Proof of stake criticism

[SmallCapCoins]

So Bitcoin has always used proof of work as did Ethereum.  But with Ethereum switching over some of us must be thinking of the possibility of Bitcoin doing so as well at some point.  With that in mind I wanted to revisit this topic as I remember there being a lot of criticism of proof of stake with the arrival of the first coins to start  using it, but I don't recall the specifics.
One thing is we know that with proof of stake no actual work is required for the validation which secures the blockchain.  Is this a concern or does it not really matter? What do you think are the other risks or concerns?

[1714675143]

1714675143

[1714675143]

1714675143

[1714675143]

1714675143

[1714675143]

1714675143

[joniboini]

I believe you can find the threads/discussions if you search it. Use keywords such as "PoS weakness", "PoS vs PoW", and so on. The main concern is usually about decentralization and the risk of 51% attack. There will be variance depending on what kind of PoS is used by the project itself.

Btw, this should be on Altcoin discussion.

[mk4]

With PoS, the more ETH a certain entity has control over, the more power it has over the network.

Now, we all know how much users the top cryptocurrency exchanges like Binance has, right? And the fact that a lot of those people hold their funds on said exchanges instead of their own non-custodial wallets. Imagine how much power Binance alone has over the network simply because they hold a crap ton of ETH of their whole userbase.

[ChiBitCTy]

With PoS, the more ETH a certain entity has control over, the more power it has over the network.

Now, we all know how much users the top cryptocurrency exchanges like Binance has, right? And the fact that a lot of those people hold their funds on said exchanges instead of their own non-custodial wallets. Imagine how much power Binance alone has over the network simply because they hold a crap ton of ETH of their whole userbase.

Exactly, the whole point of cryptocurrency is decentralization, that's one of the big reasons why we've all made fun of coins like ripple for so long.  I recently came to find out that 50% of dogecoins are within 10 wallets.  That's crazy, over half of the coins out there are owned by 10 single wallets and who knows, some of those 10 wallets could be owned by the same people.  I think that's partially why the co-creator of doge recently came out against cryptocurrency.  Though I think he is against bitcoin too. Though as you know mk4, PoW is a much more decentralized blockchain.  However I do think that there is a little less decentralization then we all would want with bitcoin.

[noorman0]

Yes, it's a concern that can be predicted by the capitalists. All features of the new altcoins who handle many cases of use tend to be unable to predict their future scalability that can trigger transition to a centralized system. Ethereum has created its own new problem thanks to the main features that it carries (smartcontract). Proven, now it will start switching to other validation methods using "POS".
Slowly I understand the reason many countries start anti-bitcoin and begin to ban anything that can be prohibited (related to Bitcoin), although if comparing market cap, the number of altcoins is superior to Bitcoin.

[Ucy]

I think the stake is used as bond by validators. Validators get rewarded for doing their work right. Certain PoS model gets validator's stake slashed when they act dishonestly or break the rules.
So, validators are required to stake certain amount to be able to take part in consensus/governance. The amount required to be staked are typically high and unaffordable for majority of network participants who run full nodes and are supposed to easily take part in full network consensus/governance so we don't risk centralizing or concentrating power in hands of people which could potentially be abused.
 A proper decentralized network/system should make it possible for everyone to easily take part in full consensus/governance by just running full nodes, using their computer power to solve problems and secure the network. The typical pos makes this difficult for everyone.

[randegibran]

what is predicted by the capitalist will also have an impact on market criticism that is happening at this time as is the case with btc and eth which causes it to be controlled by certain people who want to destroy the bitcoin world market by buying it by rich people who have a lot of money and they can manipulate the market in their own way and this is what causes the market price to rise and fall drastically and the situation cannot be reached

[ranochigo]

Look at the resources needed to attack Bitcoin, a PoW coin. Attacking a PoW coin entails huge costs and resources. Given how you are constantly expending resources with PoW, there is a certain security through expending the resources.

PoS incurs no actual costs. In the event of multiple fork on the chain, attacker can choose to follow any chain without any real costs being incurred. Conversely, miners have to make a conscious decisions about the forks to follow with PoW coin. Following the wrong fork expends resources for nothing.

Bitcoin will not shift over to PoS. There is no reason why it has to.

[zasad@]

So Bitcoin has always used proof of work as did Ethereum.  But with Ethereum switching over some of us must be thinking of the possibility of Bitcoin doing so as well at some point.  With that in mind I wanted to revisit this topic as I remember there being a lot of criticism of proof of stake with the arrival of the first coins to start  using it, but I don't recall the specifics.
One thing is we know that with proof of stake no actual work is required for the validation which secures the blockchain.  Is this a concern or does it not really matter? What do you think are the other risks or concerns?

https://beaconcha.in/validators
If you are talking about Ethereum 2.0, then this is the most decentralized blockchain to date, with more than 190,000 validators.
Validators are selected using a special algorithm for each block and each epoch. Then these plots are checked by other wappers (they are called attestators), which are also selected using a special algorithm.
Not all POS algorithms are the same, you need to study each algorithm to draw conclusions.

