Bitcoin Forum
September 21, 2018, 08:50:15 PM *
News: ♦♦ New info! Bitcoin Core users absolutely must upgrade to previously-announced 0.16.3 [Torrent]. All Bitcoin users should temporarily trust confirmations slightly less. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: POW vs. POS  (Read 1731 times)
aliashraf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 327


View Profile
August 20, 2018, 10:23:01 AM
 #101

I'm aware that you are a fan of PoS, an enthusiast, but this "energy wasting" argument won't help your faith, believe me.

First of all, energy is not wasted in PoW, it is the only objective way to keep a system secure and the way I look at it, the energy that network consumes now, is one of the most decent use cases for electricity ever:

Your conclusion is false, the energy waste has not secured bitcoin it is dooming it.
1.  The Chinese Mining Pools have had a ~70% domination of bitcoin for years now.
     The only security in bitcoin is what they grant you nothing more.
Centralization of PoW  mining by pools sucks. Although I've proposed an improvement to replace 'winner-takes-all' approach with 'contributor-takes-share' to fix infamous pooling pressure in PoW, I have to acknowledge this as a flaw for current implementations of PoW.
But you are taking advantage of this issue, too much:
1- PoS systems are vulnerable to this threat in a higher order because of the availability dilemma. And in PoS it is even worse because they need to lock the stakes for a long period and people can't move easily between these "banks".

2- The very fact that despite the situation with pools, we have bitcoin with $110+ billion market cap, speaks for itself. Pools, are bad and yet PoW is that good to survive and get even stronger, why? It is because of the beauty of PoW, its objectiveness. Some people think it is because of bitcoin being popular and using its premium as the first crypto, they are wrong. Bitcoin is big because it is highly secure.

3- Through scaling debate in bitcoin, we learned lessons among them we discovered the importance of users. SegWit adopted by a UASF, i.e. it was enforced by users and not miners. Although Jihan Wu was controlling a huge share of hashpower (he still is) he failed dictating his agenda.

Conclusively, bitcoin is secure because to do anything harmful to it you should invest a lot and consume a lot and risk losing everything because of huge hashpower requirements and large user base that simply ignores your unfaithful messages.

Quote
   
2.  The energy waste means that future miners have to request permission from government regulators to allow them to increase capacity.
     If the Governments approve these energy requests of miners, they can use that as a way to coerce their approval or disapproval of transactions.
     Making bitcoin another government minion no different than banks.
This is absurd.
Miners don't get permission for electricity, they buy it! In subsidizing countries, it makes sense but not all over the globe! It has been a decade and bitcoin has been popular for at least 5 years and miners are doing their job.

If it is about your false prophecy about "exponential growth" in electricity demand of mining, I have already refuted it. There will be no growth in middle term and we will experience mild corrections in long term (my prophecy).

Quote
Quote
There are again a few more real problems with PoS:

1- It has no measure to tell us who deserves how much stake and why?


Answer to 1.
The amount one owns of the coin and the original code defines how much they stake and who earns.
And hopefully one research that code before buying.
Really?  Cheesy
In PoW coins are generated and granted to people because they are consuming resources to become qualified for such a grant. In PoS we have a subjective credit that is inflating with almost zero cost.  It is just like any other subjective article, nothing! You put no-thing in stake to get more no-thing and you wish people recognize your no-things as a medium of exchange. hmmm ... sounds familiar, Feds do this with USD on a daily basis, don't they? Sure they do.

Quote
Quote

2- It is eventually a computerized version of fiat currencies, banks, interest rates, ... with obvious lack of Resistance Axiom, which is the main driving force behind cryptocurrency movement.

Answer to 2.
All blockchain crypto is a general ledger that is the only thing they have in common,
Fiat is controlled by governments, PoS Crypto are defined by the code and therefore outside the control of those government elite.
Banks make up money out of thin air based on debt which they worsen with fractional reserve nonsense,
Crypto has a defined amount, with a defined growth, with ZERO DEBT built into it and No fractional reserve shenanigans.

FYI:  Wink (Excluding Tether of course since Tether is running a fraction reserve scam claiming 1 to 1 with the US$)
No, it is not an answer. Having a GL does not make them all the same.

PoS coins are made out of thin air just like fiat, there should be banks of stakes to guarantee availability and hence income. These banks will sooner or later, shard transaction space for scaling purposes and eventually have to be regulated under a clearance protocol for their intra-shard transactions, etc. Nothing new.

As for lending and extra-income, they will figure out a way for this. e.g.  borrowers who suggest an interest rate higher than the network could look tempting enough for our banks of stake.

Quote
Quote
3- Its consensus algorithm (any variant), is basically subjective, based on a compromise between people about the distribution of stakes. It is inherently defective because of this subjectivity. Historically we had this idea in reputation systems before bitcoin and with no significant outcome.
Answer to 3:
The only thing we agree on is PoS is a method of consensus.  Smiley
Ownership of everything is subjective to personal & group compromise, why this bothers you is strange.
IE:
You own apples and the guy down the road owns oranges,
You both exchange apples and oranges with each other , but the exchange rate is defined by the community preferences of which they favored more at the time of exchange. That is what you have to live with if there is more in the community than just you.
The value of any item is defined by how much others are willing to pay for it.
Again It is not an answer. Other than fiat currency any resource has a value determined by the amount of average labor needed to produce it and has a price determined by the balance between its respective supply and demand. It is true for every single good everytime and everywhere other than fiat currencies as I mentioned above. And you are introducing another 'thing', a PoS coin, that has no value but has a price while we have such things right now and they got names: USD, Euro, Pound, Bulivar, ...

