Why exactly is Bitcoin clinging to PoW?

[a.a]

@TangentC

The solution is simple:
Everybody is free to chose if he wants to use bitcoin or not. Thats it.

[TangentC]

What is the Bitcoiners plan to stop the Growing banning of PoW mining and the Growing number of people refusing to accept bitcoin because they consider it to be energy wasteful?

The growing banning of PoW? Buddy, are you kidding me? That's the whole gist of PoW to remain! If lots of governments ban it, then it'll not be that wasteful anymore (if we assume that securing a network is called a “waste”), but it'll still be secure. Bitcoin will continue to produce block after block after block, no matter the ban. Phenomenally, you simply can't f*ck with Proof of Work.

As for those who refuse to accept it, we will ignore them.  

Thinking ignoring a problem is a solution , is why reasonable conversations can not be had with a bitcoiner on PoW.  

Thank you for being honest.  

This is my last post on this specific topic, as their is no reason to continue with people that made up their mind before the topic was even created.  

[amishmanish]

What is the Bitcoiners plan to stop the Growing banning of PoW mining and the Growing number of people refusing to accept bitcoin because they consider it to be energy wasteful?

Bitcoin isn't just for bitcoiners. It is a social phenomena enabled by technology which started against the money printing and debt waivers of corporations. That is why it is important that it remains:

1. Censorship resistant: Till the last node is online on a voluntary p2p network, it can never be censored. All it takes to censor PoS is to catch hold of the biggest nodes.
2. Decentralized: People like you love to quote miner pool centralization. You conveniently forget that decentralization implies that consensus rules cannot be changed without everyone agreeing. That is why full nodes verify and propagate.

If you want a base cryptocurrency that has the above properties, you need PoW and Bitcoin. PoS coins have never shown that they can actually succeed in real decentralization. EOS was a 4 Billion USD failure. Coins like ADA are indeed working with decentralization as the end goal but how is that possible when exchanges run multiple nodes. The foundation runs multiple nodes.
In PoW, those securing the network are economic players only interested in the best return on their hashpower. In PoS, network is secured by those who have a direct stake in keeping things under control, i.e. the biggest hodlers.

You are right that PoW consumes energy. But that is energy well consumed towards the goal of a true, people-owned cryptocurrency.

Again , what is the bitcoiners solution to energy waste, since they only have disdain for the PoS solution?

Switching the network over to renewables as much as possible. This will eventually happen because of the pressure. And its a welcome thing.

Thinking ignoring a problem is a solution , is why reasonable conversations can not be had with a bitcoiner on PoW. 

It is NOT a problem. PoW is the best solution for a true base cryptocurrency. Without it, all of these other coins are simply corporations running their own projects.
You're the one who thinks its a problem because you refuse to think for yourselves and just want to troll Bitcoin. Maybe because you resent the old hodlers. Maybe because you resent the fact that you weren't here when Bitcoin started out. Guess what, a lot of us weren't here either. We aren't bagholders with 10, 100s or even one complete coin. Yet, we understand that this isn't just about good business and my own profit.

If Bitcoin doesn't stand through these values of true decentralization and censorship-resistant, this whole other game people love playing with their centralized pre-mines and "contributor" coins; will all come crashing down.

[Shemsu]

Need I to remind you that only a few epochs back, all the nodes were being run by the foundation. This is because when you have a few central parties running the PoS nodes, it is easier to maintain the so called TPS that these networks love to flaunt. You can ensure hundred percent uptime AND avoid any propagation delays. The moment these get supposedly "decentralized", the network starts to break down. This has happened with several of these PoS coins when they tried to scale. EOS, NEO are just the two biggest examples.

You are implying that these networks failed because they were PoS-based, which is not the case, things are a bit more complicated.

It is NOT a problem. PoW is the best solution for a true base cryptocurrency.

This is your interpretation of what a cryptocurrency should be. Now, granted, this is the idea shared by many others but it remains an interpretation nonetheless.

PoS coins have never shown that they can actually succeed in real decentralization.

So far, PoW networks neither, in theory, yes, but the reality is indicating a different outcome.

[PrimeNumber7]

BTC will NEVER change from PoW for the simple reason that PoW is the single best way to ensure the blockchain integrity: Attacking it requires a huge amount of hardware and energy.

