[Megathread] The long-known PoW vs. PoS debate

[LegendaryK]

Bump
Since BHC,  bothered calling up an old post.

Updated to today.
In the real world. The top 12 coins on coinmarketcap.
#1 on CMK: Bitcoin is the only PoW coin
#2 on CMK: Ethereum is switching to PoS.
#3, #4, #5: Are Tokens
#6 on CMK :Cardano is already PoS.  
#7 on CMK: Ripple is neither.
#8 on CMK: BUSD is a token
#9 on CMK: Solana is a version of PoS
#10 on CMK: Dogecoin is switching to PoS
#11 on CMK: Polkadot is a version of PoS
#12 on CMK: WBTC is a token.

Only Bitcoin is still PoW, and only Bitcoin will be affected by any bans because of energy waste.
https://fortune.com/2022/01/05/crypto-blackouts-bitcoin-mining-bans-kosovo-iran-kazakhstan-iceland/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-15/crypto-mania-in-texas-risks-new-costs-and-strains-on-shaky-grid

Notice that there are no new PoW coins in the top 12, once bitcoin ends or evolves that is the final nail in the coffin of the PoW dead end tech.

The Tera Luna collapse is a good example , any crypto can crash to zero, look at all of the non-existent PoW coins that are no longer mentioned.
Thinking Bitcoin can't follow suit is a religious faith not a logical analysis.
But think what you like, just as some others think what they like, and time will prove whom is right.  
https://coinpedia.org/opinion/geopolitical-strategist-and-author-peter-zeihanpeter-zeihan-thinks-bitcoin-is-dumpster-fire/

Bitcoin is a Dumpster fire
Bitcoin is emerging in this environment where money is free;
it will not be here in a couple of years;
it is not a store of value;
it is not a method of exchange;
it is not readily shiftable into the real economy.
We’ve discovered with the Russian sanctions that it is completely reliant on the normal financial system for access.
This means it is vulnerable to anything the government might do; it has already been banned in ten of the world’s top twenty economies; and in terms of currency.
If you ever get a carbon tax it will be having a negative value so yes there’s nothing about bitcoin that’s been here for a long now.

[1714102267]

1714102267

[1714102267]

1714102267

[n0nce]

Updated to today.
In the real world. The top 12 coins on coinmarketcap.
#1 on CMK: Bitcoin is the only PoW coin
#2 on CMK: Ethereum is switching to PoS.
#3, #4, #5: Are Tokens
#6 on CMK :Cardano is already PoS. 
#7 on CMK: Ripple is neither.
#8 on CMK: BUSD is a token
#9 on CMK: Solana is a version of PoS
#10 on CMK: Dogecoin is switching to PoS
#11 on CMK: Polkadot is a version of PoS
#12 on CMK: WBTC is a token.

Besides the fact that the list changed a good bit from a few months ago, I notice another pattern that is common to newcomers: you just take people's word at face value. If you've sticked around long enough (or cared to look up its history), you'd know that Ethereum is switching to PoS should be considered a meme by now; it was proposed probably 10 years ago if I remember correctly, and always pushed back. There's no reason it should get done in 2022; people even locked up Ether coins in December 2020 - a desperate move by the developers to get everyone onboard with the switch, but no, one and a half years have already passed and GPUs are still churning along.

Actually your point about the strength of PoS is pretty weak since out of 12 coins, Bitcoin, Ethereum and Dogecoin are still PoW, so 25% (you can't treat them as if they were PoS just because they say so - you're very naive believing these people blindly), 5 coins are actually tokens, then there's Ripple, which leaves you with only 3 PoS coins in the top 12. Cardano, Solana and Polkadot. Wasn't there something about the majority of coins switching to PoS or something like this? 3 out of 12 is not a majority, right.

By the way; it should be easy to understand that new projects are super incentivized to make PoS coins:
1) Keeps control in the hands of the creators as long as they don't sell the majority of coins
2) Keeps making them richer forever, without the need to buy, run, maintain and replace ASIC facilities from time to time
3) It's much, much easier to do. Who do you think would start mining a new random unknown altcoin and expend energy and resources on it if they could mine Bitcoin, Ethereum or Monero instead?
Neither of these points makes PoS inherently better in terms of censorship resistance, decentralization or security from attacks.

Notice that there are no new PoW coins in the top 12, once bitcoin ends or evolves that is the final nail in the coffin of the PoW dead end tech.

The Tera Luna collapse is a good example , any crypto can crash to zero, look at all of the non-existent PoW coins that are no longer mentioned.

What about the PoS coins that have crashed, though? Isn't Bitcoin the only coin that has stayed on place #1 (since you care about this coinmarketcap metric so much), for 14 years, without budge? This is a point for Bitcoin, not against PoW.

