Economical mammoths versus PoW and PoS

[squatter]

Sad world you live in  ,that an energy wasting parasite called bitcoin is your deity.
Thinking it is going to solve your problems, is a delusion with harsh consequences.

The problem you have is with money. All reliable forms of money require significant energy expenditure. How about the mining and minting costs of gold, or the energy running the entire banking system from physical ATMs and bank branches to SWIFT infrastructure? At least industrial miners have economic incentives to seek out load balancing arrangements with power generators, where Bitcoin saves energy from being wasted.

POS is a nice ideal, but don't be surprised when people demand a more theoretically and practically secure method to secure their wealth.

[1714230100]

1714230100

[Khaos77]

Sad world you live in  ,that an energy wasting parasite called bitcoin is your deity.
Thinking it is going to solve your problems, is a delusion with harsh consequences.

The problem you have is with money. All reliable forms of money require significant energy expenditure. How about the mining and minting costs of gold, or the energy running the entire banking system from physical ATMs and bank branches to SWIFT infrastructure? At least industrial miners have economic incentives to seek out load balancing arrangements with power generators, where Bitcoin saves energy from being wasted.

POS is a nice ideal, but don't be surprised when people demand a more theoretically and practically secure method to secure their wealth.

PoW is the only one that continue to require an Exponential increase in energy with nothing to show for it.
No matter the energy expenditure , 4 colluding pool operators could double spend on a whim.
Meaning the trust of 4 individuals is all bitcoin has protecting it.

PoW energy waste makes it less secure than PoS,
by increasing attack vectors against it, and it's inability to hide from superior forces.
As more government seizures of ASICS increase
because of possible grid disruption that should become apparent to the most ardent of PoW supporters.

[Spaffin]

It seems to me that everything that surrounds us goes to the detriment of the environment, starting with the plants and ending with even the clothes we wear.  I think you should not pay attention to the energy costs that are spent on bitcoin mining.  Otherwise, we need to go back to the stone age.

[squatter]

The problem you have is with money. All reliable forms of money require significant energy expenditure. How about the mining and minting costs of gold, or the energy running the entire banking system from physical ATMs and bank branches to SWIFT infrastructure? At least industrial miners have economic incentives to seek out load balancing arrangements with power generators, where Bitcoin saves energy from being wasted.

POS is a nice ideal, but don't be surprised when people demand a more theoretically and practically secure method to secure their wealth.

PoW is the only one that continue to require an Exponential increase in energy with nothing to show for it.

If Bitcoin exponentially increases in price, it follows that electricity usage will increase similarly. Let's not view this in a vacuum, though. It should be viewed in the context of taking market share from other extremely energy intensive monies like gold and fiat. Again, the fundamental problem here is that reliably secure and usable money requires significant energy.

No matter the energy expenditure , 4 colluding pool operators could double spend on a whim.
Meaning the trust of 4 individuals is all bitcoin has protecting it.

The ability to 51% attack one time for a few hours doesn't imply trust. In fact, the possibility of 51% attacks has nothing to do with trust. The only thing the attackers can do is censor transactions for a short time.

[zbig001]

In the future Bitcoin could be a carrier for dozens of layers of projects dependent on it.
Even Microsoft very sensibly plans to use Bitcoin's ledger...

Consequently, electrical energy will be actually saved, not wasted.
That is possible even now, if there are companies that use Bitcoin to carry out billing.
One transaction consumes 40 kWh (for example).
But if a company will improve its operations with a faster settlement with the second company and save 400 kWh (because, for example, goods requiring cold storage will be sold faster), total economy is getting more efficient by 360 kWh.

[Wind_FURY]

I heard Christmas lights waste more electricity than Bitcoin, and produces nothing useful and valuable. POS coin holders should petition to stop Christmas first, before Bitcoin. Hahaha.

I heard you never even mined one bitcoin block?
So technically , you produce nothing by your own standards.
Therefore what reason do you have to exist?

I imagine you could afford to run a Christmas light.

FYI:
Sad world you live in  ,that an energy wasting parasite called bitcoin is your deity.
Thinking it is going to solve your problems, is a delusion with harsh consequences.

Are we talking about me, or are we talking about the Bitcoin Network, a network that produces value to the world.

A ground-breaking, self-sovereign, decentralized, censorship-resistant cryptocurrency a parasite? Go back to eating your crayons, and go try harder.

[DooMAD]

PoW is the only one that continue to require an Exponential increase in energy with nothing to show for it.

Seems to have more to show for it than any coin you're shilling for.   

You and your various alt accounts have been banging on about PoS for a while now, all whilst taking weak pot-shots at Bitcoin every chance you get.  What have you got to show for your efforts?  All I can see is an exponential increase in desperation from you in your trolling attempts.   

[Wind_FURY]

PoW is the only one that continue to require an Exponential increase in energy with nothing to show for it.

Seems to have more to show for it than any coin you're shilling for.   

You and your various alt accounts have been banging on about PoS for a while now, all whilst taking weak pot-shots at Bitcoin every chance you get.  What have you got to show for your efforts?  All I can see is an exponential increase in desperation from you in your trolling attempts.   

That's why, for the newbies' sake, it's our responsibility to troll those trolls. Hahaha.

But if the newbies decide to listen to those fudsters, then they will learn. The hard way.

[subSTRATA]

The problem you have is with money. All reliable forms of money require significant energy expenditure. How about the mining and minting costs of gold, or the energy running the entire banking system from physical ATMs and bank branches to SWIFT infrastructure? At least industrial miners have economic incentives to seek out load balancing arrangements with power generators, where Bitcoin saves energy from being wasted.