The only resource in the world that its value is based on a compromise and not on labor is fiat.  
1537563015
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1537563015

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1537563015
Reply with quote  #2

1537563015
Report to moderator
1537563015
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1537563015

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1537563015
Reply with quote  #2

1537563015
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1537563015
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1537563015

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1537563015
Reply with quote  #2

1537563015
Report to moderator
1537563015
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1537563015

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1537563015
Reply with quote  #2

1537563015
Report to moderator
Zin-Zang
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 1


View Profile
August 20, 2018, 08:54:29 PM
 #102

Centralization of PoW  mining by pools sucks. Although I've proposed an improvement to replace 'winner-takes-all' approach with 'contributor-takes-share' to fix infamous pooling pressure in PoW, I have to acknowledge this as a flaw for current implementations of PoW.
But you are taking advantage of this issue, too much:
1- PoS systems are vulnerable to this threat in a higher order because of the availability dilemma. And in PoS it is even worse because they need to lock the stakes for a long period and people can't move easily between these "banks".

2- The very fact that despite the situation with pools, we have bitcoin with $110+ billion market cap, speaks for itself. Pools, are bad and yet PoW is that good to survive and get even stronger, why? It is because of the beauty of PoW, its objectiveness. Some people think it is because of bitcoin being popular and using its premium as the first crypto, they are wrong. Bitcoin is big because it is highly secure.

3- Through scaling debate in bitcoin, we learned lessons among them we discovered the importance of users. SegWit adopted by a UASF, i.e. it was enforced by users and not miners. Although Jihan Wu was controlling a huge share of hashpower (he still is) he failed dictating his agenda.

Conclusively, bitcoin is secure because to do anything harmful to it you should invest a lot and consume a lot and risk losing everything because of huge hashpower requirements and large user base that simply ignores your unfaithful messages.

We can agree that the more confirmations the more secure a transaction,
however this is a condition of both PoS and PoW.

The only real implementation of banks in the cryto world is lightning network.
Banks used to take gold deposits and use their own notes to transfer representations of value.
Lightning Network takes Bitcoin deposits and uses their own custom ledger to transfer their representation of value.
Only LN meets the specifications to be called a Bank.

PoS & PoW onchain transaction transfer the actual value, not a representation of the value like a Bank or LN.
PoS & PoW onchain transactions do not allow for the possibility of a fractional reserve system onchain.
PoS & PoW onchain transactions do not use a debt based system (like Banks) that guarantees their is always more debt than quantity of coins.
Therefore neither PoS or PoW onchain implementations fit the specifications of a Bank.  Smiley

Your conclusion on bitcoin being secure because of the risk to the miner wealth if they damage it, is false.
You have a incorrect assumption that the miner is totally dependent on only bitcoin.
Bitcoin Cash has changed that conclusion for the following reason, Bitmain has stockpiled more bitcoin cash than bitcoin.
They have mined a large % of bitcoin cash, kept all of their bitcoin cash from the original fork, used a % of their bitcoin profit to buy more bitcoin cash,
taken bitcoin cash exclusively for their new miners, because of the following they have a direct financial incentive to replace bitcoin with bitcoin cash, their profit windfall would be staggering if bitcoin suffered a failure or price drop that made bitcoin cash more popular.
All they have to do to achieve this , is keep stock piling cash , and start cashing out all of their bitcoins on their mining operations, at some point they make bitcoin cash price match bitcoin and the rest of the miner join in leaving bitcoin to fend for itself with no miner support.
Bitmain would gain untold riches from carrying out such a plan, so old bitcoin is no longer secured by the miners , as the larger profit can be made elsewhere.

* If you want to fix PoW, you need to remove the energy waste & block the pooling of resources so that individuals will always be part of the system.*
* Due to coin age included in PoS, and the fact that PoS coins are disabled for period of time before allowing another stake, it gives an individual with lesser amounts the ability to stay relevant in a PoS network*  Smiley

When you examine the underlying structure of PoW verses PoS,
the following comes to light:
PoW is a combative system Winner take all design, as miners compete for every single block, meaning the richest will always be the strongest.
PoS is a cooperative system design, as when one block stakes , those coins are offline for a specified time and no longer competing for a block, which means that coins from other members are required to stake to reach the # of confirmations that will again allow that block to stake.
In PoS , You literally need others to be staking and securing the network until your coins are again eligible to stake.
 


Quote from: zinzang
2.  The energy waste means that future miners have to request permission from government regulators to allow them to increase capacity.
     If the Governments approve these energy requests of miners, they can use that as a way to coerce their approval or disapproval of transactions.
     Making bitcoin another government minion no different than banks.
This is absurd.
Miners don't get permission for electricity, they buy it! In subsidizing countries, it makes sense but not all over the globe! It has been a decade and bitcoin has been popular for at least 5 years and miners are doing their job.

