|
So to sum it up:
PoW - control is a fierce competition, only the fittest get to the top
PoS - illusion of control can be bought, the actual control is not for sale
PoI - everyone has control, the future is undetermined
I think we need a proof-of-education, then PoI might have a chance to become a place of peaceful co-existence without wasting too much energy. If no one builds cages while they are free, then no one will ever get into one.
|
|
|
|
Myriadcoin's multi-PoW framework helps with the decentralization of mining that some of you may be concerned about. More than you think, actually.
I agree. I have been touting Myriadcoin as one of the biggest innovations in the PoW cryptocurrency world. It is definitely a step forward. Unfortunately, it still doesn't change the fact that a lot of electricity and processing power is wasted in the process. Pretty much all scientists agree global warming is real and PoW only accelerates that. I see PoS or a variant of it as being the ideal solution for consensus mainly for this reason. Why increase emissions unnecessarily simply to reach decentralized consensus when it is not needed because PoS is sufficient at performing the same job? Also.. all of the processing power could actually be used to do something useful to society instead of simply securing a block chain, such as solving cancer or assisting other scientific research. Primecoin is a good example of a PoW algo that is actually useful to society. These are my biggest concerns about PoW, not the centralization of it. All systems.. PoS and PoW.. inevitably tend towards centralization eventually. PoW tends towards centralization in mining pools and large farms setup with cheap power which utilize the economies of scale ASICs provide. PoS tends towards centralization with the need for check points to prevent certain attacks (or at least in the current variants of PoS.) DPoS works on the realization that all systems inevitably tend towards centralization, ad it gives you a way for stake holders to control that centralization. Stake holders choose who becomes a delegate, with PoW you cannot choose who secures the block chain.. whoever buys mining power can do it. This helps keep nefarious actors out. Also, you can vote in developers and people creating important core services for the coin as delegates to compensate them for doing so. Therefore, a DPoS coin can hire employees that work for the cryptocurrency... PoW can obviously only do this via donations. The use of only 101 delegates allows block times to be reduced to a little as 10 seconds and process many transactions a second.. something that is very hard to achieve (maybe impossible) with PoW. There are many benefits of DPoS over PoW in my mind which far outweigh the highly unlikely attack vectors, and that is why I support it over PoW alternatives. Question: How much energy is used to keep all the banks in the world operational? Keeping the computers running, building the banks, people wasting gas driving to the banks to take out money, keeping the lights on 24/7 so cameras can record people trying to break in at night, etc. I bet you it's a fuckton. What if a world existed where no banks existed but money was transacted on a PoW blockchain? Does the energy concern matter as much in this context? As the purpose of life is to live, the purpose of all the energy in the Universe is to be wasted. Fighting for freedom with PoW might take a lot of energy, but the end result is worth every joule. |
|
|
|
A commodity money is worth what it costs to make. A $20 gold piece has $20 worth of gold in it, less fees. As Bitcoin expansion decreases volatility (as it already has) it will become the value of the cost to make it, less fees. Mining for money has a tradition that goes back thousands of years.
I agree with that. The PoW mechanism is simple and robust, it's hard to hide some tricks there. Everyone can understand it. With PoW only those who explicitly fight for control (miners) get a share of it. If control is given out for free to all the people who didn't ask for it, they will sell it for profit thus empowering tricksters and charlatans. You won't easily let go of something that you needed to fight for. And even if you don't fight for freedom, you might stick to those who do and support them. |
|
|
|
Control?
There are things in this world you cannot buy, you know.
