Why exactly is Bitcoin clinging to PoW?

[Wind_FURY]

Read his post.

I believe he did. He just said that Bitcoin has indeed changed a lot of times in the past, to improve the way it works. You see, sometimes, the “singers” of this network must switch tunes, but that's not necessarily bad. As long as there is harmony, we're fine.

Bitcoin didn’t actually “change”, like the poster’s context of “change”. Or maybe I misunderstood?

He believes a change in Bitcoin’s POW “or some better model” <- not sure what that means

I guess he said that PoW will either be changed or a new mechanism will replace it, although I doubt for both of them.

Change the POW algorithm, the network’s security breaks down. Everything about it breaks down, it’s laughable to consider thinking about that kind of “change”.

Is he actually saying that Bitcoin must break what makes the whole system work?

“Break” isn't the greatest word to describe this. The system has to change sooner or later and you should be okay with this, except if you haven't understood the way it is structured.

I'm quoting you a message of this forum:

According to NIST and ECRYPT II, the cryptographic algorithms used in Bitcoin are expected to be strong until at least 2030. (After that, it will not be too difficult to transition to different algorithms.)

But a change of the POW? That will break the incentive structure, the game theory, that thing that makes everything behind Bitcoin work.

[1715343130]

1715343130

[1715343130]

1715343130

[1715343130]

1715343130

[BlackHatCoiner]

Bitcoin didn’t actually “change”, like the poster’s context of “change”. Or maybe I misunderstood?

What did you understand in the context of “change”? A consensus change such as 21M coins that would result in a hard fork? A change like SegWit and Taproot that would result in a soft fork?

Change the POW algorithm, the network’s security breaks down. Everything about it breaks down, it’s laughable to consider thinking about that kind of “change”.

It's been said by everyone and I also agree that PoW is the greatest choice and that this mechanism shouldn't be changed by force. But we can't be sure for any other innovative ideas, though.

Yes, although i doubt it'll happen anytime soon.

Even if someone found a more efficient way to secure the network same like with PoW, I don't understand why we'd want that. The system works fine this way and the miners become more and more efficient, if we see this situation morally.

Wouldn't this be a hard fork?

[ranochigo]

Even if someone found a more efficient way to secure the network same like with PoW, I don't understand why we'd want that. The system works fine this way and the miners become more and more efficient, if we see this situation morally.

Wouldn't this be a hard fork?

It is. I would argue that it becomes an altcoin. The foundation of Bitcoin has mostly been left unchanged and it probably should be, barring any vulnerabilities of some sort. The game theoretic model of PoW is basically as good as it gets; giving up resources for the security of the network.

If you're finding another scheme that can secure the network in the same way, then the miners that we have today will be out of the equation. That is not going to sit well with them in the first place. Perhaps we should change PoW, if such a great scheme comes about but the fact that you're never going to get any significant consensus with so much conflict of interest makes it hard for us to agree to a change. I wouldn't bother, PoW is fine as it is. People needs to start attacking actual climate change contributors for it or just go and penalize miners with carbon tax. That's all.

[vjudeu]

Wouldn't this be a hard fork?

It depends on implementation. For example I can imagine a chain storing 64k block headers per block and distributing rewards to the miners according to how low their hashes would be. Doing it directly on Bitcoin would be a hard fork, but storing it on separate chain and doing settlement transactions on Bitcoin would be a soft fork. The same for other features, I think there is a room for improvements, as long as people can still produce blocks as today.

[dnagh]

what is the PoW supporters plan to stop cities and countries from banning bitcoin PoW mining,
due to their concerns over bitcoin energy usage and carbon footprint?

Because I hear bitcoiners don't won't to switch, OK don't ,
but how are you going to solve the above issues if you don't.
Ignoring it or blaming other industries will make little difference to the Politicians that are banning mining.

You can solve it easy for yourself if you stop watching mainstream media brainwashing or listening elon, and if some city or state ban's Bitcoin mining than miners will simply move to other city or region that is pro Bitcoin.

If some city is using electricity created mostly from coal then they have the problem to solve and move to renewable energy sources, and Bitcoin has nothing to do with that.