I don’t think it is good to have absolutes. FTR, I believe that POW is superior to POS, and I am not aware of any superior means to mine above POW. I do however have an open mind and am willing to support an alternate means of mining if there is substantial evidence that POW is creating unnecessary risks for bitcoin and that there is a superior means of mining.

I don’t buy the argument that POW results in waisted electricity. I think the major risk that POW creates is that mining tends to be concentrated in areas with very cheap electricity. This creates the risk that a government with cheap electricity could seize miners equal to 51%+ of mining capacity. Another drawback is that POW results in governments being able to detect the physical location where the miners are. This gives governments additional influence over the miners because they cannot hide their activity.

[Wind_FURY]

BTC will NEVER change from PoW for the simple reason that PoW is the single best way to ensure the blockchain integrity: Attacking it requires a huge amount of hardware and energy.

I don’t think it is good to have absolutes. FTR, I believe that POW is superior to POS, and I am not aware of any superior means to mine above POW. I do however have an open mind and am willing to support an alternate means of mining if there is substantial evidence that POW is creating unnecessary risks for bitcoin and that there is a superior means of mining.

I believe you are not thinking of it well enough, or you probably forgot why Bitcoin actually works. Are you willing to break Bitcoin’s incentive structure, the Game Theory, or break everything about why the whole system simply works? Change POW, you break Bitcoin. Bitcoin is proof that POW is superior. POW as implemented in Bitcoin is Satoshi’s REAL breakthrough.

[zbig001]

The potential of Bitcoin with its mining environment is almost intact yet.
I mean merged mining and the ability to secure an infinite number of additional networks (performing functions other than monetary, expanding the capabilities of Bitcoin) without incurring any additional energy expenditure.
Merged mining is also beneficial for the parental chain security (which may be particularly noticeable in 2140).

PoS of course does the opposite.
Virtually any form of horizontal scalability, instead of increasing, reduce the security of the main chain.

[QuantumQ]

Wow. if that initial reply was not majorly hostile and indeed aggressive I am not really sure what is. are you sure this is the forum where reasonable discussion can take place? and then to suggest that it is the original poster who has trouble with people disagreeing with him. very mature.

PoW can (and probably should) have some role to play as a means of securing the chain and should be present, but not as the only system in place, and only if it can be built so that it does not get in the way of scaling up transaction throughput. alternatively you can explore the possibility of having a very large number of devices (such as phone or iot apparatus) doing jus a little bit of PoW now and then - instead of having relatively few devices doing a lot of the work. this way the energy consumption also scales up with adoption, something that is far less the case at the moment, as consumption can not drop below a very high level even with no usage.

the key is that we want a secure, manipulation-proof network that can't be screwed with. to single-mindedly and ignorantly hang on to PoW because current alternatives have weaknesses (and to casually dismiss and ridicule even the mention of what others perceive as PoW downsides) is pretty stupid and shortsighted.

[PrimeNumber7]

BTC will NEVER change from PoW for the simple reason that PoW is the single best way to ensure the blockchain integrity: Attacking it requires a huge amount of hardware and energy.

I don’t think it is good to have absolutes. FTR, I believe that POW is superior to POS, and I am not aware of any superior means to mine above POW. I do however have an open mind and am willing to support an alternate means of mining if there is substantial evidence that POW is creating unnecessary risks for bitcoin and that there is a superior means of mining.

I believe you are not thinking of it well enough, or you probably forgot why Bitcoin actually works. Are you willing to break Bitcoin’s incentive structure, the Game Theory, or break everything about why the whole system simply works? Change POW, you break Bitcoin. Bitcoin is proof that POW is superior. POW as implemented in Bitcoin is Satoshi’s REAL breakthrough.

I am not sure what your concern is. I was clear that I believe that POW is superior to any other means of mining in the portion of my post you quoted. I have an open mind to be willing to listen to arguments to the contrary. I was also clear in the portion of my post you did not quote that I don't think the OP is making valid arguments against POW. Having an open mind does not mean I will agree with any proposal supported by flimsy evidence, having an open mind means I am willing to debate someone on the merits of a proposal and am willing to listen to a debate on the merits of a proposal, and am willing to change my mind given a sufficiently strong argument and evidence.

Believe it or not, but I am a very smart person, and I have the ability to evaluate the evidence presented to me, for or against a technical argument. It is also healthy to have these types of debates so the community can have confidence that POW is in fact superior to alternatives.

