PoS is suitable for shares in the company. It is also compatible with the idea that many PoS systems need to compete between each other to stay robust, while PoW allows competition within the system.

We already have a money system in place owned by snake err... stakeholders, you know how it turned out. We are not yet at the hunger games scenario, but that's where any unchallenged PoS system is eventually headed.

PoW is not one-man-one-vote, it is rather one-willing-to-compete-for-control-one-allowed-to-do-so

Awesome thread is awesome! I liked the pics

@jabo38

The beauty of PoW blockchain is that it is so simple!

It also has an interesting property that players with the large amount of coins would likely be the ones who will compete in the mining arena the most to secure control of their stake in the system. If competition is strong enough major players will be doing it even at a loss. The choice major holders of coins will be facing is this: tax themselves by mining at a loss or let the competitors take control over their money. It's quite brilliant if you think of it. I haven't seen any other proof-of-x system that would have a built-in tax on the rich.

All things considered, I don't think Satoshi's design was rushed or is somehow flawed. In fact, it has some interesting hidden aspects that will only start manifesting themselves in the long run. The actual configuration of mining space will of course depend on people's behavior. It might turn out quite peaceful and distributed or heavily concentrated and aggressive. What's certain though is that it will be changing over time as old players are leaving and new ones coming.

I'm interested in other forms of consensus algorithm for blockchain, but simplicity and robustness of PoW will be hard to match. Things that concern me with PoI, that I haven't seen addressed anywhere, are related to long lasting network effects for control concentration. Very popular online services like Google, Facebook, Amazon might eventually gain so much importance in the system, that they will essentially become new central banks, and it's not that they will be getting richer that concerns me, but the fact that they will maintain most of the control over what gets into blockchain and what doesn't.

The other problem is that blockchain doesn't have information on actual delivery of products. It means that real economic activity can be simulated within a large botnet and will be indistinguishable from honest players. The actual impact might not be significant though.

All in all, there are many unknowns in the way this will be unfolding that's why I'm still curious about PoI. I wouldn't write off PoW as inferior or flawed in any way. It is very simple and very robust design that has passed the test of time and survived many attack vectors. It is now securing a market cap of $5 billion, something that other models can only dream of. This song reflects my sentiment the best: https://youtube.com/watch?v=x6LwYmVqzG0

True enough.
Mining will become the price of vigilance in the land of freedom.
Some will be willing to pay more to be extra sure, others less, some wouldn't even bother.

It's also important that 51% attack vector remains open.
Yes, freedom can be attacked, that's how we know we have it.

It's nice to be perceived young (to some degree I still am), thanks!

I understand your frustration with the government, but the truth is simple - bigger stars need stronger confinement field, they often shine the brightest though.

Anonymity might be a good way out for those feeling that the confinement field is about to crunch under its own weight, though a new type of fuel (Bitcoin) might give it a chance to rebalance and reevaluate the course it is headed.

Not all governments are the same.
What I meant in the quote above is "on daily basis".
Sure, you need to do things time to time to keep things in order.

If you look up my dust-cloud comparison a few posts above, you will understand that two forces play against each other within a star. One is a gravitational confinement field (government) that keeps the star from falling apart, another is a termo-nuclear reaction (businesses) that generates energy and useful by products. If one or the other is too strong the star will either collapse in on itself or explode into outer space.

We need both governments and businesses to turn our societies into nice and stable shining stars. Both parts of the equation need to have clear intentions, be transparent and accountable for their actions. Having an open public ledger seems to be the easiest way to achieve this.

Unun,

Absolute freedom exists only in the way you choose to relate to things, but not in the realm of things themselves. You will always find a constraint if you want to, and you can always choose to not be happy about it, or on the contrary, choose to see how it can benefit you.

The way current governments seem evil is because they are not the top players, the banks are. What you're suggesting is a completely totalitarian utopia, because without governments big businesses will be taking their place. Big businesses will have private armies, they will own a lot of land, they will acquire media companies.

But as I mentioned in my previous post, all businesses are totalitarian in nature, people get orders from above, they get thrown out if they disobey. Competition will make sure that small companies join together to form bigger and bigger businesses to survive, until the market saturates and all the land and resources are privatized.
 
Small individual entrepreneurs will have no chance of staying afloat, and will have no freedom whatsoever. They will either be bought out to bow under the same chain of command or thrown out of their land because some private armies will come knocking their door.

If that's what anonymous transactions is going to bring, I would rather stay away.
It was nice talking to you, I have some stuff to attend, so I'm signing out for now.

Unun,

I mostly agree with what you said.
I'm not saying that current model, where governments borrow from banks and have to pay back with interest thus getting themselves deeper and deeper into the debt blackhole, is sustainable. It is not, it needs to change.

I think historically governments represent pieces of land occupied by different cultures. It is quite different from companies and businesses that can have offices and producing facilities in many different places. People in various companies have managers and receive tasks, they usually have no say in what the company is doing and the direction it is going with. Governments, on the other hand, don't task people with anything, they only tax the gain, keep things in order and make sure that companies don't fight each other for pieces of land that they need.

So, while anonymous transactions might be normal and workable for businesses, it conflicts with the idea of having a government. I know we have bad examples of governments and the word itself starts to have a negative connotation. But I'm not so sure that a world where companies and businesses are the top players is the place we want to live in.

Governments need to be stable and self-sustainable, businesses are volatile and profit-driven.

It's an interesting topic and I'm only developing my opinion on it.

Anonymity feels somewhat darkish and shadowy. If everything and everyone is anonymous, it is quite scary.
Historically societies converged towards having a government instead of anarchy and anonymity. Maybe because government outlines a clear vision, a goal and a way to achieve it. It is a public service, and it needs to be open about everything including finances and spending.

