Why BTC POW is technically moving towards an dead end

[stompix]

Imagine voting based on the value of your assets, where Musk has 100 billion votes and 30 millions have zero since they only have debts.

This is an invalid argument. It's true, but so is in PoW too. It's obvious that those with more money can have greater share. This is not why PoS brings centralisation; it's because those who want to secure the network need those who are securing the network. In PoW, anyone's free to setup their hardware and start securing, but in PoS, it's down to those entities' judgment if new people can enter.

The difference I was trying (and failed miserably at it) to point out is that unlike POS in order to get more votes you don't have to make the other guys rich by doing so nor do you have to force them to give you a share of it in a redistribution of wealth.
They will keep accumulating wealth (coins) while you're going to keep losing as you will never afford to put aside as much money as they do.

In POS you miraculously have to come up with those 100 billion votes, in POW a huge mining farm can be brought down by poeple hobby mining, each losing 1$ a day on electricity but making the guys behind Foundry bankrupt, in POS you can't do that.
And, now I wonder why I haven't said this in the first place.

[1714597867]

1714597867

[DaveF]

In POS you miraculously have to come up with those 100 billion votes, in POW a huge mining farm can be brought down by poeple hobby mining, each losing 1$ a day on electricity but making the guys behind Foundry bankrupt, in POS you can't do that.
And, now I wonder why I haven't said this in the first place.

Shrug, it's been said 10,000 times before 10,000 different ways. But we all have to keep saying it.
I am starting to think the only people who are really pushing POS are people who either don't want to deal with mining or really just want to pump their shitcoin / token for some reason.
POW is not going anywhere and the hash rate keeps going up as more and more miners come online.
The big people get the newer better more efficient ones and we keep buying the other stuff and it just keeps growing.

-Dave

[BlackHatCoiner]

The difference I was trying (and failed miserably at it) to point out is that unlike POS in order to get more votes you don't have to make the other guys rich by doing so nor do you have to force them to give you a share of it in a redistribution of wealth.

Oh, it indeed failed, yeah. BTW, thanks for mentioning the former, I hadn't thought of it.

I am starting to think the only people who are really pushing POS are people who either don't want to deal with mining or really just want to pump their shitcoin / token for some reason.

99% of the crypto-market is a pump-scum situation with no essential contribution, truth be told. However, I'll have to disagree that these two are the only categories of people who promote PoS. There's a third: Those who haven't understood the weaknesses.

It's attractive to solve the double-spending problem without real-world waste, isn't it?

[LegendaryK]

PoW is moving toward a dead end. IMO.
No matter, where you lean on the energy usage, the government bans point to a problem that is being ignored by PoW developers.
Anyone studying the development of blockchains, see Proof of Stake designs achieve as low as a 4 second block speed with 100% protection from double spends.
Also all of the future development seems to be in the Proof of Stake blockchains,
Proof of Work development seems stagnated mainly due to the artificial limits imposed to keep users from needing to have modern computers for nodes.

[BlackHatCoiner]

see Proof of Stake designs achieve as low as a 4 second block speed with 100% protection from double spends.

This is half-true or maybe even false. The system protects you from double-spending as long as the ones who own the most of the money supply sign their blocks honestly. The system cannot ensure those few won't double-sign for the given block. We've already explained that it's designed to centralize overtime anyways:

it's because those who want to secure the network need those who are securing the network. In PoW, anyone's free to setup their hardware and start securing, but in PoS, it's down to those entities' judgment if new people can enter.

The difference I was trying (and failed miserably at it) to point out is that unlike POS in order to get more votes you don't have to make the other guys rich by doing so nor do you have to force them to give you a share of it in a redistribution of wealth.
They will keep accumulating wealth (coins) while you're going to keep losing as you will never afford to put aside as much money as they do.

[Wind_FURY]

This topic was made by a someone who, either doesn’t understand that what makes the whole system stick together IS the Proof of Work. They merely read a few articles, and think they have discovered the “truth”. Or a troll. Read OP’s post. It’s undebatable nonsense.

