Is PoW Outdated? What are the Essential Advantages of PoW Consensus?

[Wind_FURY]

Contrary to the popular belief that keeps getting repeated, mining is getting increasingly decentralized.
Bitmain is no longer the king in town. Jihan Wu thought he was the Caesar, and he ended up kicked.

IBM works, gets IBM PCs secure and continues to do so.
IBM PC Clones haven't been through what IBM has been, so they are objectively inferior and of less value.

All non IBM and non-IBM-PoW is not secure, actually centralized sockpuppetry.

   Modified your Post , to give you a little history lesson.

They used to say the same kind of nonsense about IBM verses all non-IBM computers.
IBM sold it's 1st PC in 1981.
In 2004, IBM sold all PC manufacturing to a Chinese Company.

IBM gave up, because the clones were better and the Public Knew it.

Now people repeat nonsense thinking Bitcoin will forever be on top.
While it's clones perform more transactions faster and cheaper and just as secure.
Keep believing the nonsense , that a once superior product that refuses to improve , will stay superior.

People that don't study history are doomed to repeat it.  

Of course Bitcoin will not be "on top forever".
It's still a software experiment "that could fail" in reality.
But, there's not one cryptocurrency better than Bitcoin up to this day. That's not open to debate.

Yes stupid , it is open to debate in a Free Society.

Just as many people recognize the fall of IBM before it was apparent to the public ,
same thing is happening with Bitcoin.

Compare the following
Is Bitcoin Cheaper to Produce than Alts?                
Does Bitcoin Offer improved performance over Alts?  
Does Bitcoin have a higher Transaction volume than Alts?
Are Bitcoin Transactions faster and cheaper than Alts?
Does Bitcoin Energy Waste really make it more secure than Alts?

The Answer is No to all of the above.

But yet, Bitcoin is the most valuable, the most secure, and the most reliable cryptocurrency in the world. If you cannot get the concept behind what keeps everything together in the Bitcoin network, then that's your problem.

Keep eating those crayons, try harder.

[aliashraf]

@khaos77,
Dude, you are rehashing used stuff again and again. Just keep in mind: without work there is no value, without value you are left with conventions, central banks are gods of conventional money, no need to any PoS shitcoin.

[aliashraf]

@khaos77,
Dude, you are rehashing used stuff again and again. Just keep in mind: without work there is no value, without value you are left with conventions, central banks are gods of conventional money, no need to any PoS shitcoin.

Dude, you have not fixed the PoW pooling problem which you admit is a problem.
Because of it , Litecoin & Bitcoin are the exact same security. Trust of 4 pool operators
(Sad part is even  if you release a fix, the btc community probably won't include it, due to their stance their are no problems.)

Sell Price and True value are not the same, the Tulips revolution should have proven that.

Price fluctuates with public perception it is not the actual value.

The way the Da Beers have manipulated the diamond markets for years , is proof price is not value.


FYI:
Ask yourself this , with no counter viewpoints from individuals that have not drank the bitcoin kool-aid,
and nothing but yes-men like windfury thinking that there are no problems,
set bitcoin up, just like IBM, ignoring problems will eventually cause a market exit.
But I'll leave the topic to the yesmen now, as I have said my peace.  

Dude, it is not cool to lose our way and be lost in PoS shit because there are some problems with PoW, it is our job to fix those problems instead of tracing back to a failed agenda just like reputation based systems. Unlike what you may believe bitcoin is a more modern invention than reputation/stake based systems, do your homework please.

People behind this PoS thing are totally out of their minds, for instance they are talking about finality which is a joke and an obvious violation of cryptocurrency axioms which are against centralization and trusts.

FYI, I've solved pooling problem like hell and besides budget and the need for contribution it is just because of governance ambiguities that I hesitate to go any further. Anyway, from a pure theoretic point of view, winner-takes-all approach and pooling pressure are not inherent to PoW.

As of your price/value statements: I know price is not value and I've written a thorough analysis about this in this forum few months ago. But I wonder how it would help PoS discourse? Dutch Tulip mania is exactly what pure PoS coins about. They have price just because of their community playing a manic game in exchanges with them, bitcoin is not Tulip it needs a lot of work to be produced.

[Wind_FURY]

Contrary to the popular belief that keeps getting repeated, mining is getting increasingly decentralized.
Bitmain is no longer the king in town. Jihan Wu thought he was the Caesar, and he ended up kicked.

IBM works, gets IBM PCs secure and continues to do so.
IBM PC Clones haven't been through what IBM has been, so they are objectively inferior and of less value.

All non IBM and non-IBM-PoW is not secure, actually centralized sockpuppetry.