 
How is this a reasonable answer to the question asked?  so if more and more countries ban bitcoin minings then the miners just have to keep moving from countries to countries?

[Intercoin-Greg]

Bitcoin is clinging to PoW because the original network and its miners don't want to fork anything.

Even trying to increase the block size led to a fork: Bitcoin Cash. And there were other forks too.

Also, besides the miners' economic incentives, there is a religious element to Bitcoin's design for many end-users who actually buy and hold Bitcoin. People care about the mysterious original founder and his vision. The original founder (Satoshi) and his whitepaper said it was supposed to be a peer-to-peer cash system. But it can't handle more than 10 transactions a second, so it became just a really secure store of value. Craig Wright started "Bitcoin SV" for "Satoshi's Vision" and tried to argue that his is closer to the vision, and then also that he himself is Satoshi (LOL).

Well, Bitcoin isn't JUST a store of value. You can also speculate by buying and holding it, like any other asset. And you can also use it to settle large trade balances between other "Layer 2" networks, via multisig maybe. That's about it.

Things you can't do on Bitcoin are build a decentralized exchange, write smart contracts, etc. But as far as a store of value, it has ALL the features, so it pretty much nailed it. If all you want to do is store money under a mattress then Bitcoin doesn't need to be improved upon. Even if a better network comes along that's better in EVERY WAY - technologically, economically etc. Suppose it becomes a sidechain of BTC by allowing a gateway where you send BTC to an address and then it mints you their synthetic Bitcoins on the other side. Well, suppose even that 99% of all Bitcoins are locked in sidechains like this. The remaining 1% will become an order of magnitude more valuable, because people will trade them as rare collectibles and they're divisible down to the Satoshi. So, sadly many people will ALWAYS stay on Bitcoin even if better technologies exist because, perversely, by being the last to leave you make the most money. Look at Ethereum Classic, people are still trading it and it went up in price. Why? Same reason SHIBA INU does. It's just people speculating on its price.

And if Bitcoin prices go up, then mining rewards become more valuable (rising faster than the halvings). The result: electricity use will increase for 100 years until it consumes half the electricity on the planet. It will be as lucrative as drug cartels are, and the governments won't be able to stop it. A bleak future if future tech would allow you to lock up Bitcoins in its sidechains. But seems that all future networks being built are not doing that. So Bitcoin dominance should eventually go down (just my opinion, nothing is forever after all) the same way that AltaVista/AskJeeves (Web 1.0) or MySpace/Friendster (Web 2.0) dominance went down to second-generation networks.

[TangentC]

But the problem is the growing banning of PoW mining due to what others think that don't share your belief.

Proof of Work is harder to ban than other consensus like Proof of Stake. In PoS you cannot reliably prove if someone is DDoSed or is only pretending to get advantage by slashing. In PoW if there is a monopolist, it has to keep working to hold that position, in PoS the validator can sign every competing chain and always be rewarded. In PoW when someone has 51% computing power, then turning off some miners may even be profitable, so it is natural pressure against centralization (imagine you have 100% computing power, then there is no reason to mine blocks starting with 80 zero bits and pay high electricity bills, you can save money by letting the difficulty drop). In PoS when someone has 51% coin supply, then there is no reason to give up. Once 51%, always 51%, it is true in PoS, because you can sign every chain using different addresses and pretending that you are not a monopolist and you can still control everything without making any additional effort, like in PoW where you have to keep your mining equipment running.

You can tell you only know what PoW supporters have told you.
Everything you think you know is literally wrong.
I suggest actually study of a PoS coin so you can learn why you are wrong.
I tell you, but you seem to have trouble believing me, so research it your self.  

Hint :
PoS staking % is not a constant. (51% attacks are easier on PoW networks.)
https://www.reddit.com/r/cardano/comments/fvbslt/51_attack_on_cardano_ada_would_be_impossible/
Plus selling of coins changes %.
That is all the help , I am giving you, do the rest of the research on your own.

[vjudeu]

They furthered that this implies that the attack could cost 15 Billion ADA when ADA is priced at $1, which will be a thousand times more money currently needed to initiate a 51% attack on Bitcoin (BTC).