I already reported to the mods to lock this topic.

[LegendaryK]

see Proof of Stake designs achieve as low as a 4 second block speed with 100% protection from double spends.

This is half-true or maybe even false. The system protects you from double-spending as long as the ones who own the most of the money supply sign their blocks honestly. The system cannot ensure those few won't double-sign for the given block. We've already explained that it's designed to centralize overtime anyways:

Actually Algorand does not allow any forking, so double spends are impossible.
So you may want to research the newer tech before denying it's possibilities.

https://www.algorand.com/technology/immediate-transaction-finality

Algorand’s Immediate Transaction Finality

With proof-of-work protocols like Bitcoin, in which users solve crypto puzzles, there is a chance that two users could solve for a valid block at the same time. When two nodes get a valid block simultaneously, the blockchain forks into two because different groups of users may see different candidates for the next block. A fork may persist for a while, and its branches may even be elongated by the addition of new blocks. But eventually, all branches but one (the longest) will die , and all the blocks in the dead branches will disappear. The transactions on the dead branches are considered invalid; they basically never happened.

Similarly, an adversary could partition the network, convincing different groups of users to accept different blocks at the same height in the blockchain. As a result, contradicting transactions will be accepted by different users, causing a fork in the chain. This allows the adversary to double-spend their money.

Forks are an unwelcome source of uncertainty and delay. If a payment made to you appears in the latest block added to the chain, you cannot immediately consider yourself paid. This is because a branch may overcome the current chain and your block may end up in a dead branch and disappear. Before considering yourself paid, you would need to wait for a sequence of blocks to be added to yours, so as to minimize the chance that the block containing your payment will end up on a dead branch. Some people recommend waiting for six blocks to be added after yours to be confident that your block will remain on the chain; others recommend an even longer wait if the payment made to you is sizable. So rather than waiting ten minutes (Bitcoin’s transaction time) to have reasonable confidence in the finality of a transaction, in reality you have to wait hours.

In contrast, the Algorand blockchain never forks. Two blocks can never be added to the chain at once because only one block can have the required threshold of committee votes. At most, one block is certified and written to the chain in a given round. Accordingly, all transactions are final in Algorand. When the consensus protocol decides on a block, this decision is never changed. Every honest user soon learns of this decision, and no honest user ever thinks that a different block at the same height was chosen. Once a block appears, users can rely on the transactions it contains immediately and they can be confident that the block will forever be part of the chain, which means the money they receive is safe.

And in the event of a network partition in Algorand, the adversary is never able to convince two honest users to accept two different blocks for the same round. This is true even when the partition may last for an indefinite amount of time and nobody knows when it will be resolved. Algorand’s chain never forks and users’ balances remain secure.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I already reported to the mods to lock this topic.

Don't ruin it, let us reach to a conclusion. These reports have made lots stay in altcoins as they're constantly kicked out from the Bitcoin community.

Actually Algorand does not allow any forking, so double spends are impossible.

This doesn't make much sense. If it's implementing a blockchain, it's doomed to have forks one way or another. Not allowing them sounds vague.

Let's start reading the article.

With proof-of-work protocols like Bitcoin, in which users solve crypto puzzles, there is a chance that two users could solve for a valid block at the same time. When two nodes get a valid block simultaneously, the blockchain forks into two because different groups of users may see different candidates for the next block. A fork may persist for a while, and its branches may even be elongated by the addition of new blocks. But eventually, all branches but one (the longest) will die , and all the blocks in the dead branches will disappear. The transactions on the dead branches are considered invalid; they basically never happened.

That's true.

Similarly, an adversary could partition the network, convincing different groups of users to accept different blocks at the same height in the blockchain. As a result, contradicting transactions will be accepted by different users, causing a fork in the chain. This allows the adversary to double-spend their money.

There's a big IF lying in here.

