What is the drawback of PoS ?

[BusinessChain]

I am a proof of work believer, because it garanties decentralization on the hardware level (layer 1).
This is not inherently the case in PoS because its consensus algorithm is not dependant on any scarce real world ressource, provided it does not require a huge amount of memory to run a full node.
In this case I would expect that with a decent amount of miners, a PoS network should still be very decentralized, because it would be very unlikely that coincidentally all miners were geografically colocated.
This assumes that the protocol would not support delegated PoS because there it is obvious that it is more centralized.

So what then is the drawback of PoS or is there something that I miss?

[hosseinimr93]

In this case I would expect that with a decent amount of miners, a PoS network should still be very decentralized, because it would be very unlikely that coincidentally all miners were geografically colocated.

First of all note that there is no miner in a POS cryptocurrency. Instead, people need to stake their coins.
In a POS cryptocurrency, people with more coins can have more power and since a significant percentage of the coins are usually owned by a few number of people, they can have full control over the network and make the coin centralized.

[garlonicon]

If it would be only one drawback. There are lots of them, see this long topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5387588

But to list at least a few of them:
1) Staking require no work at all, you can sign any message you want, so by reaching 51% of the coin supply, you have full control over the coin, forever. In case of Proof of Work, after reaching 51%, you have to keep all miners running, and you start to compete with yourself, so you can gain more by turning off some miners (to reduce your electricity bills).
2) To stake coins, you need to keep your private keys around, you cannot stake without them. In Proof of Work, you can mine on someone else's behalf, and you can also just mine on your address, without keeping your private key on your mining machine.
3) Proof of Work clearly separate miners (those who own equipment) from whales (those who have coins). In Proof of Stake, whales control the network. That means, in Proof of Stake, the whole network can be ruled by some exchange, just because it is popular, and users deposited a lot of coins there.

[edgycorner]

The difference is that with PoS, it is possible for a single entity to control a large percentage of the total supply of tokens, which would give them a lot of voting power. Which is much easier, compared to having control over all the hashing power(or even 50%). Given where we are now, it would require laaaaaarge amount of hardware.

it can still be prevented tho(gaming the system in pos), like Ethereum is using Casper FFG
Read this:
https://medium.com/unitychain/intro-to-casper-ffg-9ed944d98b2d

Have fun  

[BusinessChain]

The difference is that with PoS, it is possible for a single entity to control a large percentage of the total supply of tokens, which would give them a lot of voting power. Which is much easier, compared to having control over all the hashing power(or even 50%). Given where we are now, it would require laaaaaarge amount of hardware.

it can still be prevented tho(gaming the system in pos), like Ethereum is using Casper FFG
Read this:
https://medium.com/unitychain/intro-to-casper-ffg-9ed944d98b2d

Have fun  

Yeah but who is to say that it is easy for a single entity to gain control over a large amount of tokens? I don't quite see that. I actually dont think it is realistic for a single entity to control more than 50% of the currency supply in a large network. We even don't have that in the Fiat world.

If it would be only one drawback. There are lots of them, see this long topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5387588

But to list at least a few of them:
1) Staking require no work at all, you can sign any message you want, so by reaching 51% of the coin supply, you have full control over the coin, forever. In case of Proof of Work, after reaching 51%, you have to keep all miners running, and you start to compete with yourself, so you can gain more by turning off some miners (to reduce your electricity bills).

Is it realistic that a single entity reaches control over 51% of the coins? I find that somewhat hard to believe. And then once it reaches 51% it would then use that power to DoS other stakers or would it even double spend? I don't think that would be very wise because it would instatnly destroy the value of the coins, right?


2) To stake coins, you need to keep your private keys around, you cannot stake without them. In Proof of Work, you can mine on someone else's behalf, and you can also just mine on your address, without keeping your private key on your mining machine.

Yeah this one I see. It makes your privKey more vulnerable, for sophisticated people maybe not a big deal though. That shouldn't be a show stopper either I guess.

3) Proof of Work clearly separate miners (those who own equipment) from whales (those who have coins). In Proof of Stake, whales control the network. That means, in Proof of Stake, the whole network can be ruled by some exchange, just because it is popular, and users deposited a lot of coins there.

That actually is the same as in 1). Is it really realistic that an exchange would control like 51% of tokens? I am assuming a fully mature system here.

So how do you reply to my challanges?

In this case I would expect that with a decent amount of miners, a PoS network should still be very decentralized, because it would be very unlikely that coincidentally all miners were geografically colocated.

First of all note that there is no miner in a POS cryptocurrency. Instead, people need to stake their coins.
In a POS cryptocurrency, people with more coins can have more power and since a significant percentage of the coins are usually owned by a few number of people, they can have full control over the network and make the coin centralized.

Well but if that number is still relatively large, let's say ten thousand then it is all good correct? I mean in Bitcoin it is also the rich people who control more hashing power.

[edgycorner]

The difference is that with PoS, it is possible for a single entity to control a large percentage of the total supply of tokens, which would give them a lot of voting power. Which is much easier, compared to having control over all the hashing power(or even 50%). Given where we are now, it would require laaaaaarge amount of hardware.

it can still be prevented tho(gaming the system in pos), like Ethereum is using Casper FFG
Read this:
https://medium.com/unitychain/intro-to-casper-ffg-9ed944d98b2d

Have fun  

Yeah but who is to say that it is easy for a single entity to gain control over a large amount of tokens? I don't quite see that. I actually dont think it is realistic for a single entity to control more than 50% of the currency supply in a large network. We even don't have that in the Fiat world.

