralized option, the arguments were already noted in the thread. Since it's not merely a whim, I think people should try to push for the PoS. Take GPUs, for example, which are getting increasingly more power-hungry. They, let's be honest, are usually used for leisure, as not a lot of people do the kind of work that requires a very powerful power-hungry GPU. They do get more powerful with every generation, but that leads to increase in energy consumption. I don't see people calling to ban GPUs or ask gamers to play less demanding games and buy simpler gear.

They sure can move to POS. It just needs to go through the consensus of miners. At least 51% of miners need to provide their consent and remaining 49% can fork out. This is how it can be done.

However, considering how big the miner network is for bitcoin, I don't see it happening ever. At least not in our lifetime to be honest. Also moving to pos means the network will be more centralized and miners will loose their investments that they had done on their mining gears. So I doubt if a consensus will ever be reached.

Like others said before me, PoS is more centralized than PoW. Why? Because the entry point is much higher. With bitcoin you need to buy a decent miner, but look at ETH. You need a lot of money invested to be able to stake it. 32 to be exact. That's almost 50k usd! You could solo mine bitcoin with less money invested.
People who cannot afford to stake alone use big pools and this makes all stakers centralized in 2 or 3 biggest pools. I've read that over 30% of ETH staking deposits is in one pool and this can grow in time.
You don't want this to happen with bitcoin.


You mean proof of stake, right?:D

Ain't in favor of Bitcoin moving from PoW to PoS if ever that happens in the future. If we need true decentralization, PoW is the best bet. I am not saying that Proof of Stake is bad, but it does have some positives such as energy consumption and transaction fees.

However, the bad side of PoS is that it's centralized. Now that Ethereum has moved to PoS, it's no longer a decentralized coin like Bitcoin is right now.

Ethereum has evolved from semi-decentralised shitcoinery to a form of decentralised shitcoiney.
In lntellect honesty you cannot rule  out a passage to PoS transition , the outcome will be totally different from bitcoin.

I have few POS coins before and tried to mint/stake with full node it generates me free coins but most of POS coins are not successful the price become worthless and I heard that the transaction from POS can be easily manipulated if one of the nodes is dishonest and I think their big issue is double-spend compared to POW algo.

You are asking for an honest debate in a forum that is 99.9999% btc cult nut jobs.
So expect a major PoW slanted reply to your question.

Facts
1. US & Europe governments are forewarning that a PoW mining ban is coming.
( Just as China did for years before they actually enacted it.)

The worldwide PoW mining ban is coming no matter what network security model is chosen by any coin community.
Expect at earliest a PoW ban in the US early 2023, at the latest 2025.

The usual nonsense speak that PoW is so great, is pure bullshit.
PoW mining is centralized, to a mere 4 mining pools with over 51%, has been for years.
4 people dominate all of BTC PoW security, lamest security model ever.
Only the ultra rich or those stealing electricity thru legal or illegal avenues can earn PoW mining.

While everyone with a brain , such as ethereum have moved to PoS, doge scheduling a move to PoS,
only btc PoW model, is still in the top 19 coins on CMK.
So to say PoW is dying out is not speculation, it has basically already happen, some are just too stupid to grasp it.

Once the US President uses an executive order to ban PoW, (expect Europe to announce their ban within 1 month of the US ban) ;)
Bitcoin community will most likely have less than  6 months before the ban takes place. (If that , may only be 1 month depending on the energy status)
Considering how many years it took ethereum for the successful conversion to PoS,
expecting the BTC devs to make the transition from PoW to PoS in such a short time, without major security or network crash, is more than hopeful.

