Pow and Pos.

[PPumpsTogether]

PoW is a protocol designed primarily to prevent and deter cyber-attacks on the network (in fact, it has an exorbitant cost to try to make attacks, much more than what someone would earn from that), and it also allows a distributed consensus of “trustless” transactions.

PoS is also a system for validating transactions, so the purpose is the same as the PoW, but the result is obtained in a different way.
The miner is chosen deterministically by the algorithm based on the amount of coins he owns, for long time he owns them, and other factors based on how the algorithm is structured



i found this article here : https://medium.com/novamining/main-differences-between-pow-and-pos-cryptocurrency-mining-c4cc279d9739

but honesty i did not understand clearly PoS in the part of getting commissions from all the transactions in the blockchain where this coin belongs,  i did not understand how Proof-of-Stake is executed by miners who put a number of their coins on a block to check transaction blocks.

If we have the same number of miners in the blockchain, whether mining on PoW or PoS, what makes the difference if the number of the transactions stays the same ??

[Xynerise]

i did not understand how Proof-of-Stake is executed by miners who put a number of their coins on a block to check transaction blocks.

In POS systems the block validators are usually called Forgers, and it usually works by them sending their coins to a smart contract address (or something similar),  to "stake" it, so they stand to lose their coins of they behave dishonestly.

If we have the same number of miners in the blockchain, whether mining on PoW or PoS, what makes the difference if the number of the transactions stays the same ??

POW blockchains usually have low TPS because of the fairly "large" time between blocks and the block size.
The block time is usually long enough to give the miners enough time to find the solution to the block, and also to give time for the completed block to propagate throughout the network (latency)

POS systems do not need have mining computation so they don't have to give time for a block solution to be found. Therefore, the block time can be reduced which usually increases the number of transactions the blockchain can process.

[PPumpsTogether]

i did not understand how Proof-of-Stake is executed by miners who put a number of their coins on a block to check transaction blocks.

In POS systems the block validators are usually called Forgers, and it usually works by them sending their coins to a smart contract address (or something similar),  to "stake" it, so they stand to lose their coins of they behave dishonestly.

If we have the same number of miners in the blockchain, whether mining on PoW or PoS, what makes the difference if the number of the transactions stays the same ??

POW blockchains usually have low TPS because of the fairly "large" time between blocks and the block size.
The block time is usually long enough to give the miners enough time to find the solution to the block, and also to give time for the completed block to propagate throughout the network (latency)

POS systems do not need have mining computation so they don't have to give time for a block solution to be found. Therefore, the block time can be reduced which usually increases the number of transactions the blockchain can process.

Your words are very useful, in fact everything is clear about PoW, but PoS ! is it illegal or piracy or something like gambling...
PoS miners use their own coins for attracting fees of transactions ?? it's not clear enough for me.

[HeRetiK]

In POS systems the block validators are usually called Forgers, and it usually works by them sending their coins to a smart contract address (or something similar),  to "stake" it, so they stand to lose their coins of they behave dishonestly.

PoS does not require a smart contract. There are a lot of cryptocurrencies out there that use PoS (or some alteration of it) instead of PoW.

POS systems do not need have mining computation so they don't have to give time for a block solution to be found. Therefore, the block time can be reduced which usually increases the number of transactions the blockchain can process.

When staking your coins in a PoS system, you also run at risk of minting orphaned blocks. Therefore adequate block intervals are still necessary. Also note block intervals is not at the heart of the scalability problem, but rather the rate of blockchain growth. This problem is not circumvented by smaller block intervals.

PoS ! is it illegal or piracy or something like gambling...
PoS miners use their own coins for attracting fees of transactions ?? it's not clear enough for me.

PoS has nothing to do with piracy or gambling.

Consensus algorithms always require some sort of scarce resource to make potential attacks as expensive as possible. This could be processing power (in the case of PoW), trust (in the case of banks), coins (in the case of PoS) or pretty much anything else.

In the case of PoS, various users in turn get to decide whether a transaction is valid or not. If they decide rightfully, they earn a reward. If they try to cheat the system, they lose their stake. In PoS you basically vouch with your capital (ie. your stake) that what you claim is correct. That's pretty much it, in a very oversimplified nutshell.

[Xynerise]

PoS does not require a smart contract. There are a lot of cryptocurrencies out there that use PoS (or some alteration of it) instead of PoW.

I know. Casper for Ethereum requires your staked funds to be sent to the smart contract.

When staking your coins in a PoS system, you also run at risk of minting orphaned blocks.

I was actually referring to Ethereum's (proposed) proof-of-stake.
Ethereum has uncle blocks.

Therefore adequate block intervals are still necessary. Also note block intervals is not at the heart of the scalability problem, but rather the rate of blockchain growth. This problem is not circumvented by smaller block intervals.

Agreed, but it does play a part.