   Modified your Post , to give you a little history lesson.

They used to say the same kind of nonsense about IBM verses all non-IBM computers.
IBM sold it's 1st PC in 1981.
In 2004, IBM sold all PC manufacturing to a Chinese Company.

IBM gave up, because the clones were better and the Public Knew it.

Now people repeat nonsense thinking Bitcoin will forever be on top.
While it's clones perform more transactions faster and cheaper and just as secure.
Keep believing the nonsense , that a once superior product that refuses to improve , will stay superior.

People that don't study history are doomed to repeat it.  

Of course Bitcoin will not be "on top forever".
It's still a software experiment "that could fail" in reality.
But, there's not one cryptocurrency better than Bitcoin up to this day. That's not open to debate.

Yes stupid , it is open to debate in a Free Society.

Just as many people recognize the fall of IBM before it was apparent to the public ,
same thing is happening with Bitcoin.

Compare the following
Is Bitcoin Cheaper to Produce than Alts?                
Does Bitcoin Offer improved performance over Alts?  
Does Bitcoin have a higher Transaction volume than Alts?
Are Bitcoin Transactions faster and cheaper than Alts?
Does Bitcoin Energy Waste really make it more secure than Alts?

The Answer is No to all of the above.

But yet, Bitcoin is the most valuable, the most secure, and the most reliable cryptocurrency in the world. If you cannot get the concept behind what keeps everything together in the Bitcoin network, then that's your problem.

Keep eating those crayons, try harder.

In your Opinion :

Bitcoin is the most valuable, the most secure, and the most reliable cryptocurrency in the world.

It's not an opinion. It's a fact. How can you refuse to admit the truth?

In My Opinion,
BTC Currently has the Highest Market Price, (There are no guarantees it holds that position.)

However Value implies utility, and BTC has no use except holding and selling as it's onchain transaction capacity is limited.
Also if one subtracts the energy waste it is causing globally, it's value declines dramatically.
IMO: It's overall costs (including environmental) exceeds it value.

IMO: BTC security is dependent on trusting 4 pool operators while Litecoin is dependent on trusting 4 pool operators.
Security is exactly the same and energy waste is irrelevant , as 4 individuals are all that is blocking a short term 51% attack on both coins.

IMO: Litecoin & Dogecoin are just as reliable , as no one is reporting missing transactions or lost payments.
        Plus they are definitely quicker.

In your opinion.

I can admit that it's not "perfect", but that doesn't change that it's simply the best, most reliable, most secure, most valuable cryptocurrency available.

[Wind_FURY]

@khaos77,
Dude, you are rehashing used stuff again and again. Just keep in mind: without work there is no value, without value you are left with conventions, central banks are gods of conventional money, no need to any PoS shitcoin.

Dude, you have not fixed the PoW pooling problem which you admit is a problem.
Because of it , Litecoin & Bitcoin are the exact same security. Trust of 4 pool operators
(Sad part is even  if you release a fix, the btc community probably won't include it, due to their stance their are no problems.)

Sell Price and True value are not the same, the Tulips revolution should have proven that.

Price fluctuates with public perception it is not the actual value.

The way the Da Beers have manipulated the diamond markets for years , is proof price is not value.


FYI:
Ask yourself this , with no counter viewpoints from individuals that have not drank the bitcoin kool-aid,
and nothing but yes-men like windfury thinking that there are no problems,
set bitcoin up, just like IBM, ignoring problems will eventually cause a market exit.
But I'll leave the topic to the yesmen now, as I have said my peace.  

FYI, I've solved pooling problem like hell and besides budget and the need for contribution it is just because of governance ambiguities that I hesitate to go any further. Anyway, from a pure theoretic point of view, winner-takes-all approach and pooling pressure are not inherent to PoW.

Did you? Where's your Github?

Plus your opinion on Matt Corallo's BetterHash? I believe BetterHash would solve it enough, demoting pools to mere coordinators, and distributors of rewards.

[aliashraf]

Plus your opinion on Matt Corallo's BetterHash? I believe BetterHash would solve it enough, demoting pools to mere coordinators, and distributors of rewards.

Unfortunately: I'm not as optimistic as you about BlueMatt's proposal, BetterHash.

1-It seems impractical to me for pool operator to accept like millions of different Merkle roots and query them with miners to discover the actual transactions included. Please  note that the operator should do this for each share.

2-Having a coordinator/reward distributor is not a good choice for protocol design. Note again that to have a low variance you need very large pools and no matter what they do they make the network vulnerable to regulatory and censorship for the least.