So the only real survival options that the BTC community will have due to their lack of planning, is not a conversion to proof of stake,
but an even funnier conversion to either a Wrapped Bitcoin Token on the Ethereum or Cardano Proof of Stake chains.
:D

So the option of converting BTC to PoS , won't happen due to lack of planning by the btc devs and community.
The only survival option for BTC will be to become a token on the Proof of Stake networks of Ethereum or Cardano.
Oddly enough this would give btc a massive increase in transactions performance, energy efficiently, and access to smart contracts that at the present it will never achieve on its pathetic proof of waste network or ridiculous offchain networks.
or
The only alternative for the PoW fanatics , is to just let btc die , because they refuse to acknowledge the failure of Proof of Waste as a security model.
 8)


FYI:  :D :D :D
https://www.cryptoglobe.com/latest/2022/10/cardano-ada-founder-on-why-pow-based-bitcoin-network-could-and-should-be-shut-down/

In theory, bitcoin can still move from POW to POS if there is consensus from miners. But once bitcoins go to POS it's like thousands of shitcoins out there so why do we have to destroy bitcoin. If you want to invest in POS coins, you can choose any alt currency on the market, bitcoin is different from all the rest and it is unique so don't try to make it trash like altcoins. Take a moment to compare the difference between POS and POW, you will understand why bitcoin should be POW.

Why Bitcoin can't easily switch to PoS.

1.  Which version of PoS would it switch to?
     Ethereum PoS or Cardano PoS or Algorand PoS are all different codes with different designs.
     * Most PoW supporters are so clueless they don't even know that different PoS coins use different PoS code designs.*
    
2.  All Pruned Nodes will be lost in any conversion to PoS.
     Only Nodes with Full history back to the genesis blocks allowed.
     Let the arguments over the effects on security of losing all pruned nodes in a single update begin.

3.  Odds are trying to convert to PoS in a short time would cause major crashes or even lost coins.
     No major PoS coins uses that crap segwit code.
     Would all segwit code be pulled for a PoS conversion.

Expecting a community too clueless to even admit PoW is a major problem,
even after warnings of Proof of Waste have been around since 2013,
expecting them to turn on a dime and convert to a flawless PoS code design in anything less than 5 years is fool hardly.

Nope a BTC PoW to PoS conversion will fail,

BTC only hope of survival is becoming a token on robust well designed PoS networks like ethereum or cardano.

POW is basic for Bitcoin.
We have enough energy for Bitcoin network.
POW means energy, energy means value.

The main task that PoW solves in bitcoin is to ensure maximum stability and security of the network, besides, the transition to PoS will make bitcoin less predictable and deprive it of the status of digital gold. Perhaps the Greenpeace and Ripple initiative 'Change the code, not the climate' has more far-reaching plans under the guise of caring about the climate.

Who said it can't?

BTC very well may move to PoS.

But this decision requires consensus. If the user base and the miners accept this change then it will happen.

In my opinion, this would happen only when we hit a wall with PoW. When PoW leaves us with no room to expand then people will take PoS more seriously. That will probably happen in the future but probably not in the next 5-10 years.

As long as mining is sustainable, miners will continue to mine.

Actually a change that completely removes the PoW miners would not require their inclusion in any consensus.

The real problem with btc, is it is completely rudderless since satoshi disappearance.
BTC has no strong leaders, and no strong devs,
which is why it sits in a pathetic low transactions, energy wasteful , and soon to be banned proof of waste design.

What will happen , is the btc community will do nothing except deny their is a problem, until the US & Europe bans proof of waste mining.

Their literally will not be enough time to convert to a PoS design,
so BTC either converts to a token on one of the strong PoS networks, ethereum or cardano.
or
The BTC network dies in a US / Europe government induced death spiral.
Because not only will they ban the mining, they will also ban the coin being traded by their citizens driving the price of btc to $Zero almost overnight.

 8)


FYI:
10 Reason Why Conversion of BTC to PoS will Fail.
Requires the following
1. Admit PoW is a tech dead end that will be banned by the world governments
2. Start working on a PoS conversion years before the ban.
3. Choose which type of PoS code base to use.
4. Begin the conversion and testing , which will take years like ethereum conversion did.
5. Does the current reward stand, or does the community modify it.
6. Is Segwit removed.
7. Can segwit locked coins stake.
8. Since PoS can support higher onchain transaction capacity, why keep segwit or useless offchain networks like LN or Liquid.
9. All Pruned nodes will no longer function. Security effects.
10.  Exactly who will coordinate the conversion.