If it is about your false prophecy about "exponential growth" in electricity demand of mining, I have already refuted it. There will be no growth in middle term and we will experience mild corrections in long term (my prophecy).


Read the following to understand , it is not absurd my friend but a reality.  Smiley
Miners will need permission to buy electricity.  Tongue
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/canadian-utility-halts-processing-service-requests-from-cryptominers/525438/
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/bitcoin-backlash-as-miners-suck-up-electricity-stress-power-grids-in-central-washington/
https://www.theolympian.com/latest-news/article208635474.html
https://www.chelanpud.org/docs/default-source/commission/bitcoint-mining-prompts-utility-rate-hike---data-center-frontier-feb-2-2016.pdf
https://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2018/03/25/bitcoin-mining-triggers-backlash-from-electric-utilities/




Really?  Cheesy
In PoW coins are generated and granted to people because they are consuming resources to become qualified for such a grant. In PoS we have a subjective credit that is inflating with almost zero cost.  It is just like any other subjective article, nothing! You put no-thing in stake to get more no-thing and you wish people recognize your no-things as a medium of exchange. hmmm ... sounds familiar, Feds do this with USD on a daily basis, don't they? Sure they do.

PoW consume Massive amounts of Electricity.
PoS consumes a tiny fraction of that amount of electricity.

Both provide the ability to make transactions, PoS is just more energy efficient than PoW.
IE:
PoW is a Car that has a gas mileage of  1 mile per gallon.
PoS is a Car that has a gas mileage of 1000 miles per gallon.
Therefore to go 1000 miles in the PoW car require 1000 gallons of gas.
While in the PoS Car going 1000 miles only require 1 gallon of gas.

Both PoW & PoS get you to the same place , however PoW wasted 999 gallons of gas to do so.

* In truth , the ratio of energy waste in electricity is much worse in the millions or higher instead of a simple 1000 ratio. *



2- It is eventually a computerized version of fiat currencies, banks, interest rates, ... with obvious lack of Resistance Axiom, which is the main driving force behind cryptocurrency movement.

Quote from: zin zang
All blockchain crypto is a general ledger that is the only thing they have in common,
No, it is not an answer. Having a GL does not make them all the same.

PoS coins are made out of thin air just like fiat, there should be banks of stakes to guarantee availability and hence income. These banks will sooner or later, shard transaction space for scaling purposes and eventually have to be regulated under a clearance protocol for their intra-shard transactions, etc. Nothing new.

As for lending and extra-income, they will figure out a way for this. e.g.  borrowers who suggest an interest rate higher than the network could look tempting enough for our banks of stake.

I was saying that GL, was the only thing they all had in common, I was not implying it made them all banks.

PoS coins are not made out of thin air, they were generated by Electricity, Program Code, & Time, no different than PoW in that aspect.

Debt can be added to an external offchain system such as LN, but can not be added to an onchain system in PoS or PoW.
Debt requires a representation of value , onchain system are the actual value and therefore onchain debt is impossible with the current designs.


Other than fiat currency any resource has a value determined by the amount of average labor needed to produce it and has a price determined by the balance between its respective supply and demand. It is true for every single good everytime and everywhere other than fiat currencies as I mentioned above. And you are introducing another 'thing', a PoS coin, that has no value but has a price while we have such things right now and they got names: USD, Euro, Pound, Bulivar, ...

The only resource in the world that its value is based on a compromise and not on labor is fiat.  

As far as # 3 went, we seem to be agreeing more than disagreeing .  Smiley
I would state that a PoS coin is a resource and that it's inflation rate and usage would determine it's price.
A PoS coin value is tied to the quantity of coins and it's usage, while the Fiat based currencies are tied to nothing, except promises of government officials.
Just as ASICS requirement gives PoW coins value in your mind, because it allows new coins to be generated and transactions to occur,
PoS Coins themselves generate new coin and make transactions occur without the unnecessary energy waste of PoW.
 
 

ZEITCOIN is the Future! (http://www.zeit-coin.net)
Energy Efficient / Decentralized / Ultra Low Inflation  / More Cost Effective than LN
aliashraf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 327


View Profile
August 20, 2018, 10:20:15 PM
 #103

@Zin-Zang

AFAICS, this conversation is becoming too chaotic, I suggest you choose just one topic, like energy waste of bitcoin (your terms) and simply prove my arguments about the irrelevance of your claim, wrong. Although I've clearly stated everything necessary in this regard for your convenience I try to make another brief argument here:

1- Bitcoin and PoW generally, consume energy to keep the network safe against unfaithful behavior of malicious participants. It is irrelevant to call it a 'waste' because it is one of the most useful use cases for energy ever: decentralizing money.

2- The coins generated in PoW, have objective value because they have been produced by consuming resources like any other asset (other than fiat currencies). PoS generated coins are just like fiat, they come from nowhere and have no value.