Let's assume that the adversary is a miner. In order to trick the rest and double-spend their money, they have to mine at least two blocks of the same height, one (A) that includes their transaction and another (B) that doesn't. So, some nodes have block A and some have block B. The miner now solves block C on top of block B. Now, block A is dumped from all nodes as it doesn't follow the longest chain.

There's not a point for a miner to solve both A and B, and then C on top of B. They can try to reverse the previous block by building two blocks on top of the one before that. They'll have essentially reversed their transaction by solving two blocks instead of three.

Back to the if. This can happen IF a miner controls a high percentage of the network. Furthermore, the more blocks the users wait, the more the chances to accomplish such attack drop exponentially.

Forks are an unwelcome source of uncertainty and delay.

Sure. The Byzantine generals have had uncertainty at first. Blockchains are known for being the least effective databases.

This is because a branch may overcome the current chain and your block may end up in a dead branch and disappear. Before considering yourself paid, you would need to wait for a sequence of blocks to be added to yours, so as to minimize the chance that the block containing your payment will end up on a dead branch.

Correct.

Some people recommend waiting for six blocks to be added after yours to be confident that your block will remain on the chain

That's excessive, the chain had never reorged more than 1 block. I'd say that 3 blocks are fine in both speed and security. Even someone who owns one fifth of the hash rate has ~10.32% chances to successfully reverse transaction(s) 3 blocks deep. If you're going to move millions, I don't think that's much of a concern.


And then, it doesn't explain how does Algorand avoid this weakness. It just repeats that it does.

See it yourself:

In contrast, the Algorand blockchain never forks.

Two blocks can never be added to the chain at once because only one block can have the required threshold of committee votes.

At most, one block is certified and written to the chain in a given round.

Accordingly, all transactions are final in Algorand.

When the consensus protocol decides on a block, this decision is never changed.

Every honest user soon learns of this decision, and no honest user ever thinks that a different block at the same height was chosen.

Once a block appears, users can rely on the transactions it contains immediately and they can be confident that the block will forever be part of the chain, which means the money they receive is safe.

And in the event of a network partition in Algorand, the adversary is never able to convince two honest users to accept two different blocks for the same round.

This is true even when the partition may last for an indefinite amount of time and nobody knows when it will be resolved.

Algorand’s chain never forks and users’ balances remain secure.

[franky1]

topic creator must know by now his numbers are off by alot

having 200TWH usage estimate means in 2021 the hashrate must have been at a constant 229exahash for the whole a year, and all of the asics mining it were all the s9 at 14thash for 1.4kw/h

sorry but the numbers used in the guestimate are far far far off.
which has lead the topic creator to then go full exponential rather than actually make better judgements

for instance
if he bothered to use each gen asic at each year where majority are presumed running the network
he might have seen something more like this

instead of the inflated fudged numbers from a website that has many social/political reasons to inflate number

and extrapolate from that, the curves of scale to make predictions of better multiples for future years. he might have a better idea of the future. (hint: its not 13x or 6x(1300% 600%))

for instance the 2009-2011-2012-2013 shows high multiplication growth. then it calms down.
the hashrate difference between 2013-2015 and 2015-2017 and 2017-2019 and 2019-2021
shows the multiplication declines per step
meaning its an S curve(in a linear view) and an r curve(in log view)... not an exponential curve to infinity

what he needs to realise. is even if there was a electricity cap of say 1% of world usage
this does not become a security risk. because ... guess what
it would cost a malicious person to have (51%+ of that 1%) about 138TWH+ to be malicious, just to try to do empty blocks or re-orgs to double spend
world power 27000 at 1% is 270TWH and 51% is 137.7TWH
where by lets say some american entity was to be malicious. they would need to take up more then 1% of americans full capacity.
or over 3.35x of america's allowed allotment for all bitcoin industry
america full capacity is 4100TWH so 1% is 41 and 3.35x is 137.35


so basing on an S curve where power right now is more like 40TWH not 200TWH
at a yearly power usage of (1.07x)7% would still not be 200THW in 2037
yet by 2037 280million US cars will need to be EV rather then fossil fuelled
and at a 2500KWH per car(8000miles driving a year)
700TWH to electrify all cars in 15 years

making cars the higher electric demand compared to bitcoin

so are cars going to a deadend?