Thinking Bitcoin can't follow suit is a religious faith not a logical analysis.

It's pretty logical to analyze that Bitcoin is the best cryptocurrency, since it has the best and longest track record, the best decentralization, the best censorship resistance and the best security due to enormous amounts of energy spread around the world, used to secure it. It's not hard to understand. It also has the highest value since it's most widely accepted as a payment method compared to any other crypto - the whole value proposition of this space.

But think what you like, just as some others think what they like, and time will prove whom is right. 

That's why I emphasize sticking around so much: after a few years, you'll have seen so many 'promising projects' come and go, get hyped and crash to zero, which means time does prove us right, and has consistently shown that Bitcoin is pretty much the only project still kicking.

Only Bitcoin is still PoW, and only Bitcoin will be affected by any bans because of energy waste.

Are you honestly this naive to think governments would ban Bitcoin because they care about the environment so much? If that's the case, you're way too blue-eyed, I'm sorry. It's all about control, power and money (because money leads to the former).

[BlackHatCoiner]

[...]

Besides n0nce's response, which will be ignored as you only talk about things that are in your interest, why the hell should I care what the others do? I don't use a PoW coin because it's in the #1 position, I couldn't care less about market caps; they're meaningless and misleading.

I've studied bitcoin, I've talked about it a lot, I've understood what's properly working and what's not, what are the advantages of PoW and what are the fundamental problems of every other mechanism that's been proposed (useful link!). But, what I'm sure I've comprehended years now, is that whataboutism can't form a strong argument. And that's what you do. You care what the market cap says. You've yet failed to show us how's PoS superior. You're constantly trying to prove us wrong, but you haven't yet found some time to question the first page.

To sum up, you believe in "argumentum ab auctoritate"[1], you think that using block explorers is better than running a node[2] (which kinda justifies why you don't care about censorship-resistance either), you're sure the governments will take care of PoW[3], you disapprove of having a free choice in energy usage[4] and you're obnoxiously trying to seem smart-ass with whataboutism? Dude, be serious.

[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5386948.msg59363275#msg59363275
[2] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5388745.msg59465990#msg59465990
[3] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5387588.msg59567418#msg59567418
[4] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5386948.msg59354295#msg59354295

[LegendaryK]

I've studied bitcoin, I've talked about it a lot,

And yet , you have not studied the PoS version 3 blockchains like cardano and algorand.

It like saying you learned English and know it is superior to French.  
But have not studied French.

My point above is, if PoW is so great where are all of the new coins using it.
Answer , their are no new coins using it, because it is a dying tech, kind of like a dying religion that was false to begin with.

PoS Tech is growing and evolving every day , what happens to a dying PoW tech is a non-issue for the rest of us.  
Which is why you have to bump your thread, as everyone already knows the conclusion of the discussion is the death of PoW.
Whether Bitcoin evolves to avoid the PoW death, that is up to the btc devs. But to be honest most of us no longer care what happens to btc.

@n0nce, the developers of ethereum and doge have realized PoW is a dead end,
shame you have not caught up to their thought processes yet.
Next is where you claim you are smarter than the devs that are switching.  

You two have a great weekend, regaling how great BTC PoW is and why it will rule the universe.  

[n0nce]

My point above is, if PoW is so great where are all of the new coins using it.

As BlackHatCoiner pointed out, this is basically an 'argumentum ad auctoritate'.
I'd like to add (actually mentioned that earlier) that it's certainly not easy spinning up a new PoW project. You need to convince people to point their miners to your coin instead of mining a well-known, comparatively stable and easy to use (sell) cryptocurrency.

Answer , their are no new coins using it, because it is a dying tech, kind of like a dying religion that was false to begin with.

That's a totally wrong conclusion. When something is 'old', it can either be 'outdated and dying', or 'tried and tested'; it doesn't need to be the former.

PoS Tech is growing and evolving every day , what happens to a dying PoW tech is a non-issue for the rest of us. 

Actually PoS was proposed 10 years ago, it was discussed on this forum and other places and dismissed as fundamentally flawed. You can work on and 'evolve' a flawed concept for as much as you want, but it won't change the fact that it's fundamentally flawed. No matter how many 'generation' numbers you slap on it.

Which is why you have to bump your thread, as everyone already knows the conclusion of the discussion is the death of PoW.

Nope, we're just still waiting for good arguments why PoS may not be fundamentally flawed. If you're so knowledgeable about Xth generation PoS, why don't you explain how that solves the issues BlackHatCoiner brought up for discussion on page 1?

@n0nce, the developers of ethereum and doge have realized PoW is a dead end, shame you have not caught up to their thought processes yet.
Next is where you claim you are smarter than the devs that are switching. 

