Will Bitcoin Switch to Proof Of Stake?

[AncapJoe]

I can't understand why the bitcoin devs aren't working on developing a PoS consensus algorithm for Bitcoin.
Clearly it's better than the PoW algorithm that it's running right now...

What do you think?

[Gamblet]

I think that Bitcoin does not need a PoS. I think if there was a PoS in Bitcoin, then it would be bad . I think Bitcoin will never switch to PoS. PoW is better for Bitcoin and makes Bitcoin more secure.

[bangkecol]

The developer certainly has its own strategy to provide the best for its users, and it may definitely continue to grow, in fact for the time being the biggest problem is, Friday supply continues to decrease, this will make it difficult for me to develop if seen from mining bitcoin today.

[cissrawk]

I think no, but idk how developer think in the future. Everything that they decided, hope will the best for bitcoin.
Anyways, same topic already discussed before, maybe you want to check them to see what people opinion about this.
Proof of Stake Bitcoin?

[cryptjh]

I think it will be almost impossible for Bitcoin to move away from mining and into proof of steak, or even master node. The original whitepaper doesn’t give that possibility, and moving into POS would mainly benecif the small 0.1 elite, who hold most of the Bitcoins.
And please remember that more than 82 % of all Bitcoin that will ever exist are already mined, so even if they moved Bitcoins into POS, the Bitcoins you have now would only get a total steak of less than 18% in the next 120 years, so if your wallet got one Bitcoin now, you wallet would with POS end up with around 1.18 Bitcoin in the year 2140
The cost of mining are together with the small supply and high demand the reason Bitcoins has such an expensive price.

[pooya87]

because it is only you who thinks PoS is better than PoW because you don't fully understand the implications.
the fact is PoW is not the best thing in the world but it is superior compared to PoS in many ways that makes it preferred.

not to mention that such a big change will require a hard fork that will definitely split bitcoin into two because there will be miners and a large portion of users who won't want such a change and will continue using the previous (original) chain. unlike other centralized altcoins we don't have a boobytrap in bitcoin code that wreaks havoc if they don't switch like the difficulty bomb of ethereum.

[Danimore]

we don't know who is a real Dev and where does he live except that his name Satoshi Nakamoto as bitcoin founder. Bitcoin doesn't need a POS and also a dev working at all because this is a special thing to create a unique bitcoin .

[virendarnagpal]

Nobody will agree to your idea; because PoW which is already in use is better than PoS.  So it has never been wise to leave the better for the good.
Also it is not even easy to shift to other system; because it will require so many changes in the current system of working.

[figmentofmyass]

I can't understand why the bitcoin devs aren't working on developing a PoS consensus algorithm for Bitcoin.
Clearly it's better than the PoW algorithm that it's running right now...

What do you think?

i've never seen a compelling case for proof-of-stake being solved in the first place, let alone that it's superior to proof-of-work.

it doesn't adequately address malicious intentions, since it doesn't cost anything to attack the system eg with a malicious fork. in POW, a miner must choose only one fork to mine on top of, otherwise there's a huge waste of resources---it's unprofitable. that's a huge deterrent against attacking the network. in POS, malicious node operators can back multiple forks without incurring any costs. that gives advantages to malicious nodes with large holdings vs. nodes with smaller holdings or those who vote for only one fork. in POS, it's even possible for a majority attacker to erase the entire blockchain.

but we can table that whole discussion. it's irrelevant here. the real issue here is that the consensus algorithm (POW vs POS) forms the entire economic basis underlying the network. you can't just rip out the roots of the entire economy---especially one as large and diverse as bitcoin---and think the fork will go smoothly. that will never happen. the network will split, miners will continue mining on the POW chain and they'll take some or all of the userbase with them.

[S00rabh]

Dev are not able to agree upon how big a block size there should be. It is highly improbable if not impossible for them to agree for this.

I agree with you though POS is better than POW any give day.

[enhu]

Miners are part in the consensus, it would be a waste when it comes to the devices manufactured and huge farms invested to these mining devices. If in case they turned into POS, BCH I think will be more profitable for them and a lot might shift to it including the merchants accepting BTC. This is just my opinion but I guess this can happen if BTC indeed goes POS.

[Naida_BR]

We saw this happening in ETH. The result? A hard fork.
If something happens in BTC this will be disastrous not only for BTC but the whole crypto community because it is the dominant crypto. Bitcoin is strong and solid enough with PoW. There is not any reason to switch to PoS, it will harm than doing good.

[Wind_FURY]

Miners are part in the consensus, it would be a waste when it comes to the devices manufactured and huge farms invested to these mining devices.

The miners, the developers, and the economic majority, will never entertain any proposal for a switch to POS.

If in case they turned into POS,

Never.

BCH I think will be more profitable for them and a lot might shift to it including the miners, most merchants, most users accepting BTC.

The basic reason why Bitcoin will never abandon POW. It will be the death of Bitcoin.

This is just my opinion but I guess this can happen if BTC indeed goes POS.

"What if" discussions cannot be applied on this topic. It would be stupid and pointless.

[Cloudbet]

We just ran an interview with Eric Voskuil to gauge his thoughts on the future of bitcoin: Resist or Die: How to Secure Blockchain's Future

He had some strong opinions about PoS vs PoW:

"PoW is neither unfair, unsustainable, nor unviable, [it] is a necessary aspect of securing any Bitcoin design. Internal systems (i.e. Proof of Stake) cannot be censorship resistant. Once the censor has controlling stake (which cannot be prevented) there is no way to unseat it.”

Do you think that rings true? I'll admit from a personal standpoint the idea of an unknown gaining a controlling stake makes me a bit nervous.

Ronnie @ Cloudbet

[Wind_FURY]

It does not have to be a "controlling stake", but having a large stake that costs them nothing to be the validators in perpetuity in the network is bad enough.

I repeat, why should we give them that right?

[cellard]

If there is no consensus to make a blocksize increase happen, why would you even entertain the idea of abandoning PoW for PoS?

PoS is extremely insecure, I don't understand why anyone would trust that for a store of value. For fast payments, coffee tier stuff? Yeah whatever, but PoW is the best we've got so far even with all the cons (mining monopolies basically).

All these people selling you PoW alternatives haven't demonstrated that their idea can work at a scale as big as Bitcoin, for almost 10 years, with 0 losses.

When someone does that, then you will see people considering moving their wealth from Bitcoin into that something else, until then, it's all talk no walk.

With that being said, I remain very interested in serious alternative projects, but selling BTC for them? no way.