[n0nce]

The energy consumption has grown because the reward has grown

This is a very good point. It's also worth mentioning the halvings; meaning not only are ASIC improvements going to hit a certain performance wall, also the rewards will get lower, pushing down the amount of miners running. So effectively, the power consumption will always be bound to price/coin and coins/block.

What I also don't get @OP: what's your issue of high energy usage if the miners often generate their own and / or buy it from renewable sources? ASIC development and operation literally pushes for higher efficiency chips and manufacturing nodes as well as construction of new renewable energy plants (on- or off-grid).

You think there will be a technically limit how fast to solve the SHA 256 function. Dont believe so.

Guys!! This man found a way to break the laws of thermodynamics! Yup, he goes faster than lightspeeeeed!

~

sorry off topic :-)

Wait, then what's the topic? I thought Bitcoin PoW is dead because it consumes too much energy (which is bad... because of the environment? you didn't specify). Franky has a point: if this would 'kill' Bitcoin, it should have killed gold a long time ago, right?

Actually Algorand does not allow any forking, so double spends are impossible.

This doesn't make much sense. If it's implementing a blockchain, it's doomed to have forks one way or another. Not allowing them sounds vague.

It's impossible to 'ban forks' because they're not something you deliberately 'make', but something that emerges in a decentralized blockchain inherently.

[LegendaryK]

It's impossible to 'ban forks' because they're not something you deliberately 'make', but something that emerges in a decentralized blockchain inherently.

I get  it , if you have studied the old tech that PoW coins uses, that ending forking is impossible.
But newer tech has greater possibilities.  

The PoS design of Algorand makes forks impossible and that is according to
Silvio Micali, a Turing award winner.  *Turing Award, often referred to as the “Nobel Prize of Computing*

https://community.algorand.org/blog/forks-and-scaling-challenges-how-the-algorand-overcomes-both/

First, the Algorand blockchain overcomes one significant problem that has been observed with any chain that becomes popular, a hard fork.

As Silvio Micali, a Turing award winner and founder at Algorand explained in a blog post:

“The Algorand blockchain does not fork. Each new block is separately agreed upon and is guaranteed to remain on the Algorand chain forever.

The Algorand consensus is not a drawn-out process. The fact that more and more blocks are attached to a given block B does not make it more and more probable that consensus on B has been reached. Algorand separately reaches agreement on a new block. When this is done, it reaches agreement on the next block. And so on.”

Thus, its users can immediately rely on the transactions as soon as they appear in a new block without having to wait for the block to become sufficiently deep in the chain.

So instead of haggling with clients over an unconfirmed funds transfer (as may be the case with Bitcoin), a merchant accepting tokens that are underpinned by the Algorand blockchain is assured of the finality of the transfer

Interesting to know that algorand gives a more secure transaction at a almost instant speed while not needing to compromise the majority % of the power grid like bitcoin.  

[OgNasty]

Sounds to me like Bitcoin is going to require the world to step it up with more alternative energy and new technologies.  A large chunk of the earth is still using technology from 100 years ago to power their grids.  Even the US is still burning coal.  It's actually ridiculous.  It's only a matter of time before nuclear or fusion power is more widely adopted.  I also expect to see mining become much more energy efficient now that companies like Intel are set to take the reigns from less established, wealthy, and experienced companies like Bitmain.  So while I would argue that PoW is likely heading towards a dead end due to the massive price increase that would be required to maintain profitability as the block reward continues to be cut, I don't think the dead end will be electrical usage.  Governments have too much control of the electricity grid to allow their citizens to live in the dark ages so others can mine crypto.

