The welfare costs of Bitcoin

[stompix]

Bitcoin issues that will never be solved using PoW
~
Transaction fees will increase or the network will collapse
~

Why would the fee decrease if we change to PoS?
Do blocks get bigger or the time between decrease with PoS and the same can't be done with PoW?

The only real issue was not a PoS issue , but the fact most PoS coins have too high an inflation rate.
Some PoW coins like mooncoin and newyork coin also had too high inflation rates.
Which coins like ZEIT has solved by moving to an ultra low inflation rate of .0005% yearly and a burning of transaction fees.

Quite the collection of coins you have there...
Only successful coins it seems.
Actually, can you name a coin that is using PoS and is not one hell of a shitcoin?


Pos is supported just by the ones that are angry they are not able to get coins just by holding some coins, this is why so many are rushing to buy master nodes, people are hunting for $ without investment or work.
F the environment, no PoS fanatic gives a damn about it, it's just used as a propaganda tool.
If you care that much about the environment there are thousands of ways to do something about it, far more effective than switching a coin from PoW so PoS. Besides, why are you so passionate about it, you're already convinced bitcoin is going to fail, so?

[1714663785]

1714663785

[1714663785]

1714663785

[1714663785]

1714663785

[Dart18]

I appreciate your opinion, but I think Bitcoin has to wait until we see the outcome of Ethereum 2.0 when it becomes POS in the next few months.

So this is where it is really going?
Trying to mimic Ethereum 2.0 for bitcoin.
What now? The bitcoin is the clone or the copy machine? 
Why not BCH? That is a perfect clone of bitcoin.

I guess we will just see it in the future.
Somehow it also came from you into why it should not.

PoW and even support immediate and final settlement. There are many fundamental issues of a PoS protocol still need to be sorted out and remains much to be learned about the economic potential and the efficient, economic design of blockchain technology.

[DooMAD]

Proof of Stake coins offer
Blah
Blah
Blah

You seem to be under the impression that anyone cares how much glitter you pour on a turd.

Feel free to offer up as many of the selling points as you like, it doesn't offset the compromises you would have to make to implement it in Bitcoin.  It just wasn't designed to function that way.  It doesn't conform to the principles Bitcoin was founded upon.  If you like PoS, then go ahead and use a PoS coin that was designed to work that way and enjoy your glitterpoop.

[KonstantinosM]

Bitcoin can co-exist with any number of other currencies, there is no need to try and tear it down like that.


These arguments against bitcoin are the FUD we've heard of a million times before and then topping it off with offering an unproven alternative.

Bitcoin uses electricity for power, not gasoline or coal, or whale oil. Electricity can come from many sources and bitcoin mining can in fact can provide an incentive to produce more solar and wind, as the extra energy that would once have been wasted, can be turned into bitcoin instead.

Since proof of stake coins don't do that, they aren't as good for the environment as bitcoin.

You're all welcome to try and argue against my point, but investment in renewables is more important than simply not using energy, and that's how we close down coal power plants.

POS does NOTHING for that.

And by the way, bitcoin doesn't have a failure to improve problem, a lot of technologies take their time to mature. It's not like the Internet was invented and then we had Netflix and Hulu, and 4K YouTube just a couple of years after that.

[stompix]

Damn, use quote properly is a pain in the ** to reply

Why would the fee decrease if we change to PoS?
Do blocks get bigger or the time between decrease with PoS and the same can't be done with PoW?

Due to the Lower Costs of Operating the PoS Network over a PoW Network
Fees can be fixed, not variable.
While Technically this could be done for a PoW network , due to the massive operating cost, they will never do it.

You have really no idea how PoW works, do you?
What were the costs of mining when bitcoin was at 7$?
Did the network had almost the same capacity (segwit changed that) as when it hit 3000$ when we had 100x more miners?

And before you dare even try to bring in the fact that a PoS coin is secure even at low prices, no it's not, it suffers from the same problem, anyone with full pockets can gain control over it.

Also the Bitcoin PoW economics is entirely based on the miners surviving off of Fees in the future,
which means they need to increase fees to offset their ever increasing PoW maintenance costs.

Miners don't set fees! Miners are not charging you a fee!
Get the basics right before starting a debate.

Transactions can be handled in the order received, and not let the rich jump ahead.

Yeah, comrade, we should always continue our fight against the rich elite, because...in a billion years we will get socialism right!

Let's say you are driving at a high rate of speed at night , about to run off the cliff, which will kill you and the one riding with you.
I see where you are headed, and call you to warn you of the dangers ahead, so you can avoid your death.
You angrily tell me to mind my own business, as you know where you are going.
Then you run off the cliff and kill yourself and your loved ones, while also killing some innocent bystanders camping beneath the cliff.

You're missing one thing in this comparison. Before the time I was driving toward a cliff, you were driving correctly, taking all precautions, doing things your way and you still crashed and died.
And now, angry and turned into a poltergeist you want me to do the same as your failed shitcoins so you won't suffer alone:P

[boris2470]

the cryptocurrency is not only extremely expensive in terms of its mining costs, but also inefficient in its long-run design. However, the efficiency of the Bitcoin system can be significantly improved by optimizing the rate of coin creation and minimizing transaction fees. Another potential improvement is to eliminate inefficient mining activities by changing the consensus protocol altogether. So there is the possibility of replacing PoW by a proof-of-stake (PoS) protocol which can strictly dominate
PoW and even support immediate and final settlement. There are many fundamental issues of a PoS protocol still need to be sorted out and remains much to be learned about the economic potential and the efficient, economic design of blockchain technology.