Considering the lack of leadership at the wayward btc community, nothing will be done,
and by the time the Governments say enough is enough, it will be too late for anything except btc becoming a token.  :D

BTC community is unable to even admit that proof of waste is a dead end,
which is why their is no growth or real evolution of the dead tech running btc.

For us who support btc, we know the truth and that is the energy consumption of btc is not too much than what the outsiders think. There are still ways for btc to become more friendly to the environment and that is if miners will use renewable energies. See? There is no real need for btc to transfer to proof of stake.

Btc is known to be a decentralized coin but I think there are also manipulators on here like the whales but I think this isn't worst than if btc changed its consensus mechanism. Some says that there are now pos versions of btc so why won't those who are concern about the environment use that instead? That should have solved their problem easily.

See? That's the problem with you. You want "strong" leaders, because you're weak, no offense. We don't understand decentralization the same. To you, it's just decentralization as long as the leaders agree with the masses. Otherwise it's "bad decentralization". If it doesn't go well with governments and feudalists, bad!

This particular nonsense you've spit is a feature, not a bug. Bitcoin has no leaders, and that's the whole point. There's no Vitalik to spear the news. There's no Powell to bail out the oligarchs. No Changpeng Zhao to adjust the supply for that one business' benefit. Bitcoin takes out human corruption, because the humans that found it stepped away.

The real problem is your understanding of decentralization and geography. If you’re that convinced of PoS on Bitcoin, i suggest you start running a PoS node here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5414147.msg61180287#msg61180287) and save us all from doomsday. I hope the time between this message and then will still be enough for you to save us.

Is this what altcoiners dream about at night? I mean it must get harder and harder to keep convincing an army of unknowledgeable users that building a rube goldberg machine is innovation and serves any purpose, in the altcoin world. And to bring them to keep dumping money into promise-utopia — deliver-nothing roadmaps.

The death of decentralised money would be Bitcoin switching to PoS, not fruitless bans of authoritarians that can’t even keep their own currencies together.

People that verify independently, enforce the rules of the network on their own node and decide which rules run on their own node are taking leadership over their own destiny. It’s not the passive kind of sheep mentality that checks Twitter or YouTube 24/7 to see where their idol claims to bring them. Bitcoin is bursting with leaders and void of rulers. Anyone with common sense will realise why this a feature not a bug.

I believe the current risks of POS is just too much to make it at least acceptable to choose over the proof-of-work consensus system that we have right now. Although this comes at a price in the form of our climate and environment deteriorating. But in all honesty, that is a problem that these oil companies choose to actively ignore because there had been and always had been opportunities for us to switch to a cleaner source of energy and yet we don't. And as in the case of bitcoin mining a lot of massive miners are actually building their own farms with renewable sources of energy given the fact that some countries ban the use of residential electricity for mining.

I was once a POS believer, given the fact that the current consensus system is flawed and of course could be made better, but doing my research and weighing the factors down, I'd rather wait for my transaction to go through than lose my money from a hacker attack that devastated my coin's POS system due to it being so centralized.

I see the btc proganda cult nutjobs
BlackHatCoiner & Tadamichi have come to spread their nonsense.

If these two cult members are correct,
then PoW is safe and those numerous all over the world news articles about energy waste and government bans are all made up.
Quite the Conspiracy they believe in.

Odds are higher these two are just morons, and the many articles that show the PoW bans are coming are accurate.


 8)

FYI:
Like I said earlier, the BTC community is too clueless to admit PoW is a failed design.
Which is why they would fail to convert to Proof of Stake before the Proof of Waste ban occurs.
They can not even recognize the problem, those morons thought China banned PoW because they were afraid of btc.   ::)
Stupid train gonna keep running over them until the death spiral.

"Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury BTC Proof of Waste, not to praise it."
 
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/white-house-suggests-banning-proof-of-work-mining-used-by-bitcoin

I think it is easier to "centralize" Bitcoin mining, when someone can simply buy a shitload of tokens and have a huge say in the direction that the project is going..... in PoS, that is the case. A Fiat whale can simply buy a lot of tokens and then have a huge say in a lot of decisions that usually were made through consensus from Full nodes in Bitcoin mining.

