From POW to POS： is it the evolution or retrogress of cryptography currency?

[BIT-Sharon]

POW（Proof of Work) means that it depends on the amount of work of mining, so the better the nature of the computer, the more the mines you will get. POS（Proof of Stake) distribute the interests according to the amount and time that you are holding. Under the mode of POS, your income from mining is in direct proportion to the ages of your coins, but no any relationship with the nature of your computer. POW or POS? The discussion on this topic is durable, maybe the cryptography currency based on these two design philosophy will come to long-term co-existence, and the dispute between them will keep on going.

[Amph]

actually pos, do use a bit of the power of your cpu, so it's not actually energy free, and zero consumption, like many think...

try for example to run many pos coins and you will notice it immediately

also i would not say that POW energy is a wasted energy, if it is used to create something like bitcoin, which could have an immense value in the future and revolutionize the whole economic system

[cbeast]

The discussion on this topic is durable, maybe the cryptography currency based on these two design philosophy will come to long-term co-existence, and the dispute between them will keep on going.

Can you show any further development as evidence of the durability of this discussion?

[herzmeister]

I've said it before, I'll say it again.

PoS is less decentralized and less balanced. It makes the rich become richer without risk. In a PoS-Bitcoin alternate reality, MtGox would have had total control back then because of their large stake in their "cold" storage. With PoW, the miners (who, unlike stake-holders, have to constantly reinvest their reward in energy and hardware) and stakeholders/banks/exchanges are different interest groups, so the game theory behind PoW is richer, more complex, thus more robust and resilient.

In an ideal scenario in the future, mining will not be wasteful anymore. Wherever warmth is created with resistors, ASICs will replace them wherever appropriate (doesn't even have to be the latest generation). Think toasters, waterbeds, etc. So people won't mine for profit, but just to get some crypto-coins back from their energy expenses. Mining data centers won't be profitable anymore and will disappear. Wide decentralization will be achieved.

[jonald_fyookball]

To this date, I have not seen a satisfactory debunking
of the "nothing at stake/costless simulation" issue,
which is the fundamental problem with Proof of Stake.

Polestra's latest paper:

https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf

[BIT-Sharon]

I've said it before, I'll say it again.

PoS is less decentralized and less balanced. It makes the rich become richer without risk. In a PoS-Bitcoin alternate reality, MtGox would have had total control back then because of their large stake in their "cold" storage. With PoW, the miners (who, unlike stake-holders, have to constantly reinvest their reward in energy and hardware) and stakeholders/banks/exchanges are different interest groups, so the game theory behind PoW is richer, more complex, thus more robust and resilient.

In an ideal scenario in the future, mining will not be wasteful anymore. Wherever warmth is created with resistors, ASICs will replace them wherever appropriate (doesn't even have to be the latest generation). Think toasters, waterbeds, etc. So people won't mine for profit, but just to get some crypto-coins back from their energy expenses. Mining data centers won't be profitable anymore and will disappear. Wide decentralization will be achieved.

Yes, POS mines by the ages of coins, and it seems safe and trustful, however, the safe things may not be progressive. It is wrong to judge the economic or non-economic nature by the inner nature of the capitals or other foreign elements. The progress of human society should not only concern the inner nature or foreign elements only, that is, we could not evaluate if POS conforms to the human progress just by its safety and energy conservation for so called enhancing productivity.

[BIT-Sharon]

The discussion on this topic is durable, maybe the cryptography currency based on these two design philosophy will come to long-term co-existence, and the dispute between them will keep on going.

Can you show any further development as evidence of the durability of this discussion?

Compare to POW, the mode of POS is younger. It hasn’t been 2 years since the innovation of Peercoin. Compare to the maturer mode of POW，POS is still on the way of improvement. These development orientation mainly stands on safety and application. The mode of POS is better than POW on safety, but the advantage of POS could be taken fully only by attracting enough holders for mining. The other development way of POS is the development of functions of second generation of coins. Peershares, the functions of second generation of Peercoin has opened private beta.