What's the difference with PoW? You spend more on equipment, you control more. You can collude with other large miners. Those who develop new equipment, might not sell it to those who are currently at the top. Not everybody sells their share of control for profit. So can we expect one company to develop super powerful ASICs and totally hijack the PoW network? Wow, that's scary. In PoS anybody can be a miner with their normal computer, I say it's very attractive to users. Users drive the price and adoption, not miners. Crypto should be user-centric, not miner-centric, to be successful. And that's where PoW fails. This is misleading. In order to mine on a PoS coin, you will first need to "invest" in the coin and to have a larger impact on the network you would need to invest in larger amounts of the coins (and mine from multiple computers - likely from something similar to VMs). This is little different from someone investing in ASIC's and running the ASIC's to secure the network difference is your pretty much guaranteed 0.5% annual return with pos with even a trivial investment, you can spend the coins after buying them and they don't have a short life span. You can't spend an asic, they need regular replacement and your pretty much guaranteed a loss unless you invest heavily in mining gear.. And reinvest to keep up with the advancement of technology. It's not about profit or returns, it's about control. ASICs can be challenged with newer ASICs, stakes (once big enough) can never be challenged. Would you like control of the money flow to be a competition or would you like it to be in hands of a few forever. If you prefer the latter, just stick to fiat and be done with it. actually this very argument is the very reason im so involved in nem. nems proof of importance will allow someone 10 years from now to "challenge" the control of someone who was in the genesis block regardless of the fact that the early adopter has way more coins. there are flaws in both pow and pos and from wha i understand proof of importance solves this. in both pos and pow the early adopters will retain the majority of control over the network for the foreseeable future. to challenge control in pow you need to pay large chunks of money but buy up/develop new asics and in pos you must buy up large chunks of coins to challenge the whales. in poi users must only adopt the currency and use it day to day. a merchant could integrate nem, do lots of transactions with lots of other important people and boom he could have higher importance than an early adopter who doesnt do many transactions but has millions of coins. the new poi algorithm levels he playing field for all users and it will stay level far into the future and possibly forever.. in both pow and pos the control of the money flow/network is in the hands of a few. its plain to see for everyone. how many people have thousands, if not millions to buy up coins or asics? not many and the numbers are getting fewer as the price of coins rise and the number of asics needed to mine rises. poi will mean that joe soap on 200 dollars a month can start using nem and earn as high of an importance as anyone else regardless of the fact that he cannot invest huge amounts of money. i know you are going to say this is game-able but i dont think so as it is not "how many transactions you make" but rather with who you make them, much like a web of trust. im not advocating that poi is 100% secure or that it is battle tested as code has not been released yet so we wont go into the "it will be suitable to this/that attack" as it would be a pointless discussion, but if it continues to work as it has for the last 4-5-6 months and it is proven to be secure, both pow and pos are going to have a serious competitor on their hands. Actually, I like the sound of it. I myself thought about something like proof-of-existence and figured PoW was a good approximation to that. Of course social network effects might become the dominant obstacle to diversity of control in PoI, but maybe they are not that scary and with proper education people would be willing to use only those services that they wish to empower. Like miners with pools, only without hardware requirement. Will be looking forward towards the launch. |
|
|
|
I want to party with you, cowboy.
Been partying since the beginning of time  |
|
|
|
One can be an investor and a miner and play many games on multiple levels, that's exciting!
What games can a miner play? Well, there are at least two types of miners, those who are in position to develop hardware and those who buy it from them. The first-tier miners play their intellect games in designing ASICs targeting various process technology from yield/cost/power perspective. They also need to decide wether to sell or to mine themselves, not all of them are honest, so there is an element of luck in the game. The second-tier miners play their profit games and make decisions at which pool to mine if they agree or disagree with pool's behavior. And there are always those, who haven't touched mining yet and are looking for a perfect position for entry either with their piles of fiat or some alien advanced tech, that they need to ramp up volume production of. There is plenty of fun in the mining land. Those who are willing to compete can always do that, and there is a zoo for everybody else |
|
|
|
This competition between cryptos and different Proof-of-... is exactly the game of skills, only the fittest will survive.
But it makes sense to review all options available on the market if you're an investor and a user.
If you're a miner, you have no choice but promote PoW to make your living.
I think we can agree on that. One can be an investor and a miner and play many games on multiple levels, that's exciting! |
|
|
|
A big enough stake would earn enough fees or interest (depending on PoS variant) that would cover all life expenses including yachts and mansions, so it will never need to be spent.