Now, in just 2 short paragraphs refute my arguments above.
Zin-Zang
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 1


View Profile
August 21, 2018, 03:47:34 AM
 #104

@Zin-Zang

AFAICS, this conversation is becoming too chaotic, I suggest you choose just one topic, like energy waste of bitcoin (your terms) and simply prove my arguments about the irrelevance of your claim, wrong. Although I've clearly stated everything necessary in this regard for your convenience I try to make another brief argument here:

1- Bitcoin and PoW generally, consume energy to keep the network safe against unfaithful behavior of malicious participants. It is irrelevant to call it a 'waste' because it is one of the most useful use cases for energy ever: decentralizing money.

2- The coins generated in PoW, have objective value because they have been produced by consuming resources like any other asset (other than fiat currencies). PoS generated coins are just like fiat, they come from nowhere and have no value.

Now, in just 2 short paragraphs refute my arguments above.

OK,

1. Your conclusion is misplaced, because energy consumption does not keep bitcoin safe.
IE: ~2 years ago Chinese Miners gain ~71% control of bitcoin mining, the energy required to run bitcoin has increased dramatically in that 2 year period,
      it is no safer now than then , and the argument could be made it is less safer as the Chinese miners are running a 2nd coin to switch too.
Shorty put : Bitcoin Security is dependent on the Continued Chinese Miners Collusion , energy spent is irrelevant.

2.  PoS or PoW coins value is perceived by the price the public is willing to pay.
With PoW coins, you have a higher baseline price because of a psychological floor due to the input cost needed to produce a bitcoin today.
However the majority of Bitcoins were mined at much cheaper prices than today's rate, so that promoted myth fails to hold water and is a falsehood.
The amount of resources going into a product do not guarantee a higher price.
IE:
Make a Car out of pure gold , it cost to purchase would be immense, however due to the weight , it would be crappy on gas mileage and a prime target for thieves, as such the majority would shun it as wasteful and pick a car with better gas mileage that was more affordable.

Shortly put : PoS & PoW coins are both created by using electricity, program code, & time to create said coins.
It is just that one requires less resources to be created and used.

 Smiley        


FYI:
Another good example of the amount of resources going into a product don't guarantee a higher price, is the US Penny.
It costs the Government more than a penny to make a penny, but yet when you spent it , it is only worth 1 penny.


 

ZEITCOIN is the Future! (http://www.zeit-coin.net)
Energy Efficient / Decentralized / Ultra Low Inflation  / More Cost Effective than LN
aliashraf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 327


View Profile
August 21, 2018, 07:02:03 AM
 #105

@Zin-Zang

AFAICS, this conversation is becoming too chaotic, I suggest you choose just one topic, like energy waste of bitcoin (your terms) and simply prove my arguments about the irrelevance of your claim, wrong. Although I've clearly stated everything necessary in this regard for your convenience I try to make another brief argument here:

1- Bitcoin and PoW generally, consume energy to keep the network safe against unfaithful behavior of malicious participants. It is irrelevant to call it a 'waste' because it is one of the most useful use cases for energy ever: decentralizing money.

2- The coins generated in PoW, have objective value because they have been produced by consuming resources like any other asset (other than fiat currencies). PoS generated coins are just like fiat, they come from nowhere and have no value.

Now, in just 2 short paragraphs refute my arguments above.

OK,

1. Your conclusion is misplaced, because energy consumption does not keep bitcoin safe.
...
Shorty put : Bitcoin Security is dependent on the Continued Chinese Miners Collusion , energy spent is irrelevant.
So you believe bitcoin is not secure, but it IS.

I think you are right about centralization of mining but, the fact that despite this bitcoin has remained secure shows the strengths of PoW.
Quote
2.  PoS or PoW coins value is perceived by the price the public is willing to pay.
Value is one thing and price is another thing. Value is determined by necessary labor for the society to produce a commodity but price is determined by supply and demand. Value is fundamental for price not the price itself. You need to check economics theory of value.

Fiat currencies are the only exceptional commodities that have no value but a price! This is why this movement, cryptocurrency is morally justifiable and fair. Fiat is fake commodity just like slavery: An slave is not a product of labor in a society but in some points of the history (even modern history) they got price and were/are exchanged ruthlessly.

PoS is just a computerised version of such a fake commodity. It is produced out of thin air.

Quote
Shortly put : PoS & PoW coins are both created by using electricity, program code, & time to create said coins.
It is just that one requires less resources to be created and used.
Code and time are irrelevant and the electricity for PoS.

A printed money takes time and labor to be produced and still we don't hesitate to say: It is produced out of thin air.
LandSecrets.io
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 18
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 21, 2018, 07:44:18 AM
 #106

Bitcoin never ever use PoS...
Zin-Zang
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 1


View Profile
August 21, 2018, 10:59:29 AM
 #107

@aliashraf

It seems we are at a impasse.

Therefore Time and the Reader can be the final arbitrator.