[Lauda]

Please stop with the nonsense. In every discussion that we've had about changes to the fundamental rules (or other) there are individuals who are suggesting POS and often mentioning PeerCoin.
That's not something that is going to every happen and I'd put it in the same bag as the potential proposal to change the 21M supply.

I've said it before, I'll say it again.

PoS is less decentralized and less balanced. It makes the rich become richer without risk. In a PoS-Bitcoin alternate reality, MtGox would have had total control back then because of their large stake in their "cold" storage. With PoW, the miners (who, unlike stake-holders, have to constantly reinvest their reward in energy and hardware) and stakeholders/banks/exchanges are different interest groups, so the game theory behind PoW is richer, more complex, thus more robust and resilient.

In an ideal scenario in the future, mining will not be wasteful anymore. Wherever warmth is created with resistors, ASICs will replace them wherever appropriate (doesn't even have to be the latest generation). Think toasters, waterbeds, etc. So people won't mine for profit, but just to get some crypto-coins back from their energy expenses. Mining data centers won't be profitable anymore and will disappear. Wide decentralization will be achieved.

Exactly. PoS is not that good and there were plenty enough discussions about it in the past. We should have actually moved way past this point and be discussing something that is actually beneficial.

[HCLivess]

I may sound like a heretic, but I believe that greed is a great motivator (actually the only motivator for the plebs) and exactly the "rich get richer" scheme is the best motivation for the poor to jump the train. Basically it says: "If we succeed, you better join us now, not later, because you will get and keep getting the benefits as time passes. The later you join, the less you will gain". I see why this feels appealing to masses and that's why I act liek the masses.

Getting miners? You think this will ever appeal to anyone but geeks? Such idea is ridiculous.

Be honest to yourself and ask if the Bitcoin potential price rise is not perhaps the only motivator to actually stay here. See shitcoin reddits get pumped after the price pump scams.

also,
Reinvestment to hardware <-> Investment to POS coin

[BIT-Sharon]

To this date, I have not seen a satisfactory debunking
of the "nothing at stake/costless simulation" issue,
which is the fundamental problem with Proof of Stake.

Polestra's latest paper:

https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf

Simply speaking, no matter POW or POS, if a single miner could create big amount of blocks, then any cryptocurrency  is untrusted.

[cbeast]

PoS is apartheid. You must ask permission to become part of the economy. If the stakeholders are racist, then they will exclude that race from participation. So far that isn't a problem, but it is an excellent tool for despots to promote. This is not evolution. That is social darwinism.

[jonald_fyookball]

To this date, I have not seen a satisfactory debunking
of the "nothing at stake/costless simulation" issue,
which is the fundamental problem with Proof of Stake.

Polestra's latest paper:

https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf

Simply speaking, no matter POW or POS, if a single miner could create big amount of blocks, then any cryptocurrency  is untrusted.

True, however please note that the paper I referenced is basically saying PoW is capable of true distributed consensus, while PoS is not.

[oblivi]

PoW is still the best method with all it's negative points. The fact you can keep issuing new currency into the coins's ecosystem is a great feature that is lost with the idea of having some rothchild type of stakeholders that make money by holding and may or not make use of the coins in a healthy way.

[Daedelus]

To this date, I have not seen a satisfactory debunking
of the "nothing at stake/costless simulation" issue,
which is the fundamental problem with Proof of Stake.

Please be more specific with the POS implementation and the attack you are referring to. The 4 descriptions of nothing-at-stake describe in enough detail to be tested rigorously have been found to not hold any water > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=897488.msg10152632#msg10152632

[Daedelus]

PoS is apartheid. You must ask permission to become part of the economy. If the stakeholders are racist, then they will exclude that race from participation. So far that isn't a problem, but it is an excellent tool for despots to promote. This is not evolution. That is social darwinism.

Can you expand on this pls?

[Argwai96]

It would be easier to run solar power laptop or a pos wallet on a raspberry pi 2 then a sha miner for bitcoin, with a 100w solar panel you could run 2 netbooks runing pos wallets and ther for moving the network, talk about a revolution in power usage.

the fact is POS right now is more profitable running then any POW coin.