How are you so sure that this was their reason? What makes you so sure that they don't just switch to get full control over the project, to get richer without doing anything (except holding coins they already have)? Besides the fact that as I said, ETH are trying to do this for years without success. Are you aware of that?

[garlonicon]

You need to convince people to point their miners to your coin instead of mining a well-known, comparatively stable and easy to use (sell) cryptocurrency

Also, creating new Proof of Work coins is not needed. We don't need new coins. We need new features on existing coins. So, I think using Merged Mining to bootstrap some new coin, and get it attached to Bitcoin, is way better than bootstraping that coin as some entirely separated chain.

because it is a dying tech, kind of like a dying religion that was false to begin with

If it is "dying", then why it is still there? I have bad news for you: if you have some Proof of Stake coin, then it is still possible to transform it into Proof of Work coin again, because it is always possible to mine something. For example, you can mine transactions, like this: 000000000fdf0c619cd8e0d512c7e2c0da5a5808e60f12f1e0d01522d2986a51. Or you can mine new block headers, and attach them as a commitment to your Proof of Stake coin. Then, it is possible to create "a coin in a coin", especially if something is Turing-complete (but also Turing-completeness makes it opened to some attacks, allows writing quines, and many other things beyond that; but fortunately, soft-forks can be used to disable some features, and make it safe to use again).

If you want for Proof of Work to die, presenting an alternative is not sufficient. You need something that will stop people from recreating Proof of Work again and again, in other case it will never die. Maybe a lot of people will mine on CPUs and GPUs, maybe the difficulty would drop, when Proof of Work will be censored, but it will still be present. Also, Proof of Work can be hidden by revealing that later, when it is too late to stop that. To stop Proof of Work, you would need to ban commitments, and to do that, you would need to ban message encryption. And reaching that level of censorship is hard.

So, if you want to prevent constant uprising of Proof of Work, then your alternative has to be strong enough, to convince people that they should not bootstrap Proof of Work again. And I never saw such alternative, because Proof of Stake is not resistant to introducing Proof of Work on top of it, by using unstoppable no-forks in some local group, or some kind of soft-forks globally.

[n0nce]

You need to convince people to point their miners to your coin instead of mining a well-known, comparatively stable and easy to use (sell) cryptocurrency

Also, creating new Proof of Work coins is not needed. We don't need new coins. We need new features on existing coins. So, I think using Merged Mining to bootstrap some new coin, and get it attached to Bitcoin, is way better than bootstraping that coin as some entirely separated chain.

Exactly; it would be pointless and thus difficult to get miners to remove some hashpower from one blockchain and add it to a new, untested one. Whereas in PoS it's trivial to quickly spin up a new blockchain, since you need no miners. This is another point that makes PoW so strong and Bitcoin so valuable; that it's very very difficult to create a serious contender to an existing PoW coin and that a serious alternative can't just be created out of thin air.

This is the real reason there are so many PoS coins and so few PoW: not because it's actually better, but because it's trivial to create masses of PoS coins. You don't need backing by real hardware, real energy and real miners; just some code (that you can fork) and a single server running the software. It's trivial.

But if something's so easy and cheap (free) to make, it also drastically reduces its value.

So, if you want to prevent constant uprising of Proof of Work, then your alternative has to be strong enough, to convince people that they should not bootstrap Proof of Work again. And I never saw such alternative, because Proof of Stake is not resistant to introducing Proof of Work on top of it, by using unstoppable no-forks in some local group, or some kind of soft-forks globally.

That's a very good point; it reminds me that there actually already exist (and will continue to exist) PoW tokens on the Ethereum blockchain.
I just discovered there are for instance a 'POW NFT' [1] and a '0xBitcoin' [2] that do PoW on Ethereum; this PoW mining will continue even if (big if) Ethereum Foundation manages to move their project to PoS somehow.

[1] https://www.pownft.com/
[2] https://cointelegraph.com/press-releases/0xbitcoin-the-neutral-pow-token-on-the-ethereum-network

[pooya87]

~

At this point you are just putting your head in the sand and disagree with anything that anybody else is saying.

Only Bitcoin is still PoW, and only Bitcoin will be affected by any bans because of energy waste.

Funny thing is that nobody can restrict bitcoin but they can easily restrict PoS coins. All it takes is to call up the developer who also holds majority coin and demand censorship or they can seize their coins and kill the chain by owning majority state in Proof of Stake.

[LegendaryK]

~

At this point you are just putting your head in the sand and disagree with anything that anybody else is saying.

Only Bitcoin is still PoW, and only Bitcoin will be affected by any bans because of energy waste.

Funny thing is that nobody can restrict bitcoin but they can easily restrict PoS coins. All it takes is to call up the developer who also holds majority coin and demand censorship or they can seize their coins and kill the chain by owning majority state in Proof of Stake.