In PoW.... this is not as easy, because you have to invest a lot of time and money into ASICs and you have to hire people to run those mining farms and you have to spend on the expenses of such a mining farm. (Electricity & labour & hardware etc...)  ;)

Just answered that here:

Said the Proof-of-Stake cultist.   ::)

And what you're too myopic and limited in brain capacity to realise, is that, even if mining bans do come, it would merely increase decentralisation.  Large ASIC farms would not be able to operate because they would be shut down by authorities.  But smaller mining operations would be more difficult to notice.  People are mining in China right now, despite it being banned.  All they have to do is remain small enough to stay off the radar.  

Bitcoin's network is battle-hardened and resilient.  It can adapt.  I have zero concerns about world governments and what they think they can achieve.  I guarantee you we are more determined than they are.  We can react faster than any democratic government because we aren't bogged down by debates and votes, or waiting for bills to pass.  We're always going to be several steps ahead.  

And decentralisation isn't the only factor.  This is about security as well.  Even if Bitcoin's present hashrate was cut by 75%, it would still be more secure than any weak-ass PoS trash.  

The investment of time, money and the electrical energy is one of the pillars that add real value to the coin.

I could give a rats ass what some politician or wannabe tree hugger thinks. Idiots always collude in mass. They don't give two shits about enviro, just power and control, period.

Peer reviewed and individual verification of system design outweighs hermeneutic interpretation of secondary mass media sources that have no background in the field.

Stop being lazy and start doing the former. Maybe it will help you combat your constant fear and you’ll actually start to understand how to process information wisely.

The reason why Bitcoin will move from POW to POS is for it to maintain its credibility. Some naive people will always say POS is more decentralized and secure but in reality, POS are centralized though it may be secure an example is what Binance did to stop some fund stolen by a hacker on their Binance Smart Chain network this year.

The issue about BTC mining electricity use are full of misinformation just to manipulate the mining of BTC but there is a lot of BTC enthusiast organization that is working on the use of green energy.

I see many people are saying why bitcoin won't move from pow to pos they mostly ask because they think pow will consume some energy and its not good for the environment while in pos you won't need to consume any energy for mining bitcoin while pos is way more centralised comparing to pow and this can be manipulated much easier

It is akin to saying that we need governments with armed people to protect honest people from violence: it works (maybe) until your "protector" decides to use weapons against those honest law-abiding persons. Who will guard against a centralized body that has access to your funds, and who can dictate what to do? If they can cut hackers off the system and return stolen money, they also can take out money from people who never thought that they are going to be deemed criminals in the future. Proof-of-stake is the quintessence of a permissioned financial system in which it is elite groups of wealthy stakers who can and will decide the fate of less successful participants and who, in turn, is going to be controlled directly by powerful representatives of the system for which bitcoin has been created to be an alternative.

Bitcoin PoW requires working hard to earn reward rather than requiring money. A PoW consensus mechanism requires you to solve puzzles and get rewarded once the work is done.. But PoS says you just need to prove you own hugh amount of money to get a job and earn rewards. It's a very corrupt system... The kind of corruption we see in "third world countries"

Hardwork requires alot of energy. The important thing is to make sure that much of the energy is going into solving problems rather than getting wasted in any form. If most/all of the energy is used to solve problems then there will be no need to consume more electricity from nuclear power plant (for example) to solve the problems the mining hardware has solved. The miners are supposed to use energy efficiently to prevent waste of energy that should be used in solving problems like heating homes during winter.

Oh yeah the energy problem, it’s good way to market bitcoin actually. At least for searching the energy consumption peeps are searching bitcoin on the Google and Once they realise it’s nothing as compared to the worlds energy consumption they would definitely go and buy it. Far cheaper than printing money in a press, hiring world class security to protect it and yet getting robbed now and then. Paying salaries to press runners and what not.

Definitely Bitcoin is working on PoW because that’s what Mr. Satoshi dreamed about and had all 360 thoughts while developing blockchain.

PoS came in afterwards when they thought about new business line. Funny.