PoS ! is it illegal or piracy or something like gambling...
PoS miners use their own coins for attracting fees of transactions ?? it's not clear enough for me.

PoS has nothing to do with piracy or gambling.

I think he meant that if you're staking you have to "bet" their stake on blocks to be minted

[bob123]

Your words are very useful, in fact everything is clear about PoW, but PoS ! is it illegal or piracy or something like gambling...
PoS miners use their own coins for attracting fees of transactions ?? it's not clear enough for me.

PoS just describes how the person is chosen who is allowed to create the next block.
This happens through their staked amount.

If person X has staked all of his coins (and those staked coins equal 10% of all staked coins) then he has a 10% chance of
being allowed to create the next block.

The transaction fees are being collected by the block creator, regardless of whether its PoS or PoW.

[Akiyoshi]

why the system using blockchain need them, PoW,PoS?

[AdolfinWolf]

why the system using blockchain need them, PoW,PoS?

Because you want to  have "cryptographical" proof  of your transactions being valid (or rather "work") and those of other people, which is what PoW accomplishes.
A more detailed answer can be found here, https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/51296

With POS you have collateral backing up your transaction ( or rather the blockchain), which also creates consensus and thus a way for users to trust the system. ( Since that is the ultimate goal ( being able to place trust in a decentralized system))

https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/a/141

[FrueGreads]

After reading this thread I actually got a bit curious about a few things. For instance since POS does not require computation, or solving "math problems" in order to create a "valid hash" and verify the tx, making it a much faster system, doesn't this make POS better than POW?

We get faster transactions, lower energy cost, and supposedly the same level of security. Isn't' that correct?
The only problem I see right now, is since this would be based on a "staking your funds" in order be selected to verify transactions, this would probably make it an even more centralized system, then POW.

Can anyone share some light on this?

[bob123]

For instance since POS does not require computation, or solving "math problems" in order to create a "valid hash" and verify the tx, making it a much faster system, doesn't this make POS better than POW?

'better' is a relative term.
You can't call one better than the other without exactly comparing each properties (which do matter for your decision).

We get faster transactions, lower energy cost, and supposedly the same level of security.

The speed of transactions (better: the timeframe between blocks are mined) has nothing to do with the consensus protocols PoW/PoS.
You are right with PoS using less energy than PoW.
Security is not that easy to guarantee. In PoW the security is 'guaranteed' through calculations (work).
PoS needs a different approach to make sure noone breaks the rules.

The only problem I see right now, is since this would be based on a "staking your funds" in order be selected to verify transactions, this would probably make it an even more centralized system, then POW.

Im not sure about that.
Staking money seems not too much different from buying ASICS + electricity to me.
Big mining farms lead to to 'centralisation', just as masternodes or staking does.

[FrueGreads]

The only problem I see right now, is since this would be based on a "staking your funds" in order be selected to verify transactions, this would probably make it an even more centralized system, then POW.

Im not sure about that.
Staking money seems not too much different from buying ASICS + electricity to me.
Big mining farms lead to to 'centralisation', just as masternodes or staking does.

You are correct on this one (and thanks for the other comments as well), but I think that developers could always make their "protocols" (not sure this is the right term) ASIC resistant and this would probably decrease centralization. On the POS I don't know how coders would prevent centralization from happening. From what I understand it's important to stake a lot of money since this would make the network more secure, and "bigger stakes" will always be chosen to verify the transactions.

And yes, even if coins get ASIC resistant, people could still gather a lot of GPUs, or create big mining pools, but even doing so it would be less centralized than what we have now with ASIC mining.

Not an expert here, and this is just my common sense knowledge, so I could be very far from reality of course.

[HeRetiK]

The only problem I see right now, is since this would be based on a "staking your funds" in order be selected to verify transactions, this would probably make it an even more centralized system, then POW.

Im not sure about that.
Staking money seems not too much different from buying ASICS + electricity to me.
Big mining farms lead to to 'centralisation', just as masternodes or staking does.

I would argue that PoS leads to more centralization in that you put too much power into the hands of people that already own significant amounts of cryptocurrency. Very reminiscent of the traditional financial system, if it comes down it.

With PoW you might have an overlap between whales and miners, but for the most part they are separate groups within the ecosystem, keeping each other in check. At least in the case of Bitcoin, where most coins have been mined before industrial-grade mining farms became common.

And yes, even if coins get ASIC resistant, people could still gather a lot of GPUs, or create big mining pools, but even doing so it would be less centralized than what we have now with ASIC mining.

Assuming that mining hardware manufacturing becomes more mainstream and widely available (eg. Samsung), ASIC mining might become just as decentralized as GPU mining. I'm not yet holding my breath though.

Either way, I'm not sure if ASIC resistance is actually attainable. Taking Scrypt of Litecoin for example, ASICs may always emerge given a large enough market. However I know next to nothing about the technical limitations of developing ASICs, so some of the currently used PoW schemes may indeed be fully ASIC resistant.