[DannyHamilton]

Wow. if that initial reply was not majorly hostile and indeed aggressive I am not really sure what is.

Your attempts to discredit the response by calling it hostile are obvious, and a bit funny.

There was no profanity or vulgar language. (ok, I said shitcoin, but come on, we all know that 99% of the altcoins out there are trash, right?)
There was no name-calling.
There was no attacking the character or intelligence of the original poster.
There was nothing written in ALL CAPS.
There was nothing written in bold.
There was no use of exclamation marks!

Either you've never used an internet discussion forum before in your life, or you are being very disingenuous when you say you're not sure what is hostile and aggressive.

are you sure this is the forum where reasonable discussion can take place?

Yep.  But if you're going to have a "reasonable discussion", then you need to expect some people to disagree with your opinion. If a disagreement is going to scare you off, then you'll want to find an echo chamber somewhere so that everyone can re-affirm whatever you've already decided is true.  I suggest Twitter, YouTube, or the altcoin subforum of your favorite coin.

and then to suggest that it is the original poster who has trouble with people disagreeing with him.

He did refer to a simple response as "surprisingly aggressive", referred to me as "very angry",  claimed that he "hit a nerve", told me to "calm down", asked me to "get my emotions under control", and claimed that it was a "toxic answer".  So, yes, it did seem that he "had trouble with (a person) disagreeing with him".

very mature.

Thank you for noticing.

PoW can (and probably should) have some role to play as a means of securing the chain and should be present,

And it does, so we are in agreement on that, and fortunately, that's already been thought of and implemented.

but not as the only system in place,

We disagree on this, but the good news is that there are altcoins that have been implemented by those with similar beliefs.  If they truly have found a substantially better solution, then they have the opportunity to become the flagship cryptocurrency of the world.

and only if it can be built so that it does not get in the way of scaling up transaction throughput.

Thankfully we already have solutions such as Lightning Network and Taproot to aid in "scaling up transaction throughput". I'm confident that additional features will be available in the future.

alternatively you can explore the possibility of having a very large number of devices (such as phone or iot apparatus) doing jus a little bit of PoW now and then - instead of having relatively few devices doing a lot of the work.

You will need to provide an incentive for someone to actually run one of these devices.  Then, you'll need to find a way to provide an incentive for someone to not run more than one of them, otherwise it just becomes yet another ASIC and people will find ways to run warehouses full of them. Bitcoin started with many people each running just one (or a few) devices, but greed exists and as long as there is an incentive people will find a way to scale up the solution to match their greed. Fortunately Bitcoin was designed with an awareness of this, so the incentives to secure the network are designed to scale with the value of what is being secured.

this way the energy consumption also scales up with adoption, something that is far less the case at the moment, as consumption can not drop below a very high level even with no usage.

No usage?  When was the last time that the number of unconfirmed transactions remained below 1000 transactions for more than 10 minutes?

Bitcoin energy consumption scales up with the exchange rate of bitcoin. The exchange rate scales up with demand for Bitcoin.

the key is that we want a secure, manipulation-proof network that can't be screwed with.

Again, at least we agree on this.

to single-mindedly and ignorantly hang on to PoW because current alternatives have weaknesses (and to casually dismiss and ridicule even the mention of what others perceive as PoW downsides) is pretty stupid and shortsighted.

And to demand change in the fundamentals that define what it is to be Bitcoin, the longest-running and most successful cryptocurrency in the world, without providing a viable alternative that is actually implementable and won't weaken its security is tilting at windmills.

[Wind_FURY]

BTC will NEVER change from PoW for the simple reason that PoW is the single best way to ensure the blockchain integrity: Attacking it requires a huge amount of hardware and energy.

I don’t think it is good to have absolutes. FTR, I believe that POW is superior to POS, and I am not aware of any superior means to mine above POW. I do however have an open mind and am willing to support an alternate means of mining if there is substantial evidence that POW is creating unnecessary risks for bitcoin and that there is a superior means of mining.

I believe you are not thinking of it well enough, or you probably forgot why Bitcoin actually works. Are you willing to break Bitcoin’s incentive structure, the Game Theory, or break everything about why the whole system simply works? Change POW, you break Bitcoin. Bitcoin is proof that POW is superior. POW as implemented in Bitcoin is Satoshi’s REAL breakthrough.