Just because everyone in a PoW lemming cult agrees running off a cliff, yelling we are secure and decentralized, is a good idea,  
forgive me if I ignore those that are incapable of rational thought.

None of the bitcoin nutjobs will believe that PoW is dead , even after the governments ban it and shut the miners down,
you guys are a cult, reality is not your strong suit.  
You ignore stuff like :
https://fortune.com/2021/11/17/china-bitcoin-mining-ban-crypto-holdouts-ether-solana-price/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-57260829
https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/03/15/kazakhstan-crackdown-forces-106-more-crypto-mines-to-close/
https://cryptoslate.com/a-global-energy-crisis-could-directly-affect-bitcoin-miners/
https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/business-news-why-is-electricity-shortage-a-major-concern-for-crypto-mining/409575
https://coinpedia.org/opinion/geopolitical-strategist-and-author-peter-zeihanpeter-zeihan-thinks-bitcoin-is-dumpster-fire/

Bitcoin is a Dumpster fire
Bitcoin is emerging in this environment where money is free;
it will not be here in a couple of years;
it is not a store of value;
it is not a method of exchange;
it is not readily shiftable into the real economy.
We’ve discovered with the Russian sanctions that it is completely reliant on the normal financial system for access.
This means it is vulnerable to anything the government might do; it has already been banned in ten of the world’s top twenty economies; and in terms of currency.
If you ever get a carbon tax it will be having a negative value so yes there’s nothing about bitcoin that’s been here for a long now.

Bitcoin is the easiest coin to restrict , one call to the power utilities and a automated disconnect by smart meter and bitcoin is dead.
PoS networks can be run from a laptop with solar panels and a backup battery, with no help from power utilities.

[BlackHatCoiner]

PoS networks can be run from a laptop with solar panels and a backup battery, with no help from power utilities.

Yes, but they don't work properly in both theory and practice. However, the other does work properly and has never had any problems.

[tadamichi]

I've studied bitcoin, I've talked about it a lot,

And yet , you have not studied the PoS version 3 blockchains like cardano and algorand.

It like saying you learned English and know it is superior to French.  
But have not studied French.

My point above is, if PoW is so great where are all of the new coins using it.
Answer , their are no new coins using it, because it is a dying tech, kind of like a dying religion that was false to begin with.

PoS Tech is growing and evolving every day , what happens to a dying PoW tech is a non-issue for the rest of us.  
Which is why you have to bump your thread, as everyone already knows the conclusion of the discussion is the death of PoW.
Whether Bitcoin evolves to avoid the PoW death, that is up to the btc devs. But to be honest most of us no longer care what happens to btc.

@n0nce, the developers of ethereum and doge have realized PoW is a dead end,
shame you have not caught up to their thought processes yet.
Next is where you claim you are smarter than the devs that are switching.  

You two have a great weekend, regaling how great BTC PoW is and why it will rule the universe.  

K so lets go over your thought process and start with the biggest aspiring shitcoin first.
In ethereum with PoS your staked coins literally get locked up, like 10 percent of all eth is locked up at the moment and the update isnt even here yet. Since EIP-1559 it burns coins for being used to get "deflationary", but yet the eth supply is higher now, than when the update was introduced. So you basically created a network that punishes you for using it, but incentivizes old holders to not move their coins. Every newcomer is already at a huge disadvantage with this. Then to stake you will need atleast 32 eth and most wont ever have this much, so they will need centralized staking pools like coinbase and so on. So youre basically throwing the concept of self custody out the window, what happened to decentralization? Every sheep nowadays just runs after some fake yields without using their head. Most ethereum nodes are already running on aws, so lets increase the troughput of the network even more in eth 2.0 to make it even more centralized.

Giving up self custody and decentralized nodes and punishing people for doing transactions sounds like a super sound concept, but they have jpgs, that arent even stored on the chain but on centralized websites that just have a smart contract on the chain(without the jpg on it), so it must be superior to bitcoin and worth it.

[ABCbits]

@n0nce, the developers of ethereum and doge have realized PoW is a dead end,

While some DOGE contributor/developer prefer PoS over PoW, they know each of them have it's own pros and cons rather than bashing PoW. Few example,
https://github.com/dogecoin/dogecoin/issues/1952
https://github.com/dogecoin/dogecoin/issues/1924
https://www.reddit.com/r/dogecoindev/comments/sk78gp/why_rush_to_pos/
https://www.reddit.com/r/dogecoindev/comments/tyzioi/does_anyone_know_more_about_the_community_staking/

Bitcoin is the easiest coin to restrict , one call to the power utilities and a automated disconnect by smart meter and bitcoin is dead.