Good Luck with your PoCW.   Smiley

ZEITCOIN is the Future! (http://www.zeit-coin.net)
Energy Efficient / Decentralized / Ultra Low Inflation  / More Cost Effective than LN
naralux
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 17
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 28, 2018, 07:16:21 AM
 #108

After doing some research I found out that:

Proof of work (PoW) requires proof that work of some kind occurred. In the case of Bitcoin miners are required to do this work before any of their blocks is accepted by others. Using miners to solve the blocks and get rewards from this work.

Proof of stake (PoS) requires users that have a high stake at the currency (i.e. hold a lot of coins) to determine the next block. This has a high risk of some party achieving monopoly of the currency but there are several methods to prevent that (by allocating random stakeholders to agree on a new block, and others). Get reward from holding as much coin.

There are some pro and cons from not only PoW but PoS. PoW may consume a lot of electric energy but fair for everyone because they work hard to get reward based on it "Nothing ventures, nothing gains".

In conclusion, I support PoW.  Kiss
ethereumnews
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 120
Merit: 10


View Profile
August 28, 2018, 12:28:41 PM
 #109

Get reward from holding as much coin.

That is true for PoW as well. Some people just buy a lot of GPUs/ASICs to get maximum reward. In PoS, instead of buying mining equiment, they buy the coins/tokens.

Tip jar - 0x40f62d076a7490622e0E1B59f02F24C17a7175Ed
BALIK
Copper Member
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 512



View Profile
August 28, 2018, 12:35:58 PM
 #110

I definitely think that proof-of-work is going to be phased out soon, though proof-of-stake isn't much better, they all require specialist hardware in order to run their networks, which is not something we should implement for later generation blockchains, a waste of energy can't be the best way to secure a blockchain. I notice that the major blockchains are starting to shift towards POS as it's definitely more environmentally friendly than POW, but it also increases centralization and the risk of a vector based attack so we should look for even better alternatives in future.

▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
██▀▀▀▀██
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
          ▄▄▄▄       
     ▄▄█▀▀▀▄▄▀▀▀█▄▄   
   ▄█▀▄▄████████▄▄▀█▄
 ▄█▀▄██████████████▄▀█▄
▐█ ██████████████████ █▌
█▌▐██████████████████▌▐█
█▌▐██████████████████▌▐█
▐█ ██████████████████ █▌
 ▀█▄▀██████████████▀▄█▀
   ▀█▄▀▀████████▀▀▄█▀   
     ▀▀█▄▄▄▀▀▄▄▄█▀▀     
          ▀▀▀▀         
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
███▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀███
██▌                 ▐██
██▌                 ▐██
██▌                 ▐██
██▌                 ▐██
██▌                 ▐██
▐██                 ██▌
 ███▄             ▄███
  ▀███▄         ▄███▀ 
    ▀▀███▄▄▄▄▄███▀▀   
        ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀       
 
██ ████  ██████  ██████ ███ ████ ██████████████████████

..WHITEPAPER..





             ▄████▄▄   ▄
█▄          ██████████▀▄
███        ███████████▀
▐████▄     ██████████▌
▄▄██████▄▄▄▄█████████▌
▀████████████████████
  ▀█████████████████
  ▄▄███████████████
   ▀█████████████▀
    ▄▄█████████▀
▀▀██████████▀
    ▀▀▀▀▀





▄█████████████████████████▄
███████████████████████████
███████████████▀       ████
██████████████      ▄▄▄████
██████████████    ▐████████
██████████████    ▐████████
██████████            ▐████
██████████            █████
██████████████    ▐████████
██████████████    ▐████████
██████████████    ▐████████
▀█████████████    ▐███████▀





                   ▄▄████
              ▄▄████████▌
         ▄▄█████████▀███
    ▄▄██████████▀▀ ▄███▌
▄████████████▀▀  ▄█████
▀▀▀███████▀   ▄███████▌
      ██    ▄█████████
       █  ▄██████████▌
       █  ███████████
       █ ██▀ ▀██████▌
       ██▀     ▀████
                 ▀█▌
hv_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 952
Merit: 536

Remove The Middlemen


View Profile WWW
August 30, 2018, 07:52:49 AM
 #111

I definitely think that proof-of-work is going to be phased out soon, though proof-of-stake isn't much better, they all require specialist hardware in order to run their networks, which is not something we should implement for later generation blockchains, a waste of energy can't be the best way to secure a blockchain. I notice that the major blockchains are starting to shift towards POS as it's definitely more environmentally friendly than POW, but it also increases centralization and the risk of a vector based attack so we should look for even better alternatives in future.

If you see behind the curtain you d notice that only big bag holders are proposing (their) PoS.

I know not a single (reasonable) PoS that started like the original Bitcoin with PoW.

This is also exactly the thing when you try to get SEC compliant. PoS will stay nichy and go away.

DLTs are the best vector to make any pos redundant.

Carpe diem  -  cut the down side  -  be anti-fragile - don't dillute Bitcoin!
Memo: 1AHUYNJKPfY7PjVK1hNQFo5LrdGixuiybw
The simple way is the genius way - in Moore and Satoshi we trust.
irritant
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Activity: 455
Merit: 250


Sodium hypochlorite, acetone, ethanol


View Profile
August 30, 2018, 11:44:19 AM
 #112

I know not a single (reasonable) PoS that started like the original Bitcoin with PoW.