[Charles-Tim]

There is nothing like proof of criticism, I have not seen any thread created on this forum againsting PoS, but I remembered vividly when ethereum 2.0 was about to be implemented, there were few topics created about PoS at the time implying PoS is better than PoW. Normally, the strongest blockchain all over the world up till now is Bitcoin blockchain, bitcoin blockchain uses PoW algorithm. So, attacking PoW is highly unnecessary when Bitcoin blockchain offer more security and safety. This resulted to many experienced members to against this as they know how valuable and how safe and secure Bitcoin blockchain is.

Another thing is that Bitcoin is completely decentralized, it is not partially decentralized as many other cryptocurrencies like ethereum, experts believe proposing PoS can result to hardfork in which a new coin will be created. If the lightning network is well adopted and used by many, it will help in scaling and transaction efficiency while the move from Legacy to SegWit and Taproot has helped in the scaling process.

Only what PoS really offer is less energy (electricity) used if compared to PoW, it does not offer faster transaction, example if one of the coin with almost instant transaction is digibyte, it uses PoW, but inexperienced person will imply PoS transactions are faster, which is wrong, it depends on the mining rules.

[dothebeats]

The main talking points against PoS is that it's highly susceptible to a 51% attack knowing that people can buy in on the market, accumulate up until they are a whale, and control the market. It's way easier to accomplish and requires only early participation plus some funds for you to be a whale and possibly control the market at your own will. Whereas in PoW, it requires not only money, but also hardware that is basically not yet existing as of the moment due to current technological limitations. It really is a pain in the ass to attack a network with PoW algorithm, as it expends a lot of resources by gaining only a few moments of control before the whole network realizes that something is wrong.

[OgNasty]

Proof of stake is literally the saying ‘he who has the gold makes the rules’ implemented in crypto coin form. It’s basically the most centralizing force in crypto that in my opinion goes against the principles that crypto was founded on. It ensures those with the most gold always make the rules though, so if you think that’s a good thing, you might be a PoSer.

[philipma1957]

Proof of stake is literally the saying ‘he who has the gold makes the rules’ implemented in crypto coin form. It’s basically the most centralizing force in crypto that in my opinion goes against the principles that crypto was founded on. It ensures those with the most gold always make the rules though, so if you think that’s a good thing, you might be a PoSer.

It is very much like banking with no regulations other than what the top 5 coin holders want.

I simply ask this question if satoshi was found and put in prison by China or Russia or USA and then found a suicide in his cell what happens to BTC?

Not much maybe it even causes mass rioting in the country that did that.

But for ETH if MR V. was jailed and found dead in his cell I am pretty sure the coin dies as others fight to control what's left.

POS = piece of shit

[20kevin20]

Proof of stake is literally the saying ‘he who has the gold makes the rules’ implemented in crypto coin form. It’s basically the most centralizing force in crypto that in my opinion goes against the principles that crypto was founded on. It ensures those with the most gold always make the rules though, so if you think that’s a good thing, you might be a PoSer.

It's sadly the path the crypto world seems to be following though. Bitcoin might become one of the few, if not the only, blockchains that don't follow this trend. Centralization of blockchains like ETH is going to happen and people won't care about how centralized it is but will instead care much more about how fast/cheap it is to transact with it and how much price could increase because of this..

[Fortify]

So Bitcoin has always used proof of work as did Ethereum.  But with Ethereum switching over some of us must be thinking of the possibility of Bitcoin doing so as well at some point.  With that in mind I wanted to revisit this topic as I remember there being a lot of criticism of proof of stake with the arrival of the first coins to start  using it, but I don't recall the specifics.
One thing is we know that with proof of stake no actual work is required for the validation which secures the blockchain.  Is this a concern or does it not really matter? What do you think are the other risks or concerns?

I think the two terms need much clearer explanations that will translate more easily into the mainstream, maybe even highlighting the change has been more damaging to Ethereum from a media perspective. While fixed circulation amounts can be very helpful, buyers need to really know that the value that they have invested into a cryptocurrency will not be wasted away due to the whims of a certain team who might be in charge of releasing more supply to meet demand. It is a very tricky tightrope that they are running to retain credibility.

[just_Alice]

The main talking points against PoS is that it's highly susceptible to a 51% attack knowing that people can buy in on the market, accumulate up until they are a whale, and control the market. It's way easier to accomplish and requires only early participation plus some funds for you to be a whale and possibly control the market at your own will. Whereas in PoW, it requires not only money, but also hardware that is basically not yet existing as of the moment due to current technological limitations. It really is a pain in the ass to attack a network with PoW algorithm, as it expends a lot of resources by gaining only a few moments of control before the whole network realizes that something is wrong.