I am not sure what your concern is. I was clear that I believe that POW is superior to any other means of mining in the portion of my post you quoted. I have an open mind to be willing to listen to arguments to the contrary. I was also clear in the portion of my post you did not quote that I don't think the OP is making valid arguments against POW. Having an open mind does not mean I will agree with any proposal supported by flimsy evidence, having an open mind means I am willing to debate someone on the merits of a proposal and am willing to listen to a debate on the merits of a proposal, and am willing to change my mind given a sufficiently strong argument and evidence.

The bolded part is the concern, because if you have truly thought it through, there’s no place to be “open minded” about it. A POW change, that would disable the current ASICs, and reduce a great amount of hashing power, will break the incentive structure, will break the Game Theory, will break the very thing that keeps the whole system together.

Believe it or not, but I am a very smart person, and I have the ability to evaluate the evidence presented to me, for or against a technical argument. It is also healthy to have these types of debates so the community can have confidence that POW is in fact superior to alternatives.

I know that I am the stupid one, but ask gmaxwell about our discussion. Let’s learn.

[QuantumQ]

this way the energy consumption also scales up with adoption, something that is far less the case at the moment, as consumption can not drop below a very high level even with no usage.

No usage?  When was the last time that the number of unconfirmed transactions remained below 1000 transactions for more than 10 minutes?

Bitcoin energy consumption scales up with the exchange rate of bitcoin. The exchange rate scales up with demand for Bitcoin.

What I meant was that even if nobody is using the BTC network for transactions (not likely, to be sure, but bear with me for a moment) then the energy consumption of this network would still be enormous as it is idly standing by as (while some measure of) mining occurs. It would be far more ideal if the energy consumption scales  as much as possible with transaction volume.

Another way to state the problem with the BTC network would be to say: Imagine how far much further BTC adoption would have been (and how far more value and utility it would have) if it could do 2000 TPS out of the box. The low transaction speed is a major stumbling block (no pun intended) in the penetration of BTC into the global economic structure. And, 11-12 years later, there still is no widely accepted solution to this problem.

[amishmanish]

--snip--It would be far more ideal if the energy consumption scales  as much as possible with transaction volume.

Please spend time to understand first that HOW PoW works and WHY it has to work the way it does. Think about the "race" for finding the next transaction as early as possible which ensures that miners have economic incentive to provide security and not collaborate.

The way you talk about "energy consumption scaling", you seem to suggest changes to difficulty can be made on the fly without affecting the miner roles. Do you know of a working example of this?

--snip-- if it could do 2000 TPS out of the box. The low transaction speed is a major stumbling block (no pun intended) in the penetration of BTC into the global economic structure. And, 11-12 years later, there still is no widely accepted solution to this problem.

You are just saying what "businessmen", with zero concern for centralization, have been saying since 2014. This has all bee discussed in the scaling debate and there's no new perspective. Go through the history or support whatever corporate/ foundation-coin makes sense to you.

[PrimeNumber7]

What I meant was that even if nobody is using the BTC network for transactions (not likely, to be sure, but bear with me for a moment) then the energy consumption of this network would still be enormous as it is idly standing by as (while some measure of) mining occurs. It would be far more ideal if the energy consumption scales  as much as possible with transaction volume.

If there are no bitcoin transactions for any extended period of time, there would be little reason for the miners to continue mining. Transaction fees make up an increasing amount of miners’ total revenue, and this will increase over time; if there are no transactions, there are no transaction fees. Also, if there are no transactions, there is a good chance that bitcoin will be worth very little; if bitcoin is worth little, the block subsidy will be worth little and the miners’ revenue will be worth little.

Another way to state the problem with the BTC network would be to say: Imagine how far much further BTC adoption would have been (and how far more value and utility it would have) if it could do 2000 TPS out of the box. The low transaction speed is a major stumbling block (no pun intended) in the penetration of BTC into the global economic structure. And, 11-12 years later, there still is no widely accepted solution to this problem.

There is a limit as to the number of on-chain transactions that bitcoin can handle, but changing to POS would not fix this. If POS were to be used, nodes would still need to validate all blocks and incur the related costs with storing, validating and receiving each block every 10 minutes (on average). There will still be problems if block propagation and validation takes too long.

Bitcoin has a scaling solution, even if imperfect, and that is LN. LN allows for many transactions per single on-chain transaction. LN somewhat resembles POS, at least from the perspective that someone can commit bitcoin to earn fees over time after keeping their coin on a single address.