Haha, before that happens (it would have to be a huge market cap) something more advanced would surely be invented which would make their huge stakes much less valuable, and people would switch to that more advanced system, provided that crypto currencies survive at all. Same way as more people switch to PoS now, leaving those large holdings of Bitcoins less valuable. See, I don't think PoS is the final step. I only consider it more advanced than PoW. Something better than PoS is possible, I don't doubt it. But PoW miners are dead set that PoW is the blessing and use exactly the same arguments against anything else that bankers use against Bitcoin. This is so funny and hypocritical at the same time. I think my "game of skills" versus "game of luck" analogy for PoW and PoS is fairly accurate. I'm not saying that one game is better than the other. Everyone is free to pick one that they prefer. The paradox is that those in the wild are free to build zoo. Can't change that. |
|
|
|
ASICs can be challenged with newer ASICs, stakes (once big enough) can never be challenged.
Why do you think stakes will only be accumulated and never spent? After all, humans are humans, they will spend and cash out to buy stuff (including assets on the asset exchange) or buy stuff directly with the crypto when more merchants accept it. Why do you think the price of NXT hasn't been going anywhere for a year? It's because those stakeholders are cashing out and a lot of coins have already changed hands. Apparently your theory of eternal growth of stakes doesn't work. A big enough stake would earn enough fees or interest (depending on PoS variant) that would cover all life expenses including yachts and mansions, so it will never need to be spent. The only way to shake up stakeholders is to have competing PoS systems some of which need to be fraudulent so that stakeholders would risk losing in their diversification process. Would you like to compete in fair game with known rules and develop innovation that would benefit humanity or would you like to play dice and create fraudulent PoS systems to shake up stakeholders? |
|
|
|
Control?
There are things in this world you cannot buy, you know.
What's the difference with PoW? You spend more on equipment, you control more. You can collude with other large miners. Those who develop new equipment, might not sell it to those who are currently at the top. Not everybody sells their share of control for profit. So can we expect one company to develop super powerful ASICs and totally hijack the PoW network? Wow, that's scary. In PoS anybody can be a miner with their normal computer, I say it's very attractive to users. Users drive the price and adoption, not miners. Crypto should be user-centric, not miner-centric, to be successful. And that's where PoW fails. This is misleading. In order to mine on a PoS coin, you will first need to "invest" in the coin and to have a larger impact on the network you would need to invest in larger amounts of the coins (and mine from multiple computers - likely from something similar to VMs). This is little different from someone investing in ASIC's and running the ASIC's to secure the network difference is your pretty much guaranteed 0.5% annual return with pos with even a trivial investment, you can spend the coins after buying them and they don't have a short life span. You can't spend an asic, they need regular replacement and your pretty much guaranteed a loss unless you invest heavily in mining gear.. And reinvest to keep up with the advancement of technology. It's not about profit or returns, it's about control. You will get guaranteed food in a zoo too, but you'll be missing something essential, wouldn't you? ASICs can be challenged with newer ASICs, stakes (once big enough) can never be challenged. Would you like control of the money flow to be a competition or would you like it to be in hands of a few forever. If you prefer the latter, just stick to fiat and be done with it. EDIT: I wouldn't be a crypto geek if I couldn't read hidden messages in random data. Take a look at this thread, it's a new song about Bitcoin. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=857195.0Here is a Bitcoin address (I added white spaces for readability) 1C4 iVs2E659ksBK8gVEyQw229 ZoESC oyK1 1C4 - apparently Satoshi needed only one C4 to plant at the perimeter of our fiat zoo some 6 years ago. If you play video games you'd know what it means. iVs2E659ksBK8gVEyQw229 - time it took before the smoke settled. ZoESC - we now have a hole in the perimeter and can escape our zoo. oyK1 - everything is gonna be o k ! Good day! PS: The word "mining" has definitely something to do with perimeter disruption, besides its usual interpretation. Thus "miners" are those who will disrupt every perimeter they encounter on their infinite way out from a zoo within a zoo within a zoo... Hmmm and what if there is no zoo? |
|
|
|
Can you be more technical please? Wild life vs. zoo is picturesque and all, but what makes you think that users care about building all that equipment, dealing with all the troubles, electricity, figuring out mining costs, trying to break even, if they can just turn on their PC, do their normal work or socializing and the PoS wallet will be doing work in the background? Like I said, PoW is for geeks, but geeks don't power wider adoption.