Peercoin started very much like the original Bitcoin.
It is hybrid PoW+PoS. At the start it was even PoW only for a moment, until PoS kicked in (until enough coindays were gathered to start minting)

Zin-Zang
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 1


View Profile
August 30, 2018, 02:01:49 PM
 #113

I definitely think that proof-of-work is going to be phased out soon, though proof-of-stake isn't much better, they all require specialist hardware in order to run their networks, which is not something we should implement for later generation blockchains, a waste of energy can't be the best way to secure a blockchain. I notice that the major blockchains are starting to shift towards POS as it's definitely more environmentally friendly than POW, but it also increases centralization and the risk of a vector based attack so we should look for even better alternatives in future.

If you see behind the curtain you d notice that only big bag holders are proposing (their) PoS.

I know not a single (reasonable) PoS that started like the original Bitcoin with PoW.

This is also exactly the thing when you try to get SEC compliant. PoS will stay nichy and go away.

DLTs are the best vector to make any pos redundant.

ZEITCOIN , and almost all Proof of Stake coins in 2014 and earlier all started with a month or so of PoW only.
Those coins either dropped PoW completely or stay a hybrid of both.
ZEIT was going to stay a hybrid, however a flaw was discovered running PoW with PoS,
so they just dropped the PoW as it served no real function anymore after the initial birth.  

When the ICO craze started in 2015 , is when new PoS coins fazed out all PoW mining even from coin creation.

The input costs to maintain a PoW network continue to grow at an exponential rate.
Bitcoin requires millions of dollars of electricity to feed it's wasteful energy appetite.

Proof of Stake networks can run on an input cost of less than a few $1000 every month, and our input costs are constant verses PoW wanting more every month.
PoS can match PoW performance without requiring millions of money wasted on energy every month.

Which is why Eth is moving toward PoS and dropping PoW,  
Bitcoin PoW will just continue to centralizes control until it is no different than Government controlled fiat.

Proof of Stake will outlive Proof of Work.
Because it is sustainable and millions of times more cost efficient.  Smiley


FYI:
@hv_  you are a bitcoin cash bagholder, so you pointing fingers is silly.

ZEITCOIN is the Future! (http://www.zeit-coin.net)
Energy Efficient / Decentralized / Ultra Low Inflation  / More Cost Effective than LN
aliashraf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 327


View Profile
August 30, 2018, 05:03:37 PM
Merited by byteball (1)
 #114


The input costs to maintain a PoW network continue to grow at an exponential rate.
Bitcoin requires millions of dollars of electricity to feed it's wasteful energy appetite.


I have refuted this claim more than once. Bitcoin energy consumption is determined by both network hash rate and efficiency of the miners. The latter improves through time because of Moore's law and the first won't grow exponentially because of negative impacts of halving and price corrections that de-incentivize mining.

I could say, in mid-term we would be experiencing a significant drop in electricity usage of bitcoin network and in long term this figure will be many times lower than what it is today because there wouldn't be  enough issuance of new bitcoins.

In the current state of its development, bitcoin network is producing a commodity and like any other production process it consumes resources. In the future when this issuance/production is significantly dropped the energy consumption will drop comparatively.

PoW doesn't require energy explicitly for transaction processing. In my design of PoCW I have inserted a hashcash like feature to the system that allows wallets to take part in the security, such that in each halving this role becomes more important and eventually would be the dominant factor for securing the network. It is just one example of many possible improvements in bitcoin for confronting zero-issuance situation.

PoS alternatives are focused on transaction processing and remain silent about the issuance problem. Inflation in PoS is morally unacceptable and economically void. It resembles fiat money inflation. Even hybrid PoS coins are the same as long as they have issuance of new coins based on stakes.  

A PoS system without issuance is nothing more than a second layer protocol for bitcoin (one may suggest to understand LN as a PoS network on top of bitcoin) and with issuance, it is just a scam no matter how big and popular it is, it is a scam just like USD.

Ethereum community is a good example of how a decent ecosystem could be corrupted by PoS ideas:
Right now their big stake holders (Buterin and his Foundation on top) are imposing their short term interests regularly by adopting frequent hard forks to intervent issuance of ETH.

A coin, more than 75% pre-mined, now is actively politicized by the big shots to bump its price by any means and in the best interests of coin/stake owners.

Now, before PoS, they have trouble with miners because they need security which is still provided by miners. Once this coin is PoSed you will have a mafia on top of the system who is in charge of any critical decision including inflation rate without any objective factor to keep them on the track.

Any honest observer understands what I'm saying about the situation with Ethereum and the misery PoS infection has brought to its community and the inevitable failure of it in the near future. The failure that has been signaled already and is based on the subjective understanding of cryptocurrency that PoS enthusiasts are infected with.

According to this subjectivism, crypto is about solving a problem, monetary system, by means of computer and communication.
A reputation based system is what a junior programmer re-discovers every single day he feels confident enough to tackle this problem. Before bitcoin they were mainstream and now they are back in the name of PoS.