[franky1]

The energy consumption has grown because the reward has grown

This is a very good point. It's also worth mentioning the halvings; meaning not only are ASIC improvements going to hit a certain performance wall, also the rewards will get lower, pushing down the amount of miners running. So effectively, the power consumption will always be bound to price/coin and coins/block.

but it wont push down the number of miners running. because there are many factors at play to keep them interested

EG
if there was a law that made it so a location/premises limit was 10gwh
a asic single farm of 20GW will just set up 2 locations of 10GW to stay within the law
its not that miners give up when hitting their location limit. its that they set up alot more locations. thus decentralising the geo-laws that try to limit miners

also the propaganda of the reward halving.. lets handle that
EG (describing one propaganda worse case view)
if bitcoin transactions were stuck to only doing say 4000tx/block and each tx was 250bytes at 10sat a byte for the next 15 years at total of 0.1btc a block in fee (1mb tx utility(witness scalefactor cludge))
2024 Reward 3.125 fee 0.1 = 3.225
2028 Reward 1.5625 fee 0.1 = 1.6625
2032 Reward 0.78125 fee 0.1 = 0.88125
2036 Reward 0.390625 fee 0.1 = 0.490625
yea your think oh no. miners will stop mining

BUT imagine if bitcoin transactions were NOT stuck to 4000tx/block at 10sat a byte for the next 15 years
2024 Reward 3.125 fee 0.2 = 3.325 (8000tx at 10sat/byte (2mb actual tx utility))
2028 Reward 1.5625 fee 0.5 = 1.9625(16000tx at 10sat/byte (4mb actual tx utility))
2032 Reward 0.78125 fee 1.2 = 1.98125(48000tx at 10sat/byte (12mb actual tx utility))
2036 Reward 0.390625 fee 1.6 = 1.990625(64000tx at 10sat/byte (16mb actual tx utility))

as you can see the amount of coin available per block to pay miners can still go up(via fee's)
and this does not need people to "pay more" individually. which would shy away alot of people from using it.
instead it would be more people, collectively pay

also factor in a variable of if bitcoin prices were to go up by 2x and tx count was to 2x
now  reward 6.25 fee 0.1 = 6.35= $254k   (btc=$40k)
2024 Reward 3.125 fee 0.2 = 3.325= $266k   (btc=$80k)
2028 Reward 1.5625 fee 0.4 = 1.9625= $314k   (btc=$160k)
2032 Reward 0.78125 fee 0.8 = 1.58125= $506k   (btc=$320k)
2036 Reward 0.390625 fee 1.6 = 1.990625= $1274k  (btc=$640k)

as you can see there are alot more variables that can keep miners interested. not just fee's but also the bitcoin price.
aswell as how even if some technical limit stops how small an asic chip can get vs watts/thash
people can still just multiply the number of physical mining rigs / locations
or if there was a location limit to power.  more people can mine in more locations for a slice of the $1.174m compared to a slice of a $254k

[BlackHatCoiner]

First, the Algorand blockchain overcomes one significant problem that has been observed with any chain that becomes popular, a hard fork.

But, this is more of a feature than a problem.

The Algorand blockchain does not fork. Each new block is separately agreed upon and is guaranteed to remain on the Algorand chain forever.

I still wait to find out how.

The Algorand consensus is not a drawn-out process. The fact that more and more blocks are attached to a given block B does not make it more and more probable that consensus on B has been reached.

So, when and how is consensus reached for sure?

Algorand separately reaches agreement on a new block. When this is done, it reaches agreement on the next block. And so on.

And yet, it's happening in every chain. Consensus happens separately, not simultaneously.

Thus, its users can immediately rely on the transactions as soon as they appear in a new block without having to wait for the block to become sufficiently deep in the chain.

Which brings me to how again.

So instead of haggling with clients over an unconfirmed funds transfer (as may be the case with Bitcoin), a merchant accepting tokens that are underpinned by the Algorand blockchain is assured of the finality of the transfer

Algorand cures cancer.