It is not true, because in BTC if you spend your coins on electricity, you lose them. In ADA you get them back, that's the difference. Well explained for example here: https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/#nonproductive-investments-are-wasteful, you have two columns, one for Proof of Work, one for Proof of Stake. Where exactly is the difference?

“Decentralized value transfer with a volatile token is not interesting for payment and business. Smart contracts on the Cardano platform will allow sending stable coins backed by ADA. The use of stable coins will push the price of ADA. The smart contracts will bring utility,” Cardanians shared.

Stable coins are as good as coins backing them up. As long as for example USD is "stable", it of course works, in "happy day scenarios". But Bitcoin raised after crisis in 2008 and if anything goes wrong for example with USD, then it would affect stable coins.

[amishmanish]

But the problem is the growing banning of PoW mining due to what others think that don't share your belief.

Proof of Work is harder to ban than other consensus like Proof of Stake. In PoS you cannot reliably prove if someone is DDoSed or is only pretending to get advantage by slashing. In PoW if there is a monopolist, it has to keep working to hold that position, in PoS the validator can sign every competing chain and always be rewarded. In PoW when someone has 51% computing power, then turning off some miners may even be profitable, so it is natural pressure against centralization (imagine you have 100% computing power, then there is no reason to mine blocks starting with 80 zero bits and pay high electricity bills, you can save money by letting the difficulty drop). In PoS when someone has 51% coin supply, then there is no reason to give up. Once 51%, always 51%, it is true in PoS, because you can sign every chain using different addresses and pretending that you are not a monopolist and you can still control everything without making any additional effort, like in PoW where you have to keep your mining equipment running.

You can tell you only know what PoW supporters have told you.
Everything you think you know is literally wrong.
I suggest actually study of a PoS coin so you can learn why you are wrong.
I tell you, but you seem to have trouble believing me, so research it your self.  

Hint :
PoS staking % is not a constant. (51% attacks are easier on PoW networks.)
https://www.reddit.com/r/cardano/comments/fvbslt/51_attack_on_cardano_ada_would_be_impossible/
Plus selling of coins changes %.
That is all the help , I am giving you, do the rest of the research on your own.

That argument says nothing. The PoS architecture itself limits the number of pool operators that can be there for optimal netowrk efficiency. Anything beyond that is just useless as those pools neither get significant reward nor ever participate as they'll never get the leader slots.

For example, you quote ADA. This currently has around 2500 pools. The optimal value as per their spec is 500. This means the system isn't really efficient already. Then there is the fact that exchanges are operating multiple nodes to increase their own stakes. Decentralization and censorship-resistance are two factors that come to mind.

When a PoS network actually becomes valuable and is at scale, the amount of manipulation that the central players can do to centralize the network and profit from the reward in those cycles is insane. EOS is a prime example.

Thus, you maybe trying to show that you have done your research, it is pretty incomplete. I frankly don't think this deserves a spot in Technical Discussion and I had started a thread for people who wanted to prove that Po(Insert your favorite word) is better alternative to PoW. Maybe you should bring the arguments.

[Wind_FURY]

Bitcoin didn’t actually “change”, like the poster’s context of “change”. Or maybe I misunderstood?

What did you understand in the context of “change”? A consensus change such as 21M coins that would result in a hard fork? A change like SegWit and Taproot that would result in a soft fork?

The poster mentioned change as in change of POW, “or some better model”.

Change the POW algorithm, the network’s security breaks down. Everything about it breaks down, it’s laughable to consider thinking about that kind of “change”.

It's been said by everyone and I also agree that PoW is the greatest choice and that this mechanism shouldn't be changed by force. But we can't be sure for any other innovative ideas, though.

Are you still saying that changing POW into some other “innovative idea” would be a good idea for Bitcoin? How Hashcash was implemented as POW in Bitcoin is the greatest break-through/“discovery” for decentralized, censorhip-resistant protocols, and the missing piece for achieving Nakamoto Consensus. It works, the system works, the incentive structure works, everything works.

[BlackHatCoiner]

The poster mentioned change as in change of POW, “or some better model”.