[ABCbits]

this way the energy consumption also scales up with adoption, something that is far less the case at the moment, as consumption can not drop below a very high level even with no usage.

No usage?  When was the last time that the number of unconfirmed transactions remained below 1000 transactions for more than 10 minutes?

Bitcoin energy consumption scales up with the exchange rate of bitcoin. The exchange rate scales up with demand for Bitcoin.

What I meant was that even if nobody is using the BTC network for transactions (not likely, to be sure, but bear with me for a moment) then the energy consumption of this network would still be enormous as it is idly standing by as (while some measure of) mining occurs. It would be far more ideal if the energy consumption scales  as much as possible with transaction volume.

I get the point, but actually there's no correlation between average TPS (transaction per second) and energy consumption to mine Bitcoin. It's possible to have few miners (which means low energy consumption), while Bitcoin have big block size limit (which allow higher TPS) and vice versa.

[Dabs]

What is the Bitcoiners plan to stop the Growing banning of PoW mining and the Growing number of people refusing to accept bitcoin because they consider it to be energy wasteful?

PoW mining will never be completely banned, and any country that attempts to ban it will do so at their own financial disadvantage compared to other countries that accept them. Plant growers use a lot of electricity and if they pay for it (and not steal it) then they all make money. They can always use the sun to grow their plants, but lots of them use really bright light bulbs.

As bitcoin goes above $100k and beyond, I doubt there will be a "growing number of people" that will refuse to accept bitcoin.

I mean, go ahead and not accept it, that's perfectly fine for the rest of us that do accept it.

[topcoin360]

...

As bitcoin goes above $100k and beyond, I doubt there will be a "growing number of people" that will refuse to accept bitcoin.

I mean, go ahead and not accept it, that's perfectly fine for the rest of us that do accept it.

Or it could go down to its intrinsic value which is "0". Btc isn't widely used as payment method because of its inefficiency (high transaction fees, long delay for confirmations...)

Initially one dollar was backed by one ounce of gold
Today one bitcoin is backed by 36 822,00 USD

In its actual form BTC is worst than fiat. You can buy a lottery ticket instead of putting your money into bitcoin (you'd have more chances of becoming a billionaire).

[zbig001]

What do you need efficiency for here?

BTC can be used as a payment system (though altcoins are better at it), but in fact it is unique money that is completely resistant to debasement: this is Bitcoin's fundamental value proposition.

Such money can be used in a number of payment systems, which may be characterized by various degrees of centralization (depending on the application), BTC adoption may look like this in the future.

Starting from the Ligtning Network, through tokenization on various scalable altcoins L1, ending with fiat currencies with a fixed exchange rate to BTC.

[BlackHatCoiner]

BTC can be used as a payment system (though altcoins are better at it)

You see, it's a little annoying seeing this phrase between the parenthesis; it doesn't make any sense. In what functionality are altcoins better than Bitcoin? In all of them or in some of them? You need to provide a clarification, otherwise you're lying.

Saying that Bitcoin is worse than altcoins means that they're better in every way, but that's wrong. For example, Bitcoin has the least whales. Have you ever wondered why they are more volatile?

[zbig001]

BTC can be used as a payment system (though altcoins are better at it)

You see, it's a little annoying seeing this phrase between the parenthesis; it doesn't make any sense. In what functionality are altcoins better than Bitcoin? In all of them or in some of them? You need to provide a clarification, otherwise you're lying.

Saying that Bitcoin is worse than altcoins means that they're better in every way, but that's wrong. For example, Bitcoin has the least whales. Have you ever wondered why they are more volatile?

If you are not sure what the statement was about, you cannot just ask what it is about instead of blindly calling someone a liar?
Even if someone you are arguing with is wrong, the mistake is not always a lie (the definition of lying implies deliberate deception).
If I have to, I will defend myself in the same fashion.

I thought the context in which I mentioned altcoins is clear considering all the comment, so I didn't expand it.
Let me clarify: I mentioned altcoins in the context that some of them are capable of being a tool for making Bitcoin transactions.
Not every payment system is actually money (even if it needs gas to run and has a token), and money is a much broader term than currency.
Similarly, there is no such currency as Visa, even though Visa network is a layer for making transactions in multiple currencies.