Look, it depends on how you implement PoS.
If you are staking with coins, then whoever owns 51% of the STAKED coins controls the majority and can disrupt the chain.

ETH counters this with casper ffg and other consensus protocols. In short, all the bad actors will get their ETH slashes(or deleted) until they no longer have the majority  
ETH PoS still has some downsides to it, interested to know? (Hint: read the previous line again. That could happen to someone who wasn't a bad actor but was staking on a faulty client which got exploited :p yea, you will lose your ETH if you are staking on a buggy client if it's used by most people)

[garlonicon]

Is it realistic that a single entity reaches control over 51% of the coins?

Yes, it happened on Bitcoin in the past, you don't have to take my word on that: there are some topics about it, and there are some traces in the blockchain, that can convince you about that.

Is it really realistic that an exchange would control like 51% of tokens?

Again, you can find some historical signs related to that. Both collecting 51% coin supply and reaching 51% computing power happened on Bitcoin, but we recovered from that. If we would have Proof of Stake, then our coin would be already gone.

I mean in Bitcoin it is also the rich people who control more hashing power.

In Bitcoin, you have whales, and you have large miners. It is possible to have a large miner with a lot of coins, but because those two functions are clearly separated, getting more coins won't give you more power, unless you consider speculation. Another thing is that some people have 50 BTC coins from the early blocks, but they mined it long time ago on their CPUs. If today they don't own a lot of mining equipment, they cannot just use their past coins to rule Bitcoin, because it is based on Proof of Work, not Proof of Stake, so signing huge amounts is not affecting the chain rules directly.

[BusinessChain]

Yes but this was in the early days.
I am assuming a mature system here like a system with a market cap of a trillion. It is not likely that one entity would control half of that, right?

[tadamichi]

Yeah but who is to say that it is easy for a single entity to gain control over a large amount of tokens? I don't quite see that.

I would argue, that it’s not just easy, but the natural state most PoS chains will develop into, if no further measures are taken.

Let’s take ethereum for example:

In a PoS network only the validators can create new blocks, and thus rake in transaction fees and newly created coins. The more coins you stake, the more rewards you will collect.

There’s a gate on becoming a validator, you will need 32 eth for this, something most people can’t ever reach. To get around this, you will need to get inside staking pools, but they will take parts of the profit and you have to give up self custody and centralized pools will control a huge amount of coins, while getting paid for it. People with 32 eth don’t have this disadvantage, they earn more with less risk.

Then there’s mechanisms like EIP-1559 which burns coins in circulation, that disproportionately favor older holders who don’t move their coins, making their relative stake bigger automatically over time.

Now imagine a combination of burning an amount of coins from people who do transactions, and giving out new coins to a small amount of people that have enough capital to stake and just let their coins sit there. This is the worst combination of deflation + inflation, if you wanna keep the distribution fair and healthy.

Which creates one result: more and more concentration of wealth at the top, hardcoded inside, large holders are disproportionately favored to get more coins automatically over time, while newbies get punished to even use the chain and loose more and more relative stake over time. It’s not really a question if a small group gets 51%, but when.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
And note this is just one example, check out the other thread for a deeper analysis on everything.

We even don't have that in the Fiat world.

The top 10% of fiat whales own 76% of the worlds wealth.

[n0nce]

Yes but this was in the early days.
I am assuming a mature system here like a system with a market cap of a trillion. It is not likely that one entity would control half of that, right?

Well, first of all the largest PoS market cap is in the dozens of billions; not in the trillions.
Even the potentially soon (don't believe so myself) largest market cap coin, Ethereum, is at right around $150 billion. Still a good way off a trillion dollars. On the other hand, that's also a lot of money and still the founders hold more than half of it.

So especially in any coin where the initial supply was not mined, but just allocated by the developers and then sold on the market, there is a high probability that half of it sits in the founders' hands, no matter how valuable it becomes, because that lets them keep all of the decision power.


Even if it seems practically infeasible, there's no denying that it's always going to be simpler quickly buying and selling some digital tokens (that's what all this is about, right) than buying, setting up, powering, disassembling and selling a ton of hardware that doesn't even exist. So sure; with huge market caps, it becomes expensive to buy 51% of tokens. But the very fact that it's going to be much harder to buy half of the world's SHA256 ASICs automatically makes PoW the logical choice for me.

I also believe this is part of what is right now being discussed in [Megathread] The long-known PoW vs. PoS debate, so opening another thread about the same question was kind of stupid to begin with.

[edgycorner]

Yes but this was in the early days.
I am assuming a mature system here like a system with a market cap of a trillion. It is not likely that one entity would control half of that, right?

No coin has a trillion market cap. Even bitcoin is at 400B, followed by ETH at 150B and then rest of the shitcoins below 100B

Usually, you just have to gain 50% of the staked coins to disrupt the network. Due to how most of the models work, people stake in groups (or pools). This is where centralization comes.

[pooya87]

I am a proof of work believer, because it garanties decentralization on the hardware level (layer 1).

That's not exactly correct. The PoW mining algorithm ensures that you have to make a dedicated investment that you can't get rid of that easily in order to gain a "vote" in the system. Whether it ends up being decentralized or not depends on a lot of factors like distribution of miners.
If the algorithm alone ensured decentralization then all the altcoins that use PoW and are centralized (like BCH, ETH, BSV, ...) would have