The poster meant that changes have to be made sometimes. This is all he said. He didn't mention any new models that are greater than PoW and I doubt if there is one. He said that there may be in the future and that PoS won't replace it.

Are you still saying that changing POW into some other “innovative idea” would be a good idea for Bitcoin?

No! I never wrote that we have to change PoW with something better. I've already said that PoW is the greatest choice, I just don't know what the future holds. How sure can you be, for example, that RIPEMD160 will be safe from collisions in the next 3 decades?

[dkbit98]

Bitcoin is clinging to PoW because the original network and its miners don't want to fork anything.

There has been many changes in Bitcoin code and Taproot will be next one, but majority needs to agree that change is good and not just two random rich guys.

Even trying to increase the block size led to a fork: Bitcoin Cash. And there were other forks too.

It's not as easy as just increasing block size that would not fix anything long term and would result in more forked coins.
Just look what happened with BCH joined project of CSW Faketoshi and RogerVer aka MemoryDealers, that later split into one more fake coin BSV, and after that Amaury Sachet forked his own coin BCHA.
That is the circus show you will get when someone decides to just increase block size and create ''better'' Bitcoin vision.

Things you can't do on Bitcoin are build a decentralized exchange, write smart contracts, etc.

Smart contracts are so smart that stupid developers are making so much bugs and every day we hear news of some new exploits resulted in losing of millions.
I don't know what is worse smart contracts or smart phones, seems to me that both of them are making people more stupid, but gold medal goes to smart contracts.
Bitcoin should never have smart contracts, but scripts are still possible and they will be used much more in near future.

And if Bitcoin prices go up, then mining rewards become more valuable (rising faster than the halvings). The result: electricity use will increase for 100 years until it consumes half the electricity on the planet.

C'mon man  
This is just crazy thinking and you obviously watch to much CNN and mainstream media if you really believe that Bitcoin mining will ever consume 50% of world electricity.

[TangentC]

For example, you quote ADA. This currently has around 2500 pools.

For their to be a decent argument , one's mind has to be open to receiving information.
Bitcoiners cult like beliefs prevent new information from being received.

For example : ADA has 2500 pools, Bitcoin only has 18 pools, only 4 of those pools control over 54%.
But you can't see why that matters either, can you?

Have a Nice Day.  

[Wind_FURY]

The poster mentioned change as in change of POW, “or some better model”.

The poster meant that changes have to be made sometimes. This is all he said. He didn't mention any new models that are greater than PoW and I doubt if there is one. He said that there may be in the future and that PoS won't replace it.

This is what he said, “so I would not be surprised if we see some future change in Bitcoin PoW or some better model”.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5338061.msg57036766#msg57036766

A change to what better POW? And risk disabling the current mining hardware? That would break the very foundation/fundamental structure on why everything in Bitcoin works.

Are you still saying that changing POW into some other “innovative idea” would be a good idea for Bitcoin?

No! I never wrote that we have to change PoW with something better. I've already said that PoW is the greatest choice, I just don't know what the future holds. How sure can you be, for example, that RIPEMD160 will be safe from collisions in the next 3 decades?

I don’t know, but you know “some future change in POW” that would disable the current miners will break Bitcoin.

[BlackHatCoiner]

A change to what better POW? And risk disabling the current mining hardware? That would break the very foundation/fundamental structure on why everything in Bitcoin works.

Let me put it another way. If SHA256 suddenly became weak to collisions from some super-duper-quantum computers, that isn't going to happen but IF, what should we do to protect our savings? Leave the fate decide for us or agree upon an algorithm change? _{(in this case SHA512 that is 2²⁵⁶ harder to find a collision)}

The above example isn't a great one, since SHA256 is very strong and I doubt if I'll see a collision 'til I pass away, I'm just talking hypothetically. It'd also make the current mining hardware useless, since they perform SHA256d, but it'd be a consensus dead end with two choices. We'd either upgrade Bitcoin or make bitcoins useless.

For example : ADA has 2500 pools, Bitcoin only has 18 pools, only 4 of those pools control over 54%.
But you can't see why that matters either, can you?

Dogecoin has also better hash distribution than Bitcoin. Can you see what really matters after all?