No matter what is the label, they have failed and will fail not because of this or that design flaw but because "monetary system" is not a problem to be solved, it is a socio-economic phenomenon that should be re-built. It is what PoW and bitcoin have managed to do, they have built a new monetary system by consuming energy and resources.

Zin-Zang
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 1


View Profile
August 30, 2018, 09:52:55 PM
 #115


The input costs to maintain a PoW network continue to grow at an exponential rate.
Bitcoin requires millions of dollars of electricity to feed it's wasteful energy appetite.


I have refuted this claim more than once. Bitcoin energy consumption is determined by both network hash rate and efficiency of the miners. The latter improves through time because of Moore's law and the first won't grow exponentially because of negative impacts of halving and price corrections that de-incentivize mining.


You argue that bitcoin energy waste enhances its security, which we disagree , but not the point I was making in this context.

The Actual Costs required to maintain a Proof of Stake is only the energy cost of its nodes.
Which is less than $1000 per month.

The Actual Costs required to maintain the Bitcoin PoW network , require warehouse rentals or purchase, costs of new asics every 1 - 2 years, and a monthly electricity bill that is in the millions of Dollars range every month.

Proof of Stake costs maintenance is fairly constant where as Proof of Work continues to cost more to maintain.  Smiley



PoS alternatives are focused on transaction processing and remain silent about the issuance problem.
Inflation in PoS is morally unacceptable and economically void.
It resembles fiat money inflation. Even hybrid PoS coins are the same as long as they have issuance of new coins based on stakes.  


Actually in this , we have an agreement.  
(I would include high inflation PoW coins in the morally unacceptable and economically void statement.)
High inflation or Interest in Proof of Stake coins is a problem, and printing of free money to the few is always a recipe for trouble.
Which is why ZEIT moved to an Ultra Low Inflation rate of only .0005% per year.

Bitcoin makes 1800 new coins per day
ZEIT makes less than 500 new coins per day after the ULI was activated.   Wink
And currently burns the transactions fees.

We made Proof of Stake what it should be, a consensus method only for securing the network, not a free money press like high inflation coins.


FYI:
Inflation rate is determined by design specs and not consensus method, as many PoW coins grow in the millions per day.
IE:  
NewYorkCoin is one example of a PoW coin that inflation rate is destructive.
While PoS coins like Nxt, have zero inflation rates, relying on transaction fees only.

ZEITCOIN is the Future! (http://www.zeit-coin.net)
Energy Efficient / Decentralized / Ultra Low Inflation  / More Cost Effective than LN
philipma1957
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2226
Merit: 1338


Avalon 841 rocks


View Profile
August 31, 2018, 03:27:54 AM
 #116


The input costs to maintain a PoW network continue to grow at an exponential rate.
Bitcoin requires millions of dollars of electricity to feed it's wasteful energy appetite.


I have refuted this claim more than once. Bitcoin energy consumption is determined by both network hash rate and efficiency of the miners. The latter improves through time because of Moore's law and the first won't grow exponentially because of negative impacts of halving and price corrections that de-incentivize mining.

I could say, in mid-term we would be experiencing a significant drop in electricity usage of bitcoin network and in long term this figure will be many times lower than what it is today because there wouldn't be  enough issuance of new bitcoins.

In the current state of its development, bitcoin network is producing a commodity and like any other production process it consumes resources. In the future when this issuance/production is significantly dropped the energy consumption will drop comparatively.

PoW doesn't require energy explicitly for transaction processing. In my design of PoCW I have inserted a hashcash like feature to the system that allows wallets to take part in the security, such that in each halving this role becomes more important and eventually would be the dominant factor for securing the network. It is just one example of many possible improvements in bitcoin for confronting zero-issuance situation.

PoS alternatives are focused on transaction processing and remain silent about the issuance problem. Inflation in PoS is morally unacceptable and economically void. It resembles fiat money inflation. Even hybrid PoS coins are the same as long as they have issuance of new coins based on stakes.  

A PoS system without issuance is nothing more than a second layer protocol for bitcoin (one may suggest to understand LN as a PoS network on top of bitcoin) and with issuance, it is just a scam no matter how big and popular it is, it is a scam just like USD.

Ethereum community is a good example of how a decent ecosystem could be corrupted by PoS ideas:
Right now their big stake holders (Buterin and his Foundation on top) are imposing their short term interests regularly by adopting frequent hard forks to intervent issuance of ETH.

A coin, more than 75% pre-mined, now is actively politicized by the big shots to bump its price by any means and in the best interests of coin/stake owners.

Now, before PoS, they have trouble with miners because they need security which is still provided by miners. Once this coin is PoSed you will have a mafia on top of the system who is in charge of any critical decision including inflation rate without any objective factor to keep them on the track.

Any honest observer understands what I'm saying about the situation with Ethereum and the misery PoS infection has brought to its community and the inevitable failure of it in the near future. The failure that has been signaled already and is based on the subjective understanding of cryptocurrency that PoS enthusiasts are infected with.

According to this subjectivism, crypto is about solving a problem, monetary system, by means of computer and communication.
A reputation based system is what a junior programmer re-discovers every single day he feels confident enough to tackle this problem. Before bitcoin they were mainstream and now they are back in the name of PoS.