Really? I thought the point was exactly the opposite and PoS is actually considered by many less susceptible to 51% attack. Not judging by the easiness of achieving it, but by simple logic. If one accumulates so many coins that it's more than 51% of a total supply it would be rather unprofitable for that person to mess up the market with attacks.

Don't get me wrong though, I still think that PoW is safer, because, as you said, it's extremely difficult to obtain 51% of computational power, buying coins, on the other hand, is easy, I just can't think of a reason why would someone do a PoS attack, considering the above-mentioned argument.  

[dansus021]

Many criticism proof of stake maybe because we need more money to generate more block

So only people with big money can produce more block

In fact bsc and eth 2.0 is more likely masternode mechanisms rather than original PoS

[DapanasFruit]

Proof of stake is literally the saying ‘he who has the gold makes the rules’ implemented in crypto coin form. It’s basically the most centralizing force in crypto that in my opinion goes against the principles that crypto was founded on. It ensures those with the most gold always make the rules though, so if you think that’s a good thing, you might be a PoSer.

It's sadly the path the crypto world seems to be following though. Bitcoin might become one of the few, if not the only, blockchains that don't follow this trend. Centralization of blockchains like ETH is going to happen and people won't care about how centralized it is but will instead care much more about how fast/cheap it is to transact with it and how much price could increase because of this..

This is going to be a see-saw concern. While we are rooting for rationally low transaction fees and that's why we hated much what happened to Ethereum lately and up to now, in the long-term we are also concerned on maintaining the decentralization aspect of the coin because this is at the heart or core of the cryptocurrency movement...take that away and the platform can be at the control of the few which is the very thing we are avoiding at the birth of Bitcoin. I am not sure any platform can be providing us the best formula of compromise on this matter - if there is one in the first place. Or maybe are we not just overreacting to the change happening in the Ethereum network?

[ranochigo]

The main talking points against PoS is that it's highly susceptible to a 51% attack knowing that people can buy in on the market, accumulate up until they are a whale, and control the market. It's way easier to accomplish and requires only early participation plus some funds for you to be a whale and possibly control the market at your own will. Whereas in PoW, it requires not only money, but also hardware that is basically not yet existing as of the moment due to current technological limitations. It really is a pain in the ass to attack a network with PoW algorithm, as it expends a lot of resources by gaining only a few moments of control before the whole network realizes that something is wrong.

Incorrect. For an attacker to purchase coins, they will influence the market with an upward pressure on the price as they try to accumulate that much percentage of the coins. This makes the attack exponentially more expensive. The problem with it is there is nothing at stake; you don't lose anything by supporting any forks. Allowing those who control a larger proportion of the coins makes them richer for virtually little to no cost.

[TangentC]

So Bitcoin has always used proof of work as did Ethereum.  But with Ethereum switching over some of us must be thinking of the possibility of Bitcoin doing so as well at some point.  With that in mind I wanted to revisit this topic as I remember there being a lot of criticism of proof of stake with the arrival of the first coins to start  using it, but I don't recall the specifics.
One thing is we know that with proof of stake no actual work is required for the validation which secures the blockchain.  Is this a concern or does it not really matter? What do you think are the other risks or concerns?

I think asking a bunch of bitcoin cultist anything is going to get you a slanted answer toward their cult beliefs.

Proof of Waste has already lost the war with Proof of Stake.
Although none of the bitcoin cultist can grasp that.

Ask yourself this,
how many new coins are using proof of waste,
how many new coins are using or going to use Proof of Stake.

Proof of Waste mining was banned in China,
Proof of Stake minting is happening in China right now, and guess what , no energy waste can pinpoint their locations.
So Proof of Staking continues unabated.  


Ask your Proof of Waste supporters how many bitcoin did they mine in their warehouse last week.
Now realize that the normal person will never be a part of bitcoin PoW mining , and staking is the normal person only chance to secure/earn coins.

China ban Bitcoin mining in 2021.
New York will ban Bitcoin mining by 2023
Texas will ban Bitcoin mining by 2024 or their power grid will collaspe
and they will be a 3rd world country without electricity for years, after all of their transformers are blown.
* Funny enough, guess who Texas would have to buy their new transformers from, ......... China.         *
 
FYI:
Proof of Waste is not just wasteful , it is a dangerous threat to the power grids.
* China banned bitcoin mining to Protect their Power Grid from collapse, not for fud as the bitcoin cultist believe.*
https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3115119/china-suffers-worst-power-blackouts-decade-post-coronavirus
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/26/iran-bans-bitcoin-mining-as-its-cities-suffer-blackouts.html
Allowing Bitcoin Proof of Waste mining brings Rolling blackouts to save the power grid from destruction, the bans happen not long after.
All Temporary bans will eventually become permanent.