[Wind_FURY]

A change to what better POW? And risk disabling the current mining hardware? That would break the very foundation/fundamental structure on why everything in Bitcoin works.

Let me put it another way. If SHA256 suddenly became weak to collisions from some super-duper-quantum computers, that isn't going to happen but IF, what should we do to protect our savings? Leave the fate decide for us or agree upon an algorithm change? _{(in this case SHA512 that is 2²⁵⁶ harder to find a collision)}

I don’t have that answer for you, and Bitcoin should be the least of the world’s problems if super-duper-quantum computers came attacking everything. But please understand what the argument is, based on how everything is working in Bitcoin.

The above example isn't a great one, since SHA256 is very strong and I doubt if I'll see a collision 'til I pass away, I'm just talking hypothetically. It'd also make the current mining hardware useless, since they perform SHA256d, but it'd be a consensus dead end with two choices. We'd either upgrade Bitcoin or make bitcoins useless.

Then it would technically be “the end” of Bitcoin, if the Core developers can’t find a solution.

[amishmanish]

For example, you quote ADA. This currently has around 2500 pools.

For their to be a decent argument , one's mind has to be open to receiving information.
Bitcoiners cult like beliefs prevent new information from being received.

For example : ADA has 2500 pools, Bitcoin only has 18 pools, only 4 of those pools control over 54%.
But you can't see why that matters either, can you?

Have a Nice Day.  

I have an open mind. Lets talk about it rather than throwing un-intelligent arguments meant to prove that somehow people are not realizing the benefits of PoS while you know something that we don't.

Do you realize that 18 pools in Bitcoin's PoW are Mining pools made up of thousands of different miners. Its not like the Pool can make some sort of decision and the miners will continue to direct hashpower to it. On top of this, there are full nodes that verify blocks and transactions continuously to ensure that they matchup to the consensus rules.

Those 2500 pools in ADA are simply newbies joining in thinking that them staking 2000 coins will make any difference to the network. Add this to the fact that an increased number of staking pools are considered inefficient by the developers themselves. That is why, there is an upper bound to the optimum number of pools. What they call the 'k' factor. This is 500 at the moment.

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.

PoW may not feel great in terms of throwing around TPS values, but to be sound money, and to be a reliable, truly censorship resistant network that can actually keep real value safe, there is no better choice than PoW. Quite simply, if Bitcoin's PoW is removed from the equation, all of crypto will simply be a bunch of corporations selling their products and yield farms, nothing else.

[garlonicon]

Let me put it another way. If SHA256 suddenly became weak to collisions from some super-duper-quantum computers, that isn't going to happen but IF, what should we do to protect our savings?

SHA-256 is very strong.  It's not like the incremental step from MD5 to SHA1.  It can last several decades unless there's some massive breakthrough attack.

If SHA-256 became completely broken, I think we could come to some agreement about what the honest block chain was before the trouble started, lock that in and continue from there with a new hash function.

If the hash breakdown came gradually, we could transition to a new hash in an orderly way.  The software would be programmed to start using a new hash after a certain block number.  Everyone would have to upgrade by that time.  The software could save the new hash of all the old blocks to make sure a different block with the same old hash can't be used.

I can also imagine this as a soft-fork, where each new block header would have sha256d equal to zero and have to contain for example valid sha3 of the previous block. In this way, the new header would be exactly the same, only during validation it would be checked if sha256d is equal to zero and if sha3 is correct, the same could be done for any other place where sha256 is used.

[TangentC]

SNIP

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?

Insulting PoS, does nothing to solve bitcoin's very real problem.

No one has ever claimed the devs of ethereum to be stupid,  they choose PoS for their fix to the PoW energy waste.

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


FYI:
Claiming Proof of Waste is not an environmental problem will not be seen as a solution by the rest of the world.

[BlackHatCoiner]

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.  

No one has ever claimed the devs of ethereum to be stupid,  they choose PoS for their fix to the PoW energy waste.

So, they're changing their mechanism from a requirement of computational power to a proof that the user owns units of the system, while the majority of ETH are premined.

Yep, they did it to tackle the energy waste problem.