Of course it's a problem, I'm being charged 10% tax on my Bitcoin holding, for something that is easily replaceable and useless.
Please do yourself a favor and let your actions match your convictions. Sell us your bitcoins and invest in Bitshares completely since you have so much faith in DPoS and so little trust in PoW. Why don't you invest in BTSX now before the big marketing push that is coming in a couple months! If you are smart you can even take those profits and re-buy into BTC right before the halfing to profit again and than sell those profits for BTSX. The fact that you don't sell your bitcoins tells the whole story. Why would I do that? if I have a leech sucking my blood on my leg, do I cut off my leg? or do I kill/remove the leech from my leg? I guess by your logic, you should cut off your leg to remove a leech. |
|
|
|
This would be news to a lot of people. Could you explain how PoS has dealt with the Nothing-at-Stake problem?
They ignore it and claim it doesn't exist. Better than ignoring an existing and proven problem, that is PoW 51% attack. Many altcoin has been attacked to death with it. |
|
|
|
Btw, bitshare users also overwhelmingly approved the merge, why are you saying they aren't? there's a vote thread in bitshares forum, go read it.
Where did I make this claim? I am agreeing with you that a majority approve and a minority disapprove. That is the problem. Democracy is the first 51% attack! The minority investors who disagree are being fleeced. You were saying PoS system can change the cap, PoW system can't. I'm just proving the PoW system can also change the cap, just as easily.
Assertion, with no evidence supporting. There are differences to Bitcoin and Bitshares that make changing the 21 million dollar limit far less likely, if not impossible. Can you think of them? Well, I am Bitcoin stakeholder, and I disagree with the blocksize hard fork. Am I being fleeced? Don't be ridiculous. Way to sidestep the discussion and not address the questions honestly. What does the blocksize hardfork being proposal have anything to do with direct dilution for capital infusion to pay the salaries of developers? Why would I address something you made up? there is no dilution to pay the salaries of developers, it's a merger of multiple eco-systems into one. Maybe you could provide me a non-existent link to back up your claim, like the last time you made up something from your imagination? I know you have a very vivid imagination. Do you need me to post our PMs to show your non-existent claims? |
|
|
|
snip
cryptocurrency can't use the bank model for distributed consensus. But both PoW and PoS can be used for consensus, with just one difference, Bitcoin PoW spends $500 million USD per year to do it, and PoS won't. This would be news to a lot of people. Could you explain how PoS has dealt with the Nothing-at-Stake problem? How does PoS deal with a problem that doesn't exist? Nothing-at Stake is fictional, or maybe you could go ahead and show us such attack, I'll be watching. |
|
|
|
Not only that, the miner shills are insulting everyone else, by claiming their useless PoW mining is the sole reason Bitcoin has any value. A huge part of the utility of Bitcoin is that it attains Distributed Consensus among hostile parties. This Distributed Consensus has only been successfully achieved with the use of Proof of Work. All Proof of Stake coins to date must be closely monitored and maintained by it's developers or they fall apart. Without Proof of Work, and therefore Distributed Consensus, Bitcoin has no feature that makes it competitive among existing currencies. Nope, just the contrary, PoW systems are proven to be easily attacked. PoS systems are proven to be very difficult to attack, in fact zero PoS system has been successfully 51% attacked so far. I could write a program that could never be successfully attacked. In fact this is done all the time for banking institutions. If it fails you just roll it back and reimburse any trouble it caused. Have you had any problems with your USD bank account being hacked? I haven't. What have we proven exactly? That you don't even need PoS or PoW to have an excellent cryptocurrency?  cryptocurrency can't use the bank model for distributed consensus. But both PoW and PoS can be used for consensus, with just one difference, Bitcoin PoW spends $500 million USD per year to do it, and PoS won't. But for you is it a real problem these 500 million usd /year ? Of course it's a problem, I'm being charged 10% tax on my Bitcoin holding, for something that is easily replaceable and useless. |
|
|
|
A huge part of Bitcoin's success is thanks to PoW.
OP can't see the forest for the trees.
OP should fork Bitcoin to proof-of-whatever and let it compete with Bitcoin. Someone, for the love of all things holy, please fork Bitcoin to proof-of-whatever and release it so we can put these endless debates to bed.