Not as easy as you think, considering Bitcoin network is still running today.

[BlackHatCoiner]

DOGE contributor/developer

Isn't if funny that they've just copied-pasted bitcoin's source code, changed few lines and call themselves developers?

[tadamichi]

I would also argue that PoW doesn’t require many different coins, since Bitcoin already does what it’s supposed to do. And that the switching to PoS of many shitcoins is more an expression of each founder wanting more control/ profits over their networks. But ofc sheep listen to empty words and marketing lines, instead of looking what the tech actually does.

//Edit: + There needs to be many PoS coins since everyone wants their own hands in the honeypot to lure in newbies, who can’t separate the difference between bitcoin and shitcoins yet. And so PoS coins hold a competition by who can add more useless features, while not even providing the basics of what a decentralized and free monetary system should do. And beginners fall for it, because it sounds good on paper, but they don’t understand the consequences of each design yet.

[n0nce]

~

At this point you are just putting your head in the sand and disagree with anything that anybody else is saying.

Only Bitcoin is still PoW, and only Bitcoin will be affected by any bans because of energy waste.

Funny thing is that nobody can restrict bitcoin but they can easily restrict PoS coins. All it takes is to call up the developer who also holds majority coin and demand censorship or they can seize their coins and kill the chain by owning majority state in Proof of Stake.

Just because everyone in a PoW lemming cult agrees running off a cliff, yelling we are secure and decentralized, is a good idea, 
forgive me if I ignore those that are incapable of rational thought.

If you're so rationally thinking; why don't you ever address any of the issues presented throughout this thread, such as most recently by tadamichi?
Instead you're only throwing around insults and argumenting for PoS through a list of different coins' market capitalizations.

I feel like these two core questions by BlackHatCoiner sill haven't been answered; if your third-generation PoS technologies or whatever you're trying to say are solving these issues, why can't you explain how they do it?

Why Proof of Stake cannot produce consensus
Why Proof of Stake centralizes the system

[...]

I address to PoS-ers to come to this thread and constructively argue with the above assertions or if they don't disagree, to spell out why PoW is worse. This was just my opinion; anyone's free to support the other side. I didn't type this title for no reason.

[tromp]

DOGE contributor/developer

Isn't if funny that they've just copied-pasted bitcoin's source code, changed few lines and call themselves developers?

They copy-pasted Litecoin's source code, which was copy-pasted from Tenebrix' source code, which was copy-pasted from Bitcoin's source code...

The only interesting development in all of this was the MWEB (Mimblewimble Extenseion Block) protocol that recently activated on Litecoin.

[LegendaryK]

why can't you explain how they do it?

It not that the information is not in the google search engine, it is your cult mentality refused to acknowledge reality.
But in your next post, you will just cry fud.

https://algorand.foundation/algorand-protocol/about-algorand-protocol

Decentralization

The Algorand blockchain is entirely decentralized, which means there is no powerful central authority or single point of control.
A unique committee of users is randomly and secretly selected to approve every block.
Nodes are run by entities representing diverse backgrounds across many different countries.
Fair & Transparent

Control is distributed among all individual network participants
Accurate

No risk of data being manipulated, lost or destroyed
Secure

Fault tolerant with no special group of users for an attacker to target
Permissionless
Public & Open to All

Users do not need the approval of a trusted authority to use the Algorand blockchain.
There is a single class of users and no gatekeepers.
Every participant can read every block and have the opportunity to write a transaction in a future block.
Low Cost to Participate

The Algorand platform requires minimal processing power and modest IT resources to join.
All online users who possess algos are automatically eligible to participate in block consensus.
Pure Proof-of-Stake

Algorand uses a pure proof-of-stake (PPoS) consensus protocol built on Byzantine agreement.
This means the system can achieve consensus without a central authority and tolerate malicious users as long as a supermajority of the stake is in non-malicious hands.
The users’ influence on the choice of a new block is proportional to their stake in the system (number of algos).
Users are randomly and secretly selected to both propose blocks and vote on block proposals.
All online users have the chance to be selected to propose and to vote.
The likelihood that a user will be chosen is directly proportional to its stake.
Rewards

In Algorand, the power is in the hands of the users holding stake.
Every user receives an amount of rewards proportional to their stake for every block that is committed to the chain.
We do so to encourage users to join the Algorand platform and accelerate our path to decentralization.
Open Source

The Algorand node repository is open sourced and publicly available for anyone to audit, use, and build upon. The platform is founded in principles of transparency, inclusivity, and collaboration and maintained by a dedicated community with a shared vision of a decentralized, borderless future.
Protocol Evolution

Algorand is rooted in the idea that the system should allow for changes and avoid inflexible policies—enabling both the community and the protocol to evolve.
The Algorand platform takes a consensus approach to protocol changes, which facilitates continuous evolution of the protocol and eliminates potential hard forks that could fracture the community.
This ability is powered by the Algorand consensus protocol that enables the users to reach consensus on anything.
Not just on the next block, but also on a protocol upgrade.