As of my solution, stay tuned

[Wind_FURY]

Plus your opinion on Matt Corallo's BetterHash? I believe BetterHash would solve it enough, demoting pools to mere coordinators, and distributors of rewards.

Unfortunately: I'm not as optimistic as you about BlueMatt's proposal, BetterHash.

1-It seems impractical to me for pool operator to accept like millions of different Merkle roots and query them with miners to discover the actual transactions included. Please  note that the operator should do this for each share.

2-Having a coordinator/reward distributor is not a good choice for protocol design. Note again that to have a low variance you need very large pools and no matter what they do they make the network vulnerable to regulatory and censorship for the least.

If it's ok, I will use your reply and debate on your behalf. I will post all responses here.

As of my solution, stay tuned

Will a hard fork be a requirement?

[TheWolf666]

Plus your opinion on Matt Corallo's BetterHash? I believe BetterHash would solve it enough, demoting pools to mere coordinators, and distributors of rewards.

Since Vertcoin has been attacked (see https://medium.com/coinmonks/vertcoin-vtc-is-currently-being-51-attacked-53ab633c08a4 )
We can say that having an exotic algorithm for mining is not something that can protect a blockchain on a long term. One day or another, ASIC having more memory and more storage, the exotic algorithm is solved and can run on these mining gears, opening the door to a 51% attack.

So why then re-creating the wheel with new mining algorithms. To protect a blockchain, there are different solutions apart from changing POW to something else.

My personal opinion is that so far POW is the best, easiest solution. All the problems have been solved and we know the risks. We only need to find solutions. The 51% attack problem can be easily fixed by controlling the maximum hashrate through the pools and lock the new blockchain to a limited pools that are limiting the maximum hashrate of the miners for example. An idea that would need a specific thread to debate.

[aliashraf]

Plus your opinion on Matt Corallo's BetterHash? I believe BetterHash would solve it enough, demoting pools to mere coordinators, and distributors of rewards.

Since Vertcoin has been attacked (see https://medium.com/coinmonks/vertcoin-vtc-is-currently-being-51-attacked-53ab633c08a4 )
We can say that having an exotic algorithm for mining is not something that can protect a blockchain on a long term. One day or another, ASIC having more memory and more storage, the exotic algorithm is solved and can run on these mining gears, opening the door to a 51% attack.

So why then re-creating the wheel with new mining algorithms. To protect a blockchain, there are different solutions apart from changing POW to something else.

My personal opinion is that so far POW is the best, easiest solution. All the problems have been solved and we know the risks. We only need to find solutions. The 51% attack problem can be easily fixed by controlling the maximum hashrate through the pools and lock the new blockchain to a limited pools that are limiting the maximum hashrate of the miners for example. An idea that would need a specific thread to debate.

Multiple layers of confusions here:

Firstly, Vertcoin is just another ASIC-resistance bitcoin forks, (one of the most decent ones) and has nothing to do with pooling problem.

Plus:

• 51% attack is a general vulnerability for any PoW coin and generally speaking any decentralized cryptocurrency. The fact that Vertcoin has been exepriencing such an attack in 2018 doesn't discredit this coin, it simply says that total hashrate of the network is dangerously low and you have to wait for a lot more confirmations before releasing your assets.
  
• POW is more than Satoshi Nakamoto and bitcoin. The idea is burning energy to prove responsible behavior in p2p communication. Satoshi added the idea of generating money as an incentive system for participating in such a network but when it came to implementation (detail design), s/he made a mistake by choosing a winner-takes-all approach to this idea which is flawed because of mining variance and its centralization consequences.
• Fixing mining variance and pooling pressure is feasible without breaking  PoW basic ideas simply by replacing winner-takes-all approach by a more modern alternative. Actually Stratum and pools are doing this right now but in a dangerous and unfavorable way.

 

[Wind_FURY]

Plus your opinion on Matt Corallo's BetterHash? I believe BetterHash would solve it enough, demoting pools to mere coordinators, and distributors of rewards.

Since Vertcoin has been attacked (see https://medium.com/coinmonks/vertcoin-vtc-is-currently-being-51-attacked-53ab633c08a4 )
We can say that having an exotic algorithm for mining is not something that can protect a blockchain on a long term. One day or another, ASIC having more memory and more storage, the exotic algorithm is solved and can run on these mining gears, opening the door to a 51% attack.

So why then re-creating the wheel with new mining algorithms. To protect a blockchain, there are different solutions apart from changing POW to something else.

My personal opinion is that so far POW is the best, easiest solution. All the problems have been solved and we know the risks. We only need to find solutions. The 51% attack problem can be easily fixed by controlling the maximum hashrate through the pools and lock the new blockchain to a limited pools that are limiting the maximum hashrate of the miners for example. An idea that would need a specific thread to debate.