No matter what is the label, they have failed and will fail not because of this or that design flaw but because "monetary system" is not a problem to be solved, it is a socio-economic phenomenon that should be re-built. It is what PoW and bitcoin have managed to do, they have built a new monetary system by consuming energy and resources.



Pos is fundamentally the same as buying a cd from a bank..

And no protections that a bank offers.

So interest is higher for the pos coin then the cd.

Pos = crash and burn

I mine alt coins with https://simplemining.net...
I see BTC as the super highway and alt coins as taxis and trucks needed to move transactions.
ikealyou
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 23
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
September 04, 2018, 09:34:29 AM
 #117

So you believe bitcoin is not secure, but it IS.
IMO, Bitcoin (POW) "IS" secure because government hasn't really try to take down the network yet. Any hardware related consensus mechanism will be overtaken by government in the future, just because they have the most resources.


I definitely think that proof-of-work is going to be phased out soon, though proof-of-stake isn't much better, they all require specialist hardware in order to run their networks, which is not something we should implement for later generation blockchains, a waste of energy can't be the best way to secure a blockchain. I notice that the major blockchains are starting to shift towards POS as it's definitely more environmentally friendly than POW, but it also increases centralization and the risk of a vector based attack so we should look for even better alternatives in future.

What about Proof of Transaction? I am in this new project that created a new consensus mechanism, it seems to be an alternative from POW and POS. For anyone who is interested, there is a Proof-of-Transaction debate bounty, debating to be the best consensus mechanism.
mu_enrico
Copper Member
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 266
Merit: 146


Indonesia Patrol Squad


View Profile WWW
September 04, 2018, 01:07:35 PM
 #118

^.^

You just cannot argue with this kind of users, they have an agenda, which is to shill whatever coin they bring to the discussion.



Let me introduce my newest consensus mechanism:
Proof of BullShit (PoBS).
PoBS VALUE is in the amount of BS spread across the bitcointalk forum.

PS: To determine something is secure, it needs to be attacked, or worth to be attacked.

K O N I O S        |│        The World's Most Secure Cash & Crypto Platform
[   PRE-ICO  |  DONE   ]      [ AIRDROP | DONE ]      [    ICO  |  LIVE    ]
WHITEPAPER                       TWITTER                       TELEGRAM                       ANN THREAD
byteball
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 26

The rising tide lifts all boats


View Profile
September 05, 2018, 01:34:49 PM
Merited by aliashraf (2)
 #119

Quote
If every Bitcoin transaction included a fee equal to the energy and amortized hardware cost required to complete, verify, and record it, I'm not convinced Bitcoin would be any cheaper than conventional banking with all its political, regulatory, and personnel overhead.
from http://adamierymenko.com/decentralization.html

I think this reasoning (that is, doubting PoW value like that) is wrong. The problem of "conventional banking" is not in said overhead.
It's wrong to compare an average bank electricity consumption, plus it's workers salary with Bitcoin/PoW alts consumption.
Fractional reserve banking is setting the rules for economy and politics that benefit bankers, and damages everyone in the course of that.
Fiat money exist as debt, so whoever has better "credit rating" can go deeper into debt and benefit from inflation, or from devaluation of his currency towards the reserve currency, currently USD.
So called credit rating is under gross manipulation by powerful interests. This leads to the clusterfucks like in 2008.

Also, debt pays interest, and here we have more manipulation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_repression
Quote
"policies that result in savers earning returns below the rate of inflation" in order to allow banks to "provide cheap loans to companies and governments, reducing the burden of repayments"
This siphons money from workers who hold deposits or bonds (e.g. indirectly in pension funds) to the shareholders, who are already rich.

Conventional banking costs humanity much more than meets the eye.

So no, we are not "paying" for PoW factual electricity/equipment amortization more than Bitcoin deserves (that is, spending electricity that could be used to make fresh water out of oceans and for other worthy purposes). We pay exactly as much, taking into account both the real promise and all the hype, which might turn out to be true in the end. PoW draws as much electricity as free market allows, with admittedly some regulation in some places getting in the way.

To illustrate my point, let's go to Western Hemisphere before Columbus.
There were tribes who used cocoa seeds as money, those who used shells of a certain river mollusc as money, and tribes who used a novel form of money, woven baskets.
A physicalist would argue that only cocoa can be money, as you can consume it also as non-money.
When a tribe wants to switch from shells (the phrase to "shell out" is from exactly this history) to woven baskets, some people may argue:
But shells require so much less labour! You just go to specific river and harvest them.

The problem is, the specific specie of shells that is deemed "money" grows on specific river, controlled by specific tribe, in full analogy with banksters.
Whereas PoW baskets can be woven by anyone with free time and necessary skills.

*byteball cooтвeтcтвyeт нopмaм и тpeбoвaниям дeмoкpaтии, тoвap cepтифициpoвaн
aliashraf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 327


View Profile
September 05, 2018, 02:39:47 PM
 #120

@byteball

Right to the point. kudos  Smiley

I have said it more than once:
The  bitcoin's  energy consumption is one of the fairest use cases for energy in the modern society.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!