[LegendaryK]

The Algorand blockchain does not fork. Each new block is separately agreed upon and is guaranteed to remain on the Algorand chain forever.

I still wait to find out how.

https://www.algorand.com/resources/blog/algorands-core-technology-in-a-nutshell

Security.

Now we come to security. Assume that I am a very powerful adversary, capable of corrupting users extremely quickly whenever I want. Clearly, I would love to corrupt the members of the committee, but I have a problem: I do not know who they are.

This is so because committee members are selected by a secretly run, cryptographically fair, individual lottery. Thus, only they know who they are, up to the moment in which they propagate through the network both their winning tickets and their opinions about the block. Only at that time I might learn who the committee members are and, given my super powers, I can immediately corrupt the entire committee. But so what? Corrupting them at this time is too late. Whatever the committee members had to say, they have already said, and their winning tickets and up-or-down opinions about the block are virally propagating throughout the network. I have no more power to put their messages back in the bottle than a government has the power to put back in the bottle messages virally propagated by WikiLeaks.

In other words, the Algorand approach is secure because beforehand, an adversary does not know whom to corrupt, and by the time he does, corruption is useless.

A Comparison to Bitcoin PoW, is if any one knows the 3 to 4 mining pool operators that have over 51% hashrate, all they have to do is corrupt them.

If you still don't understand , and still are not believing even the person who won a turing award.

I can't help someone understand, who does not want to understand.

Here is the source code
https://github.com/algorand

Take some computer programming classes until you find someone that can explain it to you.

[n0nce]

But newer tech has greater possibilities. 

Okay so look: a blockchain should (!) be distributed, decentralized. Forks can happen (and are resolved) because not all nodes can have the same view of the network in a decentralized setting and sometimes blocks don't propagate fast enough, so it's possible that two blocks are mined as successors of the same common block.
How does newer tech make sure that it can never happen? How does it ensure that it's absolutely impossible (as you're saying) that everyone always has the exact same view of the network?

The PoS design of Algorand makes forks impossible and that is according to
Silvio Micali, a Turing award winner.  *Turing Award, often referred to as the “Nobel Prize of Computing*

I don't believe in 'argumentum ab auctoritate'; we don't do that in science. Only fools blindly trust (apparent) authorities. I know people, very smart ones, who developed pretty sophisticated algorithms for different types of proofs, yet they don't understand PoW. One does not exclude the other.
Also you don't have to tell us what a Turing Award is dude..

First, the Algorand blockchain overcomes one significant problem that has been observed with any chain that becomes popular, a hard fork.

Wait a minute; why are we now talking about hard forks? You do realize there is a difference between hard forks ('A hard fork is a change to a blockchain protocol that renders older versions invalid.' ^{https://www.coindesk.com/learn/hard-fork-vs-soft-fork/}) and non-intentional forks ('Not all forks are intentional. With a widely distributed open-source codebase, a fork can happen accidentally when not all nodes are replicating the same information. Usually, these types of accidental forks are identified and resolved.' ^{https://www.coindesk.com/learn/hard-fork-vs-soft-fork/})?

“The Algorand blockchain does not fork. Each new block is separately agreed upon and is guaranteed to remain on the Algorand chain forever.

In Bitcoin, we also 'separately agree upon each new block' and it's 'guaranteed to remain on the blockchain forever'. That's why in case of an accidental fork, which so far happened very few times and required a 1 block reorg, by simply waiting one more block, the fork is resolved (it was 'agreed' which chain to use) and all is fine & dandy.

The Algorand consensus is not a drawn-out process. The fact that more and more blocks are attached to a given block B does not make it more and more probable that consensus on B has been reached. Algorand separately reaches agreement on a new block. When this is done, it reaches agreement on the next block. And so on.”

So they're probably running some sort of protocol as soon as a fork occurs / is about to occur and sync. Okay, good for them. So? We just do that in the next block; in the end the result is the same.