BetterHash is not a mining algorithm.

My personal opinion is that so far POW is the best, easiest solution. All the problems have been solved and we know the risks. We only need to find solutions. The 51% attack problem can be easily fixed by controlling the maximum hashrate through the pools and lock the new blockchain to a limited pools that are limiting the maximum hashrate of the miners for example. An idea that would need a specific thread to debate.

PoW Unsolved Problems

Pooling :  Increase the odds that a few individuals (4 or less) could collude and 51% attack the network

Energy Waste: Exponentially increasing drain on world's energy supply
1. Increasing Energy Rates for others that have nothing to do with crypto
2. Security Danger, of not being able to hide the locations of warehouses full of asics.

Centralized controlled as only the rich elite can afford to be miners,
and as such eventually enforce censorship on who may transact in BTC.

Increased transaction fees due to developers refusal to increase onchain scaling ,
as their preference for offloading like LN fixes nothing.

Ignoring the problems is not a fix.

But what is the fix? What's better than POW to arrive to consensus? Before you answer that, think about the trade-offs in the security model.

Plus your opinion on Matt Corallo's BetterHash? I believe BetterHash would solve it enough, demoting pools to mere coordinators, and distributors of rewards.

Since Vertcoin has been attacked (see https://medium.com/coinmonks/vertcoin-vtc-is-currently-being-51-attacked-53ab633c08a4 )
We can say that having an exotic algorithm for mining is not something that can protect a blockchain on a long term. One day or another, ASIC having more memory and more storage, the exotic algorithm is solved and can run on these mining gears, opening the door to a 51% attack.

So why then re-creating the wheel with new mining algorithms. To protect a blockchain, there are different solutions apart from changing POW to something else.

My personal opinion is that so far POW is the best, easiest solution. All the problems have been solved and we know the risks. We only need to find solutions. The 51% attack problem can be easily fixed by controlling the maximum hashrate through the pools and lock the new blockchain to a limited pools that are limiting the maximum hashrate of the miners for example. An idea that would need a specific thread to debate.

Multiple layers of confusions here:

Firstly, Vertcoin is just another ASIC-resistance bitcoin forks, (one of the most decent ones) and has nothing to do with pooling problem.

Plus:

• POW is more than Satoshi Nakamoto and bitcoin. The idea is burning energy to prove responsible behavior in p2p communication. Satoshi added the idea of generating money as an incentive system for participating in such a network but when it came to implementation (detail design), s/he made a mistake by choosing a winner-takes-all approach to this idea which is flawed because of mining variance and its centralization consequences.

But doesn't the "winner-takes-all" approach is pleasing to greed? But with that, the miners are forced to be honest, because the other path is costly and bad for the miner, and the whole network?

[aliashraf]

• POW is more than Satoshi Nakamoto and bitcoin. The idea is burning energy to prove responsible behavior in p2p communication. Satoshi added the idea of generating money as an incentive system for participating in such a network but when it came to implementation (detail design), s/he made a mistake by choosing a winner-takes-all approach to this idea which is flawed because of mining variance and its centralization consequences.

But doesn't the "winner-takes-all" approach is pleasing to greed? But with that, the miners are forced to be honest, because the other path is costly and bad for the miner, and the whole network?

Any rewarding system, is pleasing to greed but winner-takes-all is too risky and discouraging because most people have a definite chance not to win anything and this makes them hesitant to join, bad for security! Let's go pooling , but wait, it is bad for security too!

Now suppose we use a winner-takes-share approach to PoW in which we accumulate works done in the network and distribute rewards accordingly. No we would have a very low unit of work and low variance consequently and average/small miners would be able to participate in consensus directly.

I know it is very challenging but it is practical and I've made enough progress to be confident about its feasibility. Stay, tuned.

[Wind_FURY]

• POW is more than Satoshi Nakamoto and bitcoin. The idea is burning energy to prove responsible behavior in p2p communication. Satoshi added the idea of generating money as an incentive system for participating in such a network but when it came to implementation (detail design), s/he made a mistake by choosing a winner-takes-all approach to this idea which is flawed because of mining variance and its centralization consequences.

But doesn't the "winner-takes-all" approach is pleasing to greed? But with that, the miners are forced to be honest, because the other path is costly and bad for the miner, and the whole network?

Any rewarding system, is pleasing to greed but winner-takes-all is too risky and discouraging because most people have a definite chance not to win anything and this makes them hesitant to join, bad for security! Let's go pooling , but wait, it is bad for security too!