Bitcoin is unchangeable, it is a fact. If Satoshi will ever change something in Bitcoin, the coin will lose the confidence of people

[Asmonist]

This will be a great device soon. If that will improve or more efficient than PoS then let it be. We all need technology that will cater our current demands. Specially today that almost everything is online, gadgets, etc. People seem to be more educated and needs faster and efficient services. That time would really make bitcoin more productive and everyone can appreciate its good purpose.

[stompix]

ZAP!

Miners don't set fees! Miners are not charging you a fee!
Get the basics right before starting a debate.

Most of the nonsense you sprouted, I will assume....

You assumed wrong...how could you do otherwise.
Again, the mining are not charging you anything, the miners collect the fees when they mine a block.
A miner can't charge you for a service he may never provide!

But in your quest to be absolutely right on everything you made a little mistake, that of understanding plain simple English!
If we use twisted logic paying a fee is also forcing the miner to include your transaction, right? 

The miners can raise the minim fee they accept to 20BTC/b, they can mine empty blocks, they can even...stop mining, shave their cats and even go hang themselves. This doesn't change anything in your virtual war between PoS and Pow, the same things you claim are the weakness of the PoW system are applicable to PoS.

in late 2017 and early 2018 when the price of Bitcoin was the highest.
The cost was so high that the average trade cost was around thirty-seven dollars ($37).

Bitcoin is at half that price and I'm sending transactions confirmed in 2 blocks with 2sat/b
And your point is....?

[KonstantinosM]

Khaos77

You quoted my post yet you dodged my point completely.

Proof of work can provide a financial incentive for renewable energy.
Proof of stake can't do that.

Proof of work can help with reducing the cost of renewables. You did not refute my argument at all.

[bitcampaign]

I doubt that Bitcoin will ever switch to PoS.

I don't think it will ever be, because many Altcoins with POS systems don't last long and even the prices are not good in the long run they can discard their POS results at cheap prices, bitcoin by way of POW is already much better

[kryptqnick]

the cryptocurrency is not only extremely expensive in terms of its mining costs, but also inefficient in its long-run design. However, the efficiency of the Bitcoin system can be significantly improved by optimizing the rate of coin creation and minimizing transaction fees. Another potential improvement is to eliminate inefficient mining activities by changing the consensus protocol altogether. So there is the possibility of replacing PoW by a proof-of-stake (PoS) protocol which can strictly dominate
PoW and even support immediate and final settlement. There are many fundamental issues of a PoS protocol still need to be sorted out and remains much to be learned about the economic potential and the efficient, economic design of blockchain technology.

Actually, the system is not that bad in the long run. It's us, humans, spending more and more efforts to mine BTC. If some just left the mining business, it would be easier. But it's good that Bitcoin will not be mined forever, you know. So all this electricity consumption will come more or less to an end, there's no need for PoS here. I got to say that PoS does not seem like a terrible model, but there is one bad thing it encourages: hodling, hodling even more than nowadays. If Bitcoin is money, it should be actively used, and if you're getting paid for not spending it, you are putting the market in a stalled position, so to speak.

[odolvlobo]

Look to Australia , they are not opening solar or hydro, they are Reopening a COAL POWER PLANT.
If you don't know the environmental damage of burning Coal, then you are not paying attention.
Maybe you should go visit someone that was poor and had no choice but to work in a coal mine,
and after a few years is on the verge of death, because the fucking coal dust has coated his lungs and is fucking killing him.
Look into his wife and children eyes and tell them your precious bitcoin proof of work is more important than their husband and father.
Go ahead , let's see how much of an SOB, you can truly be.

The problem is not Bitcoin. The problem is Australia. They seem to be ok with burning more coal despite the environmental effects. They don't have to burn coal yet they choose to.

[BlackFor3st]

the cryptocurrency is not only extremely expensive in terms of its mining costs, but also inefficient in its long-run design. However, the efficiency of the Bitcoin system can be significantly improved by optimizing the rate of coin creation and minimizing transaction fees. Another potential improvement is to eliminate inefficient mining activities by changing the consensus protocol altogether. So there is the possibility of replacing PoW by a proof-of-stake (PoS) protocol which can strictly dominate
PoW and even support immediate and final settlement. There are many fundamental issues of a PoS protocol still need to be sorted out and remains much to be learned about the economic potential and the efficient, economic design of blockchain technology.

Bitcoin has stopped it's development already as the founder or the creator abandoned it without revealing their identities so it's pretty difficult to say that bitcoin can still be upgraded to what you are pointing out.

Bitcoin will remain to what it is right now if no one from the development team will show even if it is extremely expensive in terms of it's mining costs. We cannot do a thing about it anymore.

[bohr]

the cryptocurrency is not only extremely expensive in terms of its mining costs, but also inefficient in its long-run design. However, the efficiency of the Bitcoin system can be significantly improved by optimizing the rate of coin creation and minimizing transaction fees. Another potential improvement is to eliminate inefficient mining activities by changing the consensus protocol altogether. So there is the possibility of replacing PoW by a proof-of-stake (PoS) protocol which can strictly dominate
PoW and even support immediate and final settlement. There are many fundamental issues of a PoS protocol still need to be sorted out and remains much to be learned about the economic potential and the efficient, economic design of blockchain technology.

Bitcoin has stopped it's development already as the founder or the creator abandoned it without revealing their identities so it's pretty difficult to say that bitcoin can still be upgraded to what you are pointing out.

Bitcoin will remain to what it is right now if no one from the development team will show even if it is extremely expensive in terms of it's mining costs. We cannot do a thing about it anymore.

This is completely false, satoshi left the project long time ago but there are many developers working really hard to keep improving bitcoin and how it performs and since he left they have made many upgrades to bitcoin that will help us to achieve worldwide adoption, and while many complain about the mining costs and resources that are spent in a process that they believe to be useless that is the only way to secure the network from attacks.