+1. Couldn't be said better. OP has made it clear that he's a big fan of DPoS, BTSX. The competition is already there, just let the free market decide which one is better. I'm a bigger fan of Bitcoin, minus the PoW mining. I hold 10X more in value in Bitcoin than Bitshares. |
|
|
|
Not only that, the miner shills are insulting everyone else, by claiming their useless PoW mining is the sole reason Bitcoin has any value. A huge part of the utility of Bitcoin is that it attains Distributed Consensus among hostile parties. This Distributed Consensus has only been successfully achieved with the use of Proof of Work. All Proof of Stake coins to date must be closely monitored and maintained by it's developers or they fall apart. Without Proof of Work, and therefore Distributed Consensus, Bitcoin has no feature that makes it competitive among existing currencies. Nope, just the contrary, PoW systems are proven to be easily attacked. PoS systems are proven to be very difficult to attack, in fact zero PoS system has been successfully 51% attacked so far. I could write a program that could never be successfully attacked. In fact this is done all the time for banking institutions. If it fails you just roll it back and reimburse any trouble it caused. Have you had any problems with your USD bank account being hacked? I haven't. What have we proven exactly? That you don't even need PoS or PoW to have an excellent cryptocurrency? cryptocurrency can't use the bank model for distributed consensus. But both PoW and PoS can be used for consensus, with just one difference, Bitcoin PoW spends $500 million USD per year to do it, and PoS won't. |
|
|
|
A huge part of Bitcoin's success is thanks to PoW.
OP can't see the forest for the trees.
OP should fork Bitcoin to proof-of-whatever and let it compete with Bitcoin. Someone, for the love of all things holy, please fork Bitcoin to proof-of-whatever and release it so we can put these endless debates to bed.
No, Bitcoin's success is thanks to its early start, to Satoshi's innovation and to the efforts of the community. PoW had very little to do with it. If Bitcoin had used PoS from the start, it would probably be more successful, and we might already be seeing $5000 per coin today. |
|
|
|
Not only that, the miner shills are insulting everyone else, by claiming their useless PoW mining is the sole reason Bitcoin has any value. A huge part of the utility of Bitcoin is that it attains Distributed Consensus among hostile parties. This Distributed Consensus has only been successfully achieved with the use of Proof of Work. All Proof of Stake coins to date must be closely monitored and maintained by it's developers or they fall apart. Without Proof of Work, and therefore Distributed Consensus, Bitcoin has no feature that makes it competitive among existing currencies. Nope, just the contrary, PoW systems are proven to be easily attacked. PoS systems are proven to be very difficult to attack, in fact zero PoS system has been successfully 51% attacked so far. |
|
|
|
Btw, bitshare users also overwhelmingly approved the merge, why are you saying they aren't? there's a vote thread in bitshares forum, go read it.
Where did I make this claim? I am agreeing with you that a majority approve and a minority disapprove. That is the problem. Democracy is the first 51% attack! The minority investors who disagree are being fleeced. You were saying PoS system can change the cap, PoW system can't. I'm just proving the PoW system can also change the cap, just as easily.
Assertion, with no evidence supporting. There are differences to Bitcoin and Bitshares that make changing the 21 million dollar limit far less likely, if not impossible. Can you think of them? Well, I am Bitcoin stakeholder, and I disagree with the blocksize hard fork. Am I being fleeced? Don't be ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Don't kid yourself, the users, since they are overwhelmingly in favor of the change, will accept the cap raise. The miners will do nothing and also accept the cap raise, because the miners will usually do whatever the users are in favor of. Also, since it's actually beneficial to the miners to raise the cap, why would they oppose it. So there, your Bitcoin cap raise, done!