The interesting thing is that trying to explain it to others I actually start to better understand it myself. I don't know if it's better in a zoo or in the wild, both experiences define and reinforce each other, they are both needed for either one to exist at all. I find it exciting, though, to discern various models on the market and see what they really offer compared to what they advertise. If you are building a zoo, you don't usually advertise the cage, you advertise the food EDIT: The yin-yang symbol comes to mind. In a zoo there is this little positive potential to eventually break-free (white circle in the dark half), in the wild there is this little negative potential to eventually end up in a zoo (black circle in the white half). So there are pluses and minuses to both sides of the circle. |
|
|
|
how many times have pow coins been 51% attacked? hint: plenty of times!
how many times have pos coins been 51% attacked? hint: never!
Those weren't hints!  -B- Nobody can take your freedom if you already don't have it. |
|
|
|
Control?
There are things in this world you cannot buy, you know.
What's the difference with PoW? You spend more on equipment, you control more. You can collude with other large miners. Those who develop new equipment, might not sell it to those who are currently at the top. Not everybody sells their share of control for profit. So can we expect one company to develop super powerful ASICs and totally hijack the PoW network? Yes, it can happen, but the new quality of their product would need to compete with the sheer quantity of the old equipment already available on the market, this will give time for other competitors to come up with their improvements, which might not necessarily be in advanced chip technology, but rather in energy sources or deeper understanding of cryptographic hash functions. The field of competition is fairly diversified and any innovation developed there will eventually find applications in other areas. Wow, that's scary. In PoS anybody can be a miner with their normal computer, I say it's very attractive to users. Users drive the price and adoption, not miners. Crypto should be user-centric, not miner-centric, to be successful. And that's where PoW fails.
The difference is same as with wild-life and those living in a zoo. The food might be better in a zoo, but you would hardly enjoy it as much as those outside. |
|
|
|
Control?
There are things in this world you cannot buy, you know.
What's the difference with PoW? You spend more on equipment, you control more. You can collude with other large miners. Those who develop new equipment might not sell it to those who are currently at the top. Not everybody sells their share of control for profit. |
|
|
|
Holders of stakes in a PoS model don't compete? It's the same competition: in PoW - who can afford to buy the best and more hardware, in PoS - who can afford to buy more stake. The difference is hardware wastes electricity and other kinds of waste that come with PoW mining.
Why compete, if they can collude, and then nobody outside can ever challenge them? Wasting energy, having maintenance cost, making decisions to upgrade or skip is what allows other players to regain a share of control from miners. They won't be getting additional profit by colluding, so what's the purpose of that? Control? There are things in this world you cannot buy, you know. |
|
|
|
...
There is a slight difference, crazy miners don't control, they compete to control the network!
Yes, I believe that those who feel enthusiastic and competitive, should be able to compete without permission.
Bullshit, there isn't anyone controlling more than 10% of all Bitcoin. But there are private miner or cloud mining, that currently or used to control more than 20%, or even 30%, 40% of mining power. At some point, there WILL be a person secretly controlling more than 50% of mining power. The reason is PoW is cheap, it's easy to buy enough hardware to gain 50%+ control, it is especially easy to do this to control PoW altcoins, there are many PoW altcoin got 51% attacked. PoW is an extremely flawed system. You didn't refute my argument. Any one entity approaching or even controlling 50% of the network doesn't become permanently unchallenged. Holders of stakes in a PoS model don't compete? It's the same competition: in PoW - who can afford to buy the best and more hardware, in PoS - who can afford to buy more stake. The difference is hardware wastes electricity and other kinds of waste that come with PoW mining.