Now suppose we use a winner-takes-share approach to PoW in which we accumulate works done in the network and distribute rewards accordingly. No we would have a very low unit of work and low variance consequently and average/small miners would be able to participate in consensus directly.

I know it is very challenging but it is practical and I've made enough progress to be confident about its feasibility. Stay, tuned.

I cannot see how a more socialized structure of rewarding small miners would stop them from pooling their resources together. It might also discourage big miners from investing in more hardware, reduce the total network hashing power, and reduce network security.

Plus BetterHash isn't only about the rewards, it's about the reduction of the mining pools' power over the network, and bringing that power back to the miners.

[pereira4]

Contrary to the popular belief that keeps getting repeated, mining is getting increasingly decentralized.
Bitmain is no longer the king in town. Jihan Wu thought he was the Caesar, and he ended up kicked.

IBM works, gets IBM PCs secure and continues to do so.
IBM PC Clones haven't been through what IBM has been, so they are objectively inferior and of less value.

All non IBM and non-IBM-PoW is not secure, actually centralized sockpuppetry.

   Modified your Post , to give you a little history lesson.

They used to say the same kind of nonsense about IBM verses all non-IBM computers.
IBM sold it's 1st PC in 1981.
In 2004, IBM sold all PC manufacturing to a Chinese Company.

IBM gave up, because the clones were better and the Public Knew it.

Now people repeat nonsense thinking Bitcoin will forever be on top.
While it's clones perform more transactions faster and cheaper and just as secure.
Keep believing the nonsense , that a once superior product that refuses to improve , will stay superior.

People that don't study history are doomed to repeat it.  

You can't really compare Bitcoin to a product like a computer. This is way more complex than "you have product A, then product B replaces product A because it's faster and more efficient without a security loss".

First of all, you have to point to product B. Where is it?

If it's still not there (it isn't as far as I can tell) what would take for product B to exist?

If product B existed, why would it replace product A?

Bitcoin is all about certainty. You cannot outdo the uptime without 0 hacks of the Bitcoin blockchain. 10 years and counting. Even if in theory you make a better product, Bitcoin is still the most time-tested. Similarly, there are faster stronger ciphers than AES-256, but are less time-tested, so you go with the safe thing. Bitcoin is the safe thing for anyone with enough money to move the market anywhere, if they wanted to diversify in cryptocurrency, everything else is an exercise in insanity.

[fraazi]

I've heard that guys from Zold.io are developing Proof-of-Availability. The idea is that the highest reputation in the network will be defined by the quality of the server and its availability to others. Pretty interesting idea, it seems to me.

[Wind_FURY]

Contrary to the popular belief that keeps getting repeated, mining is getting increasingly decentralized.
Bitmain is no longer the king in town. Jihan Wu thought he was the Caesar, and he ended up kicked.

IBM works, gets IBM PCs secure and continues to do so.
IBM PC Clones haven't been through what IBM has been, so they are objectively inferior and of less value.

All non IBM and non-IBM-PoW is not secure, actually centralized sockpuppetry.

   Modified your Post , to give you a little history lesson.

They used to say the same kind of nonsense about IBM verses all non-IBM computers.
IBM sold it's 1st PC in 1981.
In 2004, IBM sold all PC manufacturing to a Chinese Company.

IBM gave up, because the clones were better and the Public Knew it.

Now people repeat nonsense thinking Bitcoin will forever be on top.
While it's clones perform more transactions faster and cheaper and just as secure.
Keep believing the nonsense , that a once superior product that refuses to improve , will stay superior.

People that don't study history are doomed to repeat it.  

You can't really compare Bitcoin to a product like a computer. This is way more complex than "you have product A, then product B replaces product A because it's faster and more efficient without a security loss".

First of all, you have to point to product B. Where is it?

If it's still not there (it isn't as far as I can tell) what would take for product B to exist?

If product B existed, why would it replace product A?

Bitcoin is all about certainty. You cannot outdo the uptime without 0 hacks of the Bitcoin blockchain. 10 years and counting. Even if in theory you make a better product, Bitcoin is still the most time-tested. Similarly, there are faster stronger ciphers than AES-256, but are less time-tested, so you go with the safe thing. Bitcoin is the safe thing for anyone with enough money to move the market anywhere, if they wanted to diversify in cryptocurrency, everything else is an exercise in insanity.

He didn't consider that Bitcoin's model is more superior, more secure, and that it simply works for what it is, a censorship-resistant cryptocurrency. Speed of transactions, or higher transaction throughput won't matter, if it's less decentralized, therefore less secure, and has lower POW spent on it.