So you are suggesting the users are incentivized to lower the value of their savings and damage the credibility of one of the foundational principles of bitcoin that is considered a Prohibited change (Requiring unanimous consent where even 1 user objection will block the switch) ? https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Prohibited_changes#Require_unanimous_consentLets lay the cards out on the table. Why are many of the delegates within Bitshares motivated to merge but not all the users? How would this change be much more difficult to accomplish with Bitcoin than Bitshares? I'm not discussing the reason why the user would approve the cap raise in Bitcoin, the assumption is the user already overwhelmingly approved the change. ok? You were saying PoS system can change the cap, PoW system can't. I'm just proving the PoW system can also change the cap, just as easily. Btw, bitshare users also overwhelmingly approved the merge, why are you saying they aren't? there's a vote thread in bitshares forum, go read it. |
|
|
|
Not only that, the miner shills are insulting everyone else, by claiming their useless PoW mining is the sole reason Bitcoin has any value. So I guess Satoshi Nakamoto's work had no value, all the Bitcoin developer's work had no value, all the people that built infrastructure, ran full nodes etc... had no value. It really infuriates me. |
|
|
|
do you think the Bitcoin cap can't be raised if there's a need for it and users overwhelmingly approve? How is this even related to PoW vs PoS at all? in both system, the cap CAN be raised period
Within Bitcoin PoW the delegates are also in control of the protocol itself. the power dynamics are split between the miners, asic manufactures, users and nodes, and developers. Additionally, Bitcoin has a very large network effect where a critical mass has been created to introduce many competing interests and involvement unlike with many alts. Within DPoS you have a mixture of the users/stakeholders and delegates/developers controlling the power with a very dangerous arrangement of only a few developers controlling most of the direction compared to Bitcoin. Don't kid yourself, the users, since they are overwhelmingly in favor of the change, will accept the cap raise. The miners will do nothing and also accept the cap raise, because the miners will usually do whatever the users are in favor of. Also, since it's actually beneficial to the miners to raise the cap, why would they oppose it. So there, your Bitcoin cap raise, done! |
|
|
|
I don't see how Bitshares is unfair against newcomers, if anything, Bitcoin is currently wildly unfair against newcomers, there's a gigantic difference in buy price between early adopters and new comers. There goes your "fair" PoW distribution.
Ohh, come one. It is well known that PoW provides a good mechanism for distribution. Even Daniel created protoshares to take advantage of this fact. Lets be a bit more honest here. You are right to correct some misstatements made by Bitcoin PoW proponents but you don't need to stretch the truth in the opposite direction to get your point across. No, as I explained, it's well known that PoW provides an " easy" mechanism for distribution, or I might even call it "lazy" mechanism. Because it's inflexible and transfers value out of the eco-system. PoS distribution, with careful design and thought, can be made better than PoW distribution, but the Developers need to do more work, that's all. |
|
|
|
The bitshares merger is overwhelmingly approved by users and delegates. When was the last time Bitcoin development direction were put up for a vote by all users? was the blocksize hardfork put up for a vote by all Bitcoin users?
do you think the Bitcoin cap can't be raised if there's a need for it and users overwhelmingly approve? How is this even related to PoW vs PoS at all? in both system, the cap CAN be raised period
One man's trash is another man's treasure, I sold my stake of Bitshares every time there's a rule change (PoW to PoS, invention of PTS/AGS, proposed merge /dilution), which reflect the trust and confidence I have in the system. I am not predicting the failure of Bitshares, I just don't feel like playing a game that rules constantly change. 1. There was never a change from PoW, since there was never PoW in Bitshares. 2. PTS/AGS were distribution methods, and existed way before Bitshares, so not sure how you could sell Bitshares when it doesn't exist. |
|
|
|
The bitshares merger is overwhelmingly approved by users and delegates. When was the last time Bitcoin development direction were put up for a vote by all users?
Yes, you are proving my point on how one person can quickly influence all the delegates within DPoS. Your suggestions seem to be well intentioned but clearly show you are unfamiliar with developing open source software. If you try and mandate developers with majority voting you will simply scare them away and they will just work on other projects. Developers either are being paid to develop features by companies or donate their time because they enjoy supporting the ecosystem. Open source software is mainly based upon meritocracy not by majority opinion. If you feel strongly about implementing a certain feature than contribute code yourself , request a pull on github, or pay a developer to do so for you. Their are multiple stacks or implementations of bitcoin that interacts with the blockchain as well. You are encouraged to contribute to those if you don't agree with the direction the Bitcoin core developers are taking bitcoin. In fact, many of the Bitcoin core developers would welcome more development in various other implementations or stacks. Open source development isn't about democracy, but more closely related to a form of anarchistic meritocracy. I don't get it, how is this different from Gaving Andressen influencing other developers into agreeing to a block size hardfork in Bitcoin? (without Bitcoin user approval voting btw). If the change is not beneficial to the eco-system, then users and delegates will vote against it, I don't see how one person can influence hundreds of others to do something against their interest. |
|
|
|
Again, you are confused if you think PoW distribution is fair, and PoS must be unfair. I admit PoW distribution is "easy", but it might not be fair. PoS distribution requires more thought and design, but a properly designed distribution can be made more "fair" than a PoW distribution.