[cbeast]

PoS is apartheid. You must ask permission to become part of the economy. If the stakeholders are racist, then they will exclude that race from participation. So far that isn't a problem, but it is an excellent tool for despots to promote. This is not evolution. That is social darwinism.

Can you expand on this pls?

With regards to distribution, in PoW all you need to get into the economy is mining equipment and an internet connection. In PoS the only way to acquire currency is from a stakeholder. After distribution, the stakeholders can transact with whom they choose and nobody has any other way to join the system. I realize this is a simplistic perspective, but it is a powerful tool to promote exclusionary policies. For instance, it would be easy for a state to exclude foreign PoS currencies and promote their own. This could be a positive thing depending on your political perspective. It could also be used to segregate social groups by denying them participation. PoW however, cannot exclude anyone that has adequate hashing power.

[Lauda]

With regards to distribution, in PoW all you need to get into the economy is mining equipment and an internet connection. In PoS the only way to acquire currency is from a stakeholder. After distribution, the stakeholders can transact with whom they choose and nobody has any other way to join the system. I realize this is a simplistic perspective, but it is a powerful tool to promote exclusionary policies. For instance, it would be easy for a state to exclude foreign PoS currencies and promote their own. This could be a positive thing depending on your political perspective. It could also be used to segregate social groups by denying them participation. PoW however, cannot exclude anyone that has adequate hashing power.

Finally someone who also realizes this. Although your stance in particular is probably a bit too negative. However, if one really thinks about this he/she would realize it.
This might simplify it for those who do not understand:
In a PoW coin such as Bitcoin:   In order to acquire coins you can buy equipment and mine it yourself (aside from buying from others).
In a PoS coin such as Peercoin: In order to acquire coins you need to find someone who is willing to sell i.e. who is willing to let you be part of it.

[jonald_fyookball]

To this date, I have not seen a satisfactory debunking
of the "nothing at stake/costless simulation" issue,
which is the fundamental problem with Proof of Stake.

Please be more specific with the POS implementation and the attack you are referring to. The 4 descriptions of nothing-at-stake describe in enough detail to be tested rigorously have been found to not hold any water > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=897488.msg10152632#msg10152632

Deadelus, we've debated this before and clearly are drawing different conclusions
from the same paper.

To me, it says N@S is still a problem:

As we have all the algorithms developed to simulate N@S attack we
present result in the separate paper along with possible ways to resist it.
Giving some results now we present not the full picture of the problem. Fol-
lowing this section it is reasonable to get the impression that this problem
actually matters and we concentrate to possible solutions at the moment.

I'm not really interested in another debate, however, I would
like to understand this idea of "multibranch forging"
more clearly.  Perhaps you can explain it.

From what I understand, there's a structure called a blocktree,
and then an algorithm is applied to arrive at the longest/best branch.

To me, that sounds like a convoluted way for PoS to arrive at the
same thing that PoW does very straightforwardly, which is to compute
chains of blocks and using the longest chain as consensus.

And that's also what the original multibranch paper seems to be
implying:

However it's obvious that an account which has more powerful comput-
ing node also has some benets in comparison with other nodes because
it could predict more branches to somehow determine which branch will
win in the longer run. That is the question for the future research still
we don't like to transform the PoS systems to the PoW-like.

Maybe, if you understand the subject well, you can explain in
plain english how multibranch forging works.  If it is a powerful innovation
as you seem to imply, it would be useful for all of us to understand it.

Can you explain?

[BIT-Sharon]

PoW is still the best method with all it's negative points. The fact you can keep issuing new currency into the coins's ecosystem is a great feature that is lost with the idea of having some rothchild type of stakeholders that make money by holding and may or not make use of the coins in a healthy way.

Yes, that's what we said rich people who appreciate POS and poor ones who appreciate POW. However, we could not judge the value of coins just by the different modes. I feel the mode of POW is less easier to be influenced by the market, but the work amount itself.