Why compete, if they can collude, and then nobody outside can ever challenge them? Wasting energy, having maintenance cost, making decisions to upgrade or skip is what allows other players to regain a share of control from miners. EDIT: If you have freedom, you need to fight to keep it, If you don't, there is nothing to worry about. |
|
|
|
This thread is nothing but PoW miner shills trying to hold on to their waning power, as the crypto world is increasingly moving toward the superior PoS system.
POS can be superior however most of these alt POS are awful. Fortunately the very 1st one pee pee coin is the best so far. However it could have been made better with no inflation. POS means people want to protect their existing coins. The bitcoin network today is not really protected by miners, it is protected by the owners of the largest amounts of coins. POS rewards those who keep their client open.That's completely wrong. Satoshi has allegedly the largest amount of coins, but has zero control over transactions. He might decide to gain that control, but he would need to approach the hardware market and find lucrative deals or develop equipment himself, but so can do outside players with fiat. Even if he approaches the goal of total control over the network, his position will never be unchallenged. Holding coins in PoW doesn't automatically translate to control, and gaining that control might be challenging. I like the idea of reward for just using the client in PoS, but it is the control model, where an established inner circle of stakeholders will eventually maintain permanent hold on money flow, that bothers me. IMO, use POS if you want a private members club, not a currency. Use POI if you want to simulate the introduction of black holes into a stable planetary system.
True enough. So basically in your view, a bunch of profit crazy, no stake, PoW miners controlling the Bitcoin network is ok. But actual Bitcoin stakeholders controlling the Bitcoin networks is not ok? There is a slight difference, crazy miners don't control, they compete to control the network! Yes, I believe that those who feel enthusiastic and competitive, should be able to compete without permission EDIT: Oops! I just figured my definition of freedom |
|
|
|
IMO, use POS if you want a private members club, not a currency. Use POI if you want to simulate the introduction of black holes into a stable planetary system.
have you anything to back that statement on? there is no proof yet to prove poi is safe or that it isnt safe so you cannot make that statement based on proof. the only thing you can base that on is opinion. so dont make a statement like that as if it is factual and provable. I think he refers to what I said in my previous post: I would not comment on PoI as it is too early. I have concerns if large economic entities would maintain too much importance in the long run (think Facebook, Google), but at least their positions are not set in stone an can potentially be challenged by other players, however social network effects might become a significant barrier to entry. There is no sustainable network effects in mining as hardware is rendered obsolete fairly quickly over time and players need to compete from scratch with every new round of distribution. Also not quite sure if botnets will be able to simulate a lot of activity in PoI by sending random coins back and forth and thus gaining more and more control. It sounds promising, but we will see.
Would you be able to comment? |
|
|
|
This thread is nothing but PoW miner shills trying to hold on to their waning power, as the crypto world is increasingly moving toward the superior PoS system.
POS can be superior however most of these alt POS are awful. Fortunately the very 1st one pee pee coin is the best so far. However it could have been made better with no inflation. POS means people want to protect their existing coins. The bitcoin network today is not really protected by miners, it is protected by the owners of the largest amounts of coins. POS rewards those who keep their client open.That's completely wrong. Satoshi has allegedly the largest amount of coins, but has zero control over transactions. He might decide to gain that control, but he would need to approach the hardware market and find lucrative deals or develop equipment himself, but so can do outside players with fiat. Even if he approaches the goal of total control over the network, his position will never be unchallenged. Holding coins in PoW doesn't automatically translate to control, and gaining that control might be challenging. I like the idea of reward for just using the client in PoS, but it is the control model, where an established inner circle of stakeholders will eventually maintain permanent hold on money flow, that bothers me. IMO, use POS if you want a private members club, not a currency. Use POI if you want to simulate the introduction of black holes into a stable planetary system.
True enough. |
|
|
|
|
I think more accurate question is what model of control over money would prevail in the future.
If Bitcoin demonstrates that hard fork is possible at this stage (for block size increase), then it opens up possibilities to change other aspects of the system including distribution model, hard limit on coins as well as control over transactions with PoW mining.
If that changed, would we consider Bitcoin failed or just evolved?
The real battle in crypto-space is waged for minds of the people.
Ideas have more weight than just code.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