Please show me a PoS distribution model that you consider more "fair" than Bitcoin/Litecoin/Dogecoin... I could think of a number of distribution models better than Bitcoin. For example, distribution by donation to development effort and bounties. So instead of paying $500 million to miners/pools/hardware/electricty company. These money can be used to: 1. fund Bitcoin development and propel it fast forward 2. pay for people to build more Bitcoin infrastructure to benefit the Bitcoin eco-system. 3. pay the PoS miners for running a full node and processing transactions (ok I realize they are still miners, but they are by definition stakeholders of the eco-system) I'm sure there are much more talented people who can think of new ideas better than these. Sounds like you are describing Bitshares DPOS ... nice experiment but unfortunately any newcomers will feel the system setup is wildly unfair against them. I don't see how Bitshares is unfair against newcomers, if anything, Bitcoin is currently wildly unfair against newcomers, there's a gigantic difference in buy price between early adopters and new comers. There goes your "fair" PoW distribution. |
|
|
|
It sounds like you are just saying that the $500 million figure is roughly the current value of coins mined in one year and that miners will spend an amount slightly less then that on mining. However, there is no explanation on why you keep saying this money is "leaving the Bitcoin eco-system". Are you trying to say that if Bitcoin used POS, then this $500 million would instead be used to purchase coins?
Just tell me, if not the Bitcoin eco-system, who is paying for miner profit, pool fee, asic hardware cost/profit, electricity? are these money not leaving the eco-system? I'm pretty sure they are sitting in the bank accounts of the above, and not benefiting the eco-system. and Yes, I am saying these money that are used to pay the above, will be instead used for the benefit of the Bitcoin eco-system. Miners are obviously paying for the costs you mention, but we do not know if they would spend the same amount on buying coins (or whatever else may benefit the eco-system) if Bitcoin was POS. Surely this number is not 100%, correct? I would imagine that not all miners care about Bitcoin, but some are solely interested in dollar profit. You are just avoiding the question, the miner pays for all these expense, yes, but the miner gets the money from WHERE? certainly not their person savings I assume? lol Why would the buyer care if the coin is produced by PoW mining or PoS mining? I can't understand your logic. |
|
|
|
Don't kid yourself, Bitcoin development is very much centralized, the users will accept whatever client distributed by Gavin Andressen, just like they will accept the upcoming block size hard fork, without realizing there are better solutions available to solve the problem.
That is not how the discussions work within Github and you are conveniently ignoring the other implementations. I agree with some of your statements of the weaknesses and limitations of PoW and the inherent costs. What you fail to disclose are all the benefits. Take for example another solution. Bitshares using DPoS. I was told by several active proponents that it is more secure and decentralized than Bitcoin and PoW and BTSX was a "True" deflationary currency because it would never grow beyond 1,999,883,512 coins. One month latter a one developer is able to leverage his time between a competing DAC to influence most of the delegates into a merger to create a capital infusion to help pay for development costs or his salary. So it looks like 2.5 billion will be the new number. I wonder how long that will remain true? Good luck, raising the 21 million cap within bitcoin sir. The bitshares merger is overwhelmingly approved by users and delegates. When was the last time Bitcoin development direction were put up for a vote by all users? was the blocksize hardfork put up for a vote by all Bitcoin users? do you think the Bitcoin cap can't be raised if there's a need for it and users overwhelmingly approve? How is this even related to PoW vs PoS at all? in both system, the cap CAN be raised period |
|
|
|
Again, you are confused if you think PoW distribution is fair, and PoS must be unfair. I admit PoW distribution is "easy", but it might not be fair. PoS distribution requires more thought and design, but a properly designed distribution can be made more "fair" than a PoW distribution.
Please show me a PoS distribution model that you consider more "fair" than Bitcoin/Litecoin/Dogecoin... I could think of a number of distribution models better than Bitcoin. For example, distribution by donation to development effort and bounties. So instead of paying $500 million to miners/pools/hardware/electricty company. These money can be used to: 1. fund Bitcoin development and propel it fast forward 2. pay for people to build more Bitcoin infrastructure to benefit the Bitcoin eco-system. 3. pay the PoS miners for running a full node and processing transactions (ok I realize they are still miners, but they are by definition stakeholders of the eco-system) I'm sure there are much more talented people who can think of new ideas better than these. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