Thus, its users can immediately rely on the transactions as soon as they appear in a new block without having to wait for the block to become sufficiently deep in the chain.

Okay, we're back to 'people are impatient' then.

So instead of haggling with clients over an unconfirmed funds transfer (as may be the case with Bitcoin), a merchant accepting tokens that are underpinned by the Algorand blockchain is assured of the finality of the transfer

Except that no merchant would consider a new not yet proven altcoin (one of 10,000) instead of 10+ years standing Bitcoin.

Interesting to know that algorand gives a more secure transaction at a almost instant speed while not needing to compromise the majority % of the power grid like bitcoin.

You claim it's more secure yet Bitcoin is here for over 10 years as #1 and there hasn't been a lot of actually critical bugs in Bitcoin itself, cool cool.
This also again shows you haven't understood anything yet. 'Compromising power' is the what gives Bitcoin so much security. You would need to not only get a ton of mining hardware (that doesn't exist) to attack Bitcoin, but also build a huge power plant or probably actually multiple of those. It's a totally different thing than just putting a few billions into an altcoin & getting a ton of voting shares immediately.
But this is OT now. I thought you wanted to prove how 'BTC POW is moving towards a dead end'; not discussing '[insert random altcoin] VS Bitcoin'.

A Comparison to Bitcoin PoW, is if any one knows the 3 to 4 mining pool operators that have over 51% hashrate, all they have to do is corrupt them.

Oh you don't seem to understand that the pool operators don't own the hardware.
If one goes rogue (or multiple), you know what the miners do?
I'm showing you:

It takes literally 1 click to change your pool to something else.

Take some computer programming classes until you find someone that can explain it to you.

Not a good way to make friends here dude. Especially if such a statement comes from someone apparently being pretty on the left side of this curve.

[BlackHatCoiner]

A Comparison to Bitcoin PoW, is if any one knows the 3 to 4 mining pool operators that have over 51% hashrate, all they have to do is corrupt them.

What to corrupt exactly? The pools? The miners of those pools? The owners of the pools?

If you still don't understand , and still are not believing even the person who won a turing award.

No, I don't. In this field, we eliminate trust, we don't include it. And to be honest, I won't believe any person who'll come and try to convince me for their invention with their honors instead of their actual work.

Take some computer programming classes until you find someone that can explain it to you.

May I assume you haven't fully acknowledged how it works too?

I don't believe in 'argumentum ab auctoritate'; we don't do that in science.

This reminded me of Feynman. 

Except that no merchant would consider a new not yet proven altcoin (one of 10,000) instead of 10+ years standing Bitcoin.

Hmm, I suddenly feel an association swinging around my head. Couldn't the same thing had been said for the hundreds of years standing fiat currencies back in 2009? I think this changes the subject; we currently examine the potential of a crypto. In other words: Its underlying technology.

[n0nce]

I don't believe in 'argumentum ab auctoritate'; we don't do that in science.

This reminded me of Feynman. 

Brilliant!

Except that no merchant would consider a new not yet proven altcoin (one of 10,000) instead of 10+ years standing Bitcoin.

Hmm, I suddenly feel an association swinging around my head. Couldn't the same thing had been said for the hundreds of years standing fiat currencies back in 2009? I think this changes the subject; we currently examine the potential of a crypto. In other words: Its underlying technology.

You're right; I don't think this is relevant to the discussion really between PoW and PoS.
I also notice that this topic is not really any different than all of the other PoW vs PoS topics that we already had in the past in here; so maybe people like OP should use the search function and read / potentially 'resurrect' (if not too old) one of those threads instead of creating new ones all the time, with different wording but the same repeating arguments.

[LegendaryK]

I see you two have your comedy routine practice well in hand and serious conversation is not what you want.
So I bid you good day. 

[BlackHatCoiner]

I see you two have your comedy routine practice well in hand and serious conversation is not what you want.

Sorry that we don't comply with your agenda. Maybe we need arguments to start a serious conversation?