    Proposed changes are posted on the blockchain
    The community uses Algorand’s consensus protocol to vote to accept or reject the change
    When accepted, the community agrees on the block where the change happens
    Everyone switches to the new protocol at the same time

As far as security goes, Bitcoin forks and Algorand never forks,
if this does not immediately point out to you that Algorand is more secure than Bitcoin could ever pretend to be,
well you should just quit reading and go play with your crayons.  

https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-a-bitcoin-fork-4684459

On a basic level, these forks arise out of different perspectives on transaction history,

*Forking is what can allow Double-Spends.*

https://algorand.foundation/algorand-protocol/core-blockchain-innovation

Immediate Transaction Finality

The Algorand blockchain does not fork. Unlike with proof-of-work protocols, two different blocks can never be added to the chain in the same position.
Only one block can have the required threshold of signatures in order to be certified in a given round.

All transactions are final in Algorand.
Once a block appears, users can rely on the transactions it contains immediately, as they can be confident that the block will forever be part of the chain.
Even if the Internet is split into multiple pools of users, only one safe and consistent Algorand chain will exist.

Turing Award-winning scientist, Algorand founder on creating the ideal crypto - Silvio Micali
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttw4DpDNSo8

Silvio Micali is a computer scientist, recognized for his work on cryptography.
He is the recipient of the Turing Award (in computer science), of the Gödel Prize (in theoretical computer science) and the RSA prize (in cryptography).
He has been on the faculty of the MIT Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Department, since 1983.

Bitcoin is the easiest coin to restrict , one call to the power utilities and a automated disconnect by smart meter and bitcoin is dead.

Not as easy as you think, considering Bitcoin network is still running today.

Did I say, they are doing it in the US right now , no I did not.
What I said was they could if they wanted too, and it would be easy.
US Government has to ban btc mining 1st, that is less than 2 or 3 years away.
https://www.ictsd.org/how-do-power-companies-disconnect-service-with-digital-meters/

Can Smart Electric Meters Be Turned Off Remotely?

Yes, of course. Southern California Edison said smart meters can be used to silence a customer’s service remotely.

1st states ban btc mining and eventually the Country
https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2022/06/03/new-york-clamps-down-on-bitcoin-mining-in-newly-passed-bill/?sh=7ae439c76de5
And why will the bans increase
https://www.wsj.com/articles/electricity-shortage-warnings-grow-across-u-s-11652002380

Electricity Shortage Warnings Grow Across U.S.
Power-grid operators caution that electricity supplies aren’t keeping up with demand amid transition to cleaner forms of energy

Because energy is not in abundance any more thanks to climate issues , war , and sanctions.
https://www.npr.org/2021/10/01/1042209223/why-covid-is-affecting-chinas-power-rations
https://www.theweek.co.uk/news/uk-news/956911/what-is-power-rationing-uk-electricity
https://www.ft.com/content/13b06f9a-20cc-4499-9137-6299c0b81643

The failure by the btc cult to recognize that the energy abundance of the past few decades is changing ,
so that for most countries holding 1st world status will be unattainable.
In short, governments are most likely not going to be able to keep the lights on 24x7,
much less have the capacity for an overly wasteful PoW mining using up resources that are in short supply.
So unless one of the BTC cultist can build a Dyson sphere, even the current energy % wasted by PoW mining will be unsustainable very soon.  

* The secondary danger of low energy resources, is economic.*
https://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/2022/06/02/were-in-trouble-electric-rates-in-texas-have-surged-over-70-as-summer-kicks-in/

Electric rates in Texas have surged over 70% as summer kicks in

With the Price of energy increasing and the loss of free investment capital going away because of the baby boomers shifting to safer investments like cash/bonds/tbills for their retirement, a large % of miners might go bankrupt before the bans occur.
Most miners survive off investment of venture capitalists , not the actual mining itself.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2022-06-01/in-crypto-downturn-startups-are-still-getting-venture-capital-dollars

venture capital investing in crypto overall appears to be slowing

[n0nce]

[...]

It appears to me you just quoted some out-of-the air claims from Algorand again and presented already disproven arguments from earlier in the thread, such as 'argumentum ad autoritatem' (Turing award winner.....).

For instance, not forking is not a measure of security. Besides the fact that you never explained how they want to have a decentralized system but at the same time never have a fork. Not to mention that this was never the question. The question was never 'Is it more secure?' or 'How is Algorand more secure?', but it was: 'How do we solve these 2 essential problems we believe PoS to have?'.