Because they're waste themselves.  ;)

Actually.
 :D

https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/consensus-mechanisms/pos/


So the developer thinks PoS more secure, less energy-intensive, and better for implementing new scaling solutions.
 ;)

---

Considering some of your other statements

How you can support PoW centralized 4 person pool operators dominated security, is a flaw in reasoning,
but seeing as how you are a btc cult member most of your thinking about crypto is flawed.  :-*

Every altcoin in existence has a higher onchain transaction capacity and greater ability to scale onchain than btc flawed PoW design.
But ignoring that is your strong suit.  :D

I'm obviously questioning that part, and I've been questioning it since your stay here. I have also been questioning the centralization part. We all have been. Counter-arguments have been submitted. You're stuck at ad hominem.

Says the person who doesn't understand the essence of running a node (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5388745.msg59465990#msg59465990).  ::)

Aw many of my dear fellows explained this to you that Bitcoin is considered as the real Decentralized Currency and people not even consider is Decentralized on the same page they consider Bitcoin as real Stpre of Value. A pure asset which protect their privacy and their rights for the financial freedom so this is not even possible to move Bitcoin to the POS as what makes Bitcoin the King is POW.

Actually that's what he says, not what he thinks. Never forget that tiny detail.
And, unfortunately for ETH, the reality is already showing how badly centralized it is.




And still the altcoins are cheaper than Bitcoin. Wonder why...
Bitcoin doesn't afford to make experiments that can easily lead to mistakes. This doesn't make it flawed.
If you consider the new centralized ETH or BNB chains so much better, why don't you just remain at your bank account? Just because of its name?

Because most new coins get their few months of hype and then they disappear never to be heard from again.  Mining is a commitment, because you often have to buy specialised hardware.  And not many people want to commit to fly-by-night crapcoins.  Otherwise you're investing in hardware just to be left with an expensive space-heater when the coin you're mining becomes worthless and all the mindless speculators have moved on.  Whereas Proof-of-Stake is ideally suited for flash-in-the-pan hype-fests which are totally lacking in substance and purpose, because you can just sell it and move on to the next pump'n'dump turd.

Good coins are more than the sum of their mechanisms.  They need to fulfill a purpose.  If people are actually going to use a coin, meaning it actually has a future, then you want Proof-of-Work and a strong hashrate to ensure those users can transact securely and safely, without interference from intermediaries and without centralised entities suddenly changing the supply rules or co-opting the network in other nefarious ways.  

If, however, a coin is some hollow, get-rich-quick scheme, where it doesn't matter whether the network is secure because most of it is going to be held on exchanges by speculators and no one is going to spend any of it (likely because it has no merchant adoption and no one could spend it even if they wanted to), then yeah, Proof-of-Stake is 100% the way to go.  

As for Ethereum, I suppose Proof-of-Stake is also a fallback for when you realise you've screwed your alignment of incentives, which is exactly what they did.  ETH tried to do too much and their infrastructure simply couldn't handle it.  I guarantee you they wouldn't be doing this if they had any other choice.  'Plan A' with the DAO didn't pan out a few years back, so ETH and ETC split.  And now 'Plan B' has failed too, so this is either 'Plan C' or perhaps even one of the later letters.  It's possible I've lost count of the comedy of errors.  They're in damage-limitation mode and trying to spin it as a positive.  But anyone with any sense recognises it's another failure.  

Imagine who will do everything when you will move from POW to POS? Is there a team? It's not like a hard fork that anyone can do it. Will the community accept this migration? Can you shut down old chain miners who don't want to stop themselves? How will you control them? If miners continue mining then the old chain still will be live. Due to true decentralization, anyone can't move Bitcoin from POW to PoS? There will be many more questions definitely during the move. So it's quite impossible.

Proof of stake does not only make the network more centralized bht could also give the power of the network to a few users who hods the highest stake therr by making them controlled the network trasaction confirmations.

So ultimately bitcoin is not design to be controlled by a few user and bitcoin decentralization is what give bitcoin that power of being uncontrolled.
Bitcoin network hasrate have been touching all time high on several occasions, and Bitcoin miners are constantly looking for an improved and environmentally friendly energy supply that will aid more bitcoin morning efficiency such as Bitcoin mining green energy supplies so no need for proof of stake for bitcoin since there are alternatives to most of the contending issues facing Bitcoin proof of work algorithm.

how about this I used to believe in free speech until I read your thread topic.

now I believe in deletion of inappropriate topics such as yours.