POS is a nice ideal, but don't be surprised when people demand a more theoretically and practically secure method to secure their wealth.

It never actually occurred to me to think of currency as an expenditure of energy this way, thanks for that take.

The ability to 51% attack one time for a few hours doesn't imply trust. In fact, the possibility of 51% attacks has nothing to do with trust. The only thing the attackers can do is censor transactions for a short time.

partially correct; given the hypothetical situation where the attackers would be able to sustain the 51% attack for say, a few hours, they would not only be able to keep transactions from being confirmed as you said, they would also be able to reverse transactions made during the time they were in control of the network, enabling them double - spend coins. I personally think the opportunity to double - spend coins is the more likely of incentives for an entity to attempt a 51% attack, given how much energy and money would be required. then again, if they did it just to halt bitcoin transactions, man they must really hate bitcoin.

[Wind_FURY]

PoW is the only one that continue to require an Exponential increase in energy with nothing to show for it.

Seems to have more to show for it than any coin you're shilling for.    

Iran seizes 1,000 Bitcoin mining machines after power spike
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5160116.0


Call me when they can find the altcoin stakers to actually seize them.
And keep thinking drawing megawatts and higher , won't be a problem.  

That's actually bullish news for the demand for Bitcoin.

Plus call me when there's a POS coin that's actually going to be as highly demanded as Bitcoin. Because there's none, and there's not going to be.

[squatter]

The ability to 51% attack one time for a few hours doesn't imply trust. In fact, the possibility of 51% attacks has nothing to do with trust. The only thing the attackers can do is censor transactions for a short time.

partially correct; given the hypothetical situation where the attackers would be able to sustain the 51% attack for say, a few hours, they would not only be able to keep transactions from being confirmed as you said, they would also be able to reverse transactions made during the time they were in control of the network, enabling them double - spend coins.

Yes, I'd consider rollbacks under the umbrella of transaction censorship. You're correct that a double spend attack is possible. Since the attack would be so short-lived, though, I wonder if the rollback would survive.

[subSTRATA]

The ability to 51% attack one time for a few hours doesn't imply trust. In fact, the possibility of 51% attacks has nothing to do with trust. The only thing the attackers can do is censor transactions for a short time.

partially correct; given the hypothetical situation where the attackers would be able to sustain the 51% attack for say, a few hours, they would not only be able to keep transactions from being confirmed as you said, they would also be able to reverse transactions made during the time they were in control of the network, enabling them double - spend coins.

Yes, I'd consider rollbacks under the umbrella of transaction censorship. You're correct that a double spend attack is possible. Since the attack would be so short-lived, though, I wonder if the rollback would survive.

that's fair, didn't know the full extent of what fell under your definition of 'transaction censorship.' that aside, in the scenario of an actual 51% attack, it is definitely possible for the double spend to survive beyond the duration of the 51% attack. While the main bitcoin network has never been victim to a 51% attack, some smaller PoW blockchains have; it all comes down to weather or not the attack can mine more blocks and create a longer 'version' of the blockchain which includes their double spends (they would be mining on their own fork for a bit since it does differ from the main blockchain). if the attacker manages to mine a longer blockchain and broadcasts it to the network, the bitcoin protocol will deem the flawed chain as the 'real' chain, and the network will swap over, effectively rendering the 49% chain useless. again, incredibly unlikely to happen on the bitcoin network anytime soon.

there are examples of it having been accomplished on altcoin blockchains in the past, namely bitcoin gold. a few more examples are included in this article: https://cryptoslate.com/prolific-51-attacks-crypto-verge-ethereum-classic-bitcoin-gold-feathercoin-vertcoin/

[davis196]

A trade happens only if the seller wants it to happen.The states can try to buy hashpower and coins,but the sellers/miners have the freedom to refuse to sell it.Yes,they could get monetary profit from such deal,but eventually they will lose their business,because of the government control over the hashpower and the majority of coins,which will make a government a monopoly.

[xWolfx]

The problem you have is with money. All reliable forms of money require significant energy expenditure. How about the mining and minting costs of gold, or the energy running the entire banking system from physical ATMs and bank branches to SWIFT infrastructure? At least industrial miners have economic incentives to seek out load balancing arrangements with power generators, where Bitcoin saves energy from being wasted.

POS is a nice ideal, but don't be surprised when people demand a more theoretically and practically secure method to secure their wealth.

This is precisely the problem. This world was created in a way where we need multiple things for our survival, right? Then to be comfortable and then comes luxury. In order for society to be more comfortable they created the trading system, which means that you don't necessarily have to plant tomatoes in your backyard to have tomatoes but exchange something for it.

Money in any form or denomination just simplified that trading system, replacing it in such an effective way that if you try to trade a good for another good you would be frowned upon normally when that was the norm long years ago.

We need resources to build things and unless we inherited a company who happens to manufacture/produce those resources you will have to get them from someone else and give that someone else, something in exchange. That is the problem, how to build something meaningful with few resources.

This is in fact a huge window of opportunity to come up with a innovation that is really needed inside Bitcoin. Who knows, it might be the starting point for innovations like that for other industries.

[user512]

A trade happens only if the seller wants it to happen.The states can try to buy hashpower and coins,but the sellers/miners have the freedom to refuse to sell it.Yes,they could get monetary profit from such deal,but eventually they will lose their business,because of the government control over the hashpower and the majority of coins,which will make a government a monopoly.

Otherwise yes, you have the freedom to refuse it, but how do you do it, if the government is well pseudoanonymized? That's the core of problem.