No matter what amount of fancy stuff you build on top of PoS; if PoS is flawed, it's all meaningless. That's why I'd like you to stay focused on BlackHatCoiner's main questions and not overrun us with masses of quotes and arguments that don't answer the questions.

The failure by the btc cult to recognize that the energy abundance of the past few decades is changing ,
so that for most countries holding 1st world status will be unattainable.
In short, governments are most likely not going to be able to keep the lights on 24x7,
much less have the capacity for an overly wasteful PoW mining using up resources that are in short supply.
So unless one of the BTC cultist can build a Dyson sphere, even the current energy % wasted by PoW mining will be unsustainable very soon.

This was again not a reply to the question, but I'd like to point out that history has shown that producing and having more energy is always better than saving energy at every corner. Energy moves humanity forward and Bitcoin mining pushes the energy sector to produce more of it, especially renewable. I see this as a big win. But it still doesn't answer the questions, so I'd really like answers about these (full explanation on page 1 / follow the quote):

Why Proof of Stake cannot produce consensus
Why Proof of Stake centralizes the system

[...]

I address to PoS-ers to come to this thread and constructively argue with the above assertions or if they don't disagree, to spell out why PoW is worse. This was just my opinion; anyone's free to support the other side. I didn't type this title for no reason.

[tadamichi]

why can't you explain how they do it?

It not that the information is not in the google search engine, it is your cult mentality refused to acknowledge reality.
But in your next post, you will just cry fud.

https://algorand.foundation/algorand-protocol/about-algorand-protocol

Decentralization

The Algorand blockchain is entirely decentralized, which means there is no powerful central authority or single point of control.
A unique committee of users is randomly and secretly selected to approve every block.
Nodes are run by entities representing diverse backgrounds across many different countries.
Fair & Transparent

Control is distributed among all individual network participants
Accurate

No risk of data being manipulated, lost or destroyed
Secure

Fault tolerant with no special group of users for an attacker to target
Permissionless
Public & Open to All

Users do not need the approval of a trusted authority to use the Algorand blockchain.
There is a single class of users and no gatekeepers.
Every participant can read every block and have the opportunity to write a transaction in a future block.
Low Cost to Participate

The Algorand platform requires minimal processing power and modest IT resources to join.
All online users who possess algos are automatically eligible to participate in block consensus.
Pure Proof-of-Stake

Algorand uses a pure proof-of-stake (PPoS) consensus protocol built on Byzantine agreement.
This means the system can achieve consensus without a central authority and tolerate malicious users as long as a supermajority of the stake is in non-malicious hands.
The users’ influence on the choice of a new block is proportional to their stake in the system (number of algos).
Users are randomly and secretly selected to both propose blocks and vote on block proposals.
All online users have the chance to be selected to propose and to vote.
The likelihood that a user will be chosen is directly proportional to its stake.
Rewards

In Algorand, the power is in the hands of the users holding stake.
Every user receives an amount of rewards proportional to their stake for every block that is committed to the chain.
We do so to encourage users to join the Algorand platform and accelerate our path to decentralization.
Open Source

The Algorand node repository is open sourced and publicly available for anyone to audit, use, and build upon. The platform is founded in principles of transparency, inclusivity, and collaboration and maintained by a dedicated community with a shared vision of a decentralized, borderless future.
Protocol Evolution

Algorand is rooted in the idea that the system should allow for changes and avoid inflexible policies—enabling both the community and the protocol to evolve.
The Algorand platform takes a consensus approach to protocol changes, which facilitates continuous evolution of the protocol and eliminates potential hard forks that could fracture the community.
This ability is powered by the Algorand consensus protocol that enables the users to reach consensus on anything.
Not just on the next block, but also on a protocol upgrade.

    Proposed changes are posted on the blockchain
    The community uses Algorand’s consensus protocol to vote to accept or reject the change
    When accepted, the community agrees on the block where the change happens
    Everyone switches to the new protocol at the same time

As far as security goes, Bitcoin forks and Algorand never forks,
if this does not immediately point out to you that Algorand is more secure than Bitcoin could ever pretend to be,
well you should just quit reading and go play with your crayons.  

https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-a-bitcoin-fork-4684459

On a basic level, these forks arise out of different perspectives on transaction history,

*Forking is what can allow Double-Spends.*

https://algorand.foundation/algorand-protocol/core-blockchain-innovation

Immediate Transaction Finality

The Algorand blockchain does not fork. Unlike with proof-of-work protocols, two different blocks can never be added to the chain in the same position.
Only one block can have the required threshold of signatures in order to be certified in a given round.