If you could make the effort to prove me correct and explain why I think you are completely inappropriate to ask this question I would be impressed.

Btc can move to PoS if the software is there and the majority of network aggree with it but i think its not going to PoS but the miner keep look a renewable energy to proof bitcoin is not that bad

I don't think it is a good idea for Bitcoin to be moving to PoW mechanism...at least for now! Time will eventually tell which is the better option: PoS or PoW. We already know that in terms of security and decentralization, it is PoW that is the most reliable and this one of the many things that define Bitcoin so taking that away and you are left with just skeletons. Now, the biggest concern with PoW is, of course, the huge amount of power that it is using in the mining and confirmation process and zeroing on this aspect alone there is a growing movement to stop Bitcoin from further growing...as if doing so will stop climate change altogether. On my side, there are far more industries even unnecessary ones that are eating out a lot of power but they are allowed to be doing business so why make a big exception on Bitcoin?

What is funny , is you still don't understand it.  :D :D

---

Exactly,
It is impossible for BTC to convert to PoS, because their is literally no one in charge to coordinate the change.
Which means when the US & Europe ban Proof of Waste, the only options are utter destruction of btc or becoming a token on a PoS network before the crash.
However, 4 mining pool operator control over 51% hashrate, 4 people colluding is centralized.
But the pool operators only centralize the transactions control, the code development is still rudderless.

---

You kind of just rambled.

So if a dummy buy an asic, he can mine BTC & Bitcoin Cash until the PoW bans take place.

But if an Investor buy a PoS coin, it can literally only stake that single coin.
Hate to break it to you the staking coin is more specialized than the mining asic.  :)

PoS coins don't waste energy, PoW coins do waste insane amounts of energy.
Energy that people could be using to heat/cool their homes, or use for cooking or refrigeration.
Energy that people need to survive and have a decent life.

As for Ethereum, by converting to PoS,
it is more secure, less energy-intensive, and better for implementing new scaling solutions compared to the previous proof-of-work architecture.
And here is a biggie for you,
Ethereum PoS is totally immune to the coming Proof of Waste Bans.

---

You know why all of these topics about converting BTC to PoS keep popping up.
The BTC masses are not as stupid as the BTC cult nutjobs,
a few of them are starting to realize , hey what happens to my btc once the US and Europe ban PoW mining. (They can see it coming.)

Some think, a quick conversion to PoS ,
and that can't happen due to the lack of leadership in btc development.
So thinking PoS is going to save BTC network is not going to happen.
Once the PoW Bans are enacted, there won't be 2 years to start the conversion, figure out what PoS code is required,
what change to make or not make to the reward system, whether or not to become deflationary by burning transaction fees.
The BTC community is literally incapable of a successful conversion.

So that only leaves wrapped tokens, which is already being used,
https://wbtc.network/

https://www.tronweekly.com/cardano-wrapped-bitcoin-boost-adoption/

The only other option will be to just let btc death spiral.

I suggest you look at the following
Ethereum
Cardano

Both easily out-scale the pathetic proof of waste network btc uses.

 

Leg-End
i know you are a ether fan girl
we get it. no need to self promote all the time

the thing is although ether allows many pennny pinchers to tokenise an eth. and convert that eth to genesis a new network where they can then sell pennies for obsscene prices

but you are ignoring the security of the underlying networks you adore. you only want to make bitcoin a network where you can lazily invest nothing but get passive income for free..

you forget that that energy is not wasted.
when energy is produced. it doesnt live for ever. once its done a lap around the grid it does not return to base to be put back into a box. once produced its used

energy companies want customers. they want people buying their energy. they even have to upgrade their production to cater to the future meaning the more customers they can get now the faster they can upgrade

when building a new 2GW power plant. they are not building to demand of today. they are planning ahead to build for the demand of 50+ years time
meaning the current demand today is 1GW to be ready to also cater to the the community of 2070 2GW estimate

but with population demand today of 1GW they are not fully utilising their capacity and only getting 50% of potential income now. thus they end up double charging customers.