When people are open and transparent about their intentions it brings comfort and direction in life. People can only achieve great things if they work together. Building complex machines, space-shuttles, submarines would not be possible in a totally anonymous society where everyone is hiding in a shadow looking only to satisfy self-interest.

I would compare anonymous society to a dust-cloud in outer space, where it remains cold and dark. Only when the dust in the cloud starts to coalesce, it forms clusters of gravity, which eventually give birth to stars. It is the stars that give light, heat and produce a whole ton of useful stuff.

If we look at a good half of Ukraine, we will see that a lot of people there wish they had a stable government. Things aren't pretty when they are out of balance.

Anyways, we haven't had an open system like Bitcoin before. Who knows, maybe it will turn things for the better. Maybe people will learn, maybe people will care. Let's give it a chance to play out the way it was created - open and free. In the mean time we can experiment with all the other stuff we can think of.

If requirement is such, that taxes (obligatory or voluntary) are collected on an open blockchain, then existence of other payment methods will not jeopardize the transparency of government's spending, as the exit points to any anonymized system will be clearly seen.

I agree that open and closed systems should compete with each other, so that neither is abused. If there is too much taxes and they are wasted on things people don't need, then population will slowly move into a shadow economy. However the opposite is also true, if the shadow way of doing things doesn't bring much comfort and stability to society, people will be willing to fund a good government with their taxes to keep things in order.

Current governments will be faced with a choice at some point: wether to keep accumulating debt in fiat or start adopting crypto, in which case a fierce competition for control over the crypto will make sure that people's opinions on how to proceed forward will need to be taken into account. Government would need to present a service that people will be willing to support.

Crypto-currency might not be the only way to transact for now, but the network effects will eventually make it one of the primary systems on the planet. Unlike unsustainable fiat's debt-spirals, current major PoW coins are all gain-spirals. It means that incentives are there for the replacement process to continue unhindered.

Requirements for transparency and accountability can be gradually put in place while governments are slowly evolving and adapting to the new way of doing things. Governments are not some alien rogue entities that were enforced on people from outside, but rather it is people themselves who created governments to make society civilized and keep things in order.

We need an outstanding example of an open transparent money system (which Bitcoin is first installment of) to compete with closed obscure and entrenched ones currently in place. There might be some demand for fully anonymous crypto, but I believe it will constitute a small niche. Remember what kind of outrage an opaque voting system caused in the recent Bitcoin Foundation elections? It's a shame, especially when blockchain technology allows for full accountability and transparency.

Open is the way forward.

I voted no (means Bitcoin is perfect as it is)

The government in general is not a problem, it is an obscure financial system currently in place that allows corruption on a large scale to go on unnoticed by the general public.

Keeping blockchain open and transparent will make government more accountable and democratic.

Regarding 51% attack. It is utterly important to have such a possibility, as it is the only way for economy in general to take control over the system back from the rogue entity. If control cannot be challenged, there would be no competition for it. End of story.

We can consider mining (in the long run) as an automatic built-in tax on the rich. You simply cannot sit on your money and watch how your competitors gain more and more share of control. At some point they will be in position to not allow transactions from your addresses and can tax you any way they wish. The assertion is that large amounts of money can be tracked on the blockchain and the whole thing remains quite transparent in the future, which I believe it should. It is possible that competition for control will be so strong that literally all participants will be doing it at a loss. This will keep everyone busy and bring balance to the world.

As the block reward drops and the market cap rises, mining will become more of a competition for control than it is for profit today. It is a scheme where rich would need to compete with each other, possibly at a loss, in order to maintain a share of control, so that their accounts don't get frozen. This prevents rich getting richer without engaging in a fair competition with risks of losing.

Bitcoin separates money and control, so that competition for both is ensured and never stops. I believe forum's logo is not accidental, as it symbolizes the balance point between the two, and yes Bitcoin is a very simple machine.

Those are good ones. Should give people some idea about current state of affairs in mining.


Satoshi is a group... of one person 
There is only one of us here.

As the recent PoW vs PoS discussion revealed, there are certain hidden aspects of consensus algorithms that might not be obvious to everyone, but have paramount importance in long-term survivability of the system in case where it becomes dominant on the planet and there is nowhere to run.

This is why it's important to keep competition between the systems ongoing instead of changing one system into another. This way all systems will behave and compete for participants.

I believe that moving this thread wasn't an act of censorship, but rather an invitation to experiment with various improvements and let them mature in the alt space.

There is no centralization of mining, but rather a clusterization. It's natural and is a reflection of our society. We don't have a flat hierarchy of people on the planet, we have structures and sub-structures and those compete for control and resources. What's important though is that entry to the mining arena is free for everybody, though you need to be well-funded and/or well-skilled to have a good chance at staying afloat there.

I think "permission-less decentralized exchange for energy" is a very good description from the article for what mining really is, apart from the fact that it is also a competition for control. Bad actors are not completely ruled out, but at least they can be challenged and defeated if people care about their money at all. If they don't, they deserve what they get. Also be cautious who you entrust control over the network when you sell it for profit via certain derivative schemes.

PS: Technology cannot change society, but a good technology will serve as a perfect mirror and allow society to see its own reflection and take action to improve it.

If you look at the forum logo, you will see that Bitcoin provides a balance point between money and control, as it allows competition for both to continue indefinitely. Rules of the game need to be stable and not change at a whim of those who don't feel competitive. You are free to create other rules and play other games though.

Bitcoin is a Proof of World system. The World is a fundamentally neutral place, as it is just a mirror. If you don't like a reflection, you don't go and change the mirror, you change yourself.

Yep, keeping a cool head is a way to do business. Balance is the key!