All transactions are final in Algorand.
Once a block appears, users can rely on the transactions it contains immediately, as they can be confident that the block will forever be part of the chain.
Even if the Internet is split into multiple pools of users, only one safe and consistent Algorand chain will exist.

Turing Award-winning scientist, Algorand founder on creating the ideal crypto - Silvio Micali
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttw4DpDNSo8

Silvio Micali is a computer scientist, recognized for his work on cryptography.
He is the recipient of the Turing Award (in computer science), of the Gödel Prize (in theoretical computer science) and the RSA prize (in cryptography).
He has been on the faculty of the MIT Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Department, since 1983.

Bitcoin is the easiest coin to restrict , one call to the power utilities and a automated disconnect by smart meter and bitcoin is dead.

Not as easy as you think, considering Bitcoin network is still running today.

Did I say, they are doing it in the US right now , no I did not.
What I said was they could if they wanted too, and it would be easy.
US Government has to ban btc mining 1st, that is less than 2 or 3 years away.
https://www.ictsd.org/how-do-power-companies-disconnect-service-with-digital-meters/

Can Smart Electric Meters Be Turned Off Remotely?

Yes, of course. Southern California Edison said smart meters can be used to silence a customer’s service remotely.

1st states ban btc mining and eventually the Country
https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2022/06/03/new-york-clamps-down-on-bitcoin-mining-in-newly-passed-bill/?sh=7ae439c76de5
And why will the bans increase
[Suspicious link removed]j.com/articles/electricity-shortage-warnings-grow-across-u-s-11652002380

Electricity Shortage Warnings Grow Across U.S.
Power-grid operators caution that electricity supplies aren’t keeping up with demand amid transition to cleaner forms of energy

Because energy is not in abundance any more thanks to climate issues , war , and sanctions.
https://www.npr.org/2021/10/01/1042209223/why-covid-is-affecting-chinas-power-rations
https://www.theweek.co.uk/news/uk-news/956911/what-is-power-rationing-uk-electricity
https://www.ft.com/content/13b06f9a-20cc-4499-9137-6299c0b81643

The failure by the btc cult to recognize that the energy abundance of the past few decades is changing ,
so that for most countries holding 1st world status will be unattainable.
In short, governments are most likely not going to be able to keep the lights on 24x7,
much less have the capacity for an overly wasteful PoW mining using up resources that are in short supply.
So unless one of the BTC cultist can build a Dyson sphere, even the current energy % wasted by PoW mining will be unsustainable very soon.  

* The secondary danger of low energy resources, is economic.*
https://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/2022/06/02/were-in-trouble-electric-rates-in-texas-have-surged-over-70-as-summer-kicks-in/

Electric rates in Texas have surged over 70% as summer kicks in

With the Price of energy increasing and the loss of free investment capital going away because of the baby boomers shifting to safer investments like cash/bonds/tbills for their retirement, a large % of miners might go bankrupt before the bans occur.
Most miners survive off investment of venture capitalists , not the actual mining itself.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2022-06-01/in-crypto-downturn-startups-are-still-getting-venture-capital-dollars

venture capital investing in crypto overall appears to be slowing

1. Youre talking about cults, but all you can come up with is to quote the exact words of algorands foundation, we didnt ask for a modern version of jehovas witnesses, but to answer the questions above - yourself.
2. If were talking about energy and PoS doesnt solve the centralization problem, then we didnt save any energy, but just put it to waste for nothing, since it didnt solve any problem. So it consumes less energy, but wastes it, so whats the point. If i go on coinmarketcap rn i see 19731 cryptocurrencies being listed, with the majority being PoS. Every shitcoin nowadays claims to be superior to bitcoin, yet theres 19 thousand of them and yet not a single one of them, does what bitcoin can do. Are we saving energy if theres 19 thousand shitcoins that consume less energy(individually, but do they on a whole?) than bitcoin, but none of them can do the task? I doubt it. And saving energy on societal level is a fancy word for mass poverty, Bitcoin mining is a way to harness new energy sources that werent profitable before and can be one step into an energy abundant future. And mining is the most profitable with the cheapest energy being used, and the cheapest energy thats available is energy that wouldnt have been used otherwise, like solar energy during non peak hours. Maybe there will be use cases to even support decentralized grids with bitcoin mining. The game theory is just on point again.

[NotATether]

DOGE contributor/developer

Isn't if funny that they've just copied-pasted bitcoin's source code, changed few lines and call themselves developers?

Yikes. I'd say that there should be at least some standardized benchmark people must take online (and pass) before they can call themselves "proper C++ developers".

We used to have pluralsight for that, but then they banned Russian and Belarus users, so the search for a proper what I call "idiot test" continues [and hey, I just read somewhere that apparently, the Linux Kernel itself has a heap of low-quality code from people].