where as if they can sell 0.2gw to bitcoin asic farms they can get more income and not have to charge the other 1GW as much

bitcoiners can buy up long term contracts to assure power companies of long term income and give then alot of money to start expanding more sooner rather than waiting decades for population growth to finally 'buy in' to the capacity

..
as for ethereums transition to PoS
what you are not realising is springs $1500 market price was backed by $700 of underlying mining costs that helped support its 'non zero' bottom market price from going to double digit prices

but now that underlying cost is less than $40 meaning that ethereum market price is more speculative bubble amount which can shrink down to double digit amounts

..
as for the security of bitcoin vs ethereum
when so much stake is stacked in coinbase.. if coinbase wanted to change some policy/rule.. thousands of users staked in coinbase will NOT vote against coinbase no matter the maliciousness of the new policy. because voting against coinbase does not hurt coinbase. it hurts the users who lose their stake. thus coinbase has a no-risk ability to change rules but users have a 100% risk of coinbase changing rules if rejected. and so coinbase ends up having more power to change the rules without resistance

bitcoin however. the mining investment vs code policy change does not harm users. users can just reject blocks . miners can easily pool jump in seconds without risk of that value but effectively protecting the network

bitcoins security model is better for all.. PoS is not

@franky1

You did get the part where, I said the btc dev community was incapable of conversion from PoW to PoS.
right?

Why don't you end all of this PoS topics questions.
Because they are all happening, because people are worried about the coming US & Europe PoW bans.

So just explain to everyone why PoW will be able to survive the US & Europe ban and how they will still be able to trade PoW coins, even if the PoW bans include banning trading PoW coins on exchanges, and the price not collapse.
I won't even comment after your post, to leave that explanation post unsullied.  ;)

I'll consider it a fairly tale to help me sleep, but the rest might believe you.

Not stupid enough to do it, fits it better.

Make the first step.

P2P, decentralization, censorship resistance, soundest money in circulation, europe & us aren’t the center of the world & Europe is more than just the EU & The EU is not a homogeneous place, where everything gets followed everywhere & Europeans and Americans that understand Bitcoin won’t bitch down to governments. Maybe go out in the world and meet people instead of crying in your room about fear of your grid collapsing and the world going under, because the only actually decentralized global sound money out there that can use power sources that are inaccessible for most other applications¹ uses as much electricity as fridges in the US².

¹ https://hbr.org/2021/05/how-much-energy-does-bitcoin-actually-consume Read this article and get your hormones together.
² https://ccaf.io/cbeci/index/comparisons

Translation: you’ve admitted that you’re a fud spreading troll that can’t even participate in discussion, because after every single argument of you has been debunked for months, you don’t have any left.

Proof of Stakes is a centralized system, giving more to the rich and power, POS can seize your money while staking with a validator by just a single proposal and they tell you it's the people's will "democracy". POW is a decentralized structure and am happy bitcoin won't be switching to POS.

That is the dumbest idea I have ever heard (from him).

Bitcoin that wraps what? Cardano?

I mean, that would give ADA an actual use case and maybe Cardano bosses would sleep bettter at night knowing that they are not going to run out of investors in the long run.

I understand your point and this is the reason why I said for Bitcoin to maintain its credibility we won't change from POW to POS due to the possible abuse of power by the protector or elite groups.
Having said that, every aspect of cryptocurrency has its own Cons and Pros but in the end, it all depends on how each investor chooses their Cons and Pros. Despite the BNB network being a POS, a lot of crypto investors still choose it above other dApps due to the reputation of CZ.

And what happens if the reputation of CZ goes down like (and I'm not asserting similarity to) Donald Trump?

Then the entire Binance Smart Chain would go down with him. That's why it is important NOT to tie a brand to any particular person.

A POS Bitcoin would not be Bitcoin. It would be a POS version of the real Bitcoin. Throughout all these years POW Bitcoin has proven time and time again to be completely decentralized and fair. A POS version would become exactly the opposite. Right now the POS Ethereum has shown everyone how quickly this change will happen. ETH was basically centralized by a few addresses within the first few days of it switching to POS. I do not know the short term or long term real world consequences of this but I do not want to experiment on Bitcoin. Lets see what happens to Eth.

It actually can, many people are against it so they are saying it can't, but it actually can move there. How would that work? Well, first of all we have way too much transactions in bitcoin, more than anything else, only rivalled by ETH on a good day, which means we need to figure out a way where POS would make sure that all of those transactions are covered in a timely manner, secondly we need to make sure security is tight, the whole point of miners are to make it double check and make sure it’s all good and there is no double spending or any other risky things going on, and lastly we need to make sure that everyone agrees to move to this new one, just like how we moved from legacy to segwit, that would be the key here.

Yes, It is important for a project not to be built on someone's reputation or invest in it based on a human current reputation because humans will always be human but unfortunately this is what some crypto enthusiasts care about most of the time and this is the reason why a project that has a team of influence in crypto space easily get the attention of the general public.
I am never a fan of BNB and I am even one of the people that said there was not much use case for the coin some years ago before Vitalik messed up with ETH which is what paves way for BNB, SOL, etc.

Don't worry about the coming PoW ban,
Worry about the utilities just cutting off power to the miners.  :D
A reasonable person might recognize the security implications of wasting so much energy.
Luckily their are no reasonable people supporting bitcoin.   :P

https://cointelegraph.com/news/quebec-s-energy-manager-to-seek-government-approval-to-stop-powering-crypto-miners


Canada Winters are only 6 months, that mining will be cut in Canada.
So much for those ASICS earning back their purchase cost.
Better get on the phone to see if their are enough stupid Venture Capitalist left to float those PoW operation until spring.  ::)

 8)

You are forgetting that most miners have long-term contract agreements with the utilities and they can't just shut off the power like that without breaching the contract and open them up to lawsuits from the miner.

The Justice Department does not drink anti-PoW Kool-Aid.

Theoretically bitcoin can move to POS, but the most important point that makes bitcoin go with POW is that it is more decentralized, more secure and stable network, it is difficult to get the hashrate needed to hack the bitcoin network because it costs a lot of money which makes the attack worthless, while it can be obtained On the quota required in the POS or the agreement of a group of validators to do network penetration, the only drawback of POW is the increased power consumption and this problem can be solved in the future by alternative energy or making chip miners that do not consume much power.

There are three important keys I learnt from Certik, they are Decentralization, Speed and Security. Bitcoin has Decentralization and Security but lacks speed which has been the number priority of Satoshi with proof of work and so far, there has never been any of that too that has been comprised, we have only been battling with speed which developers have been trying to improve but in all honesty, bitcoin cannot have the speeds compare to proof of stake because it will break the decentralization and security.

In all of that three, one must be given up, that is why you see most proof of stake has speed but they are prone to hacking and too centralized by a few groups of people, bitcoin cannot be proof of stake if they want to retain its security and decentralization.

That is why they are seeking Government approval 1st.

I suggest you look up
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_majeure

With a lot of mind power, and painstaking work, the process has to be determined, resulting in a solution to the problem.
Bit coin should fulfill critical demand, not demand fat pow. When creating a block chain or creating a pos you need to show money to get any activity or eam, originally pos businesses thought 360.

simple easy explanation.


Centralization is in fact more efficient. 

Centralization is a massive fail/control point for any network from sovereign actors.  corrupted humans tend to work toward and in centralized institutions.  small groups of people should not have that much control over your value.

Decentralization is in fact less efficient.

Decentralization makes attacks on the network much harder to achieve ..  yes sections can be attacked and controlled the rest of the network stays up and or forks.  and bitcoin carries on.   and your value remains outside control of a small group of humans.  corrupted or not.

quebec has more hydroelectric power then just about anybody(thank a taxpayer)(james bay project)  and they sell a large amount of it to the states since they have waaay more capacity then load. 

It looks like they disagree with you about the capacity.  :)

http://nouvelles.hydroquebec.com/fr/communiques-de-presse/1884/la-croissance-de-la-demande-delectricite-se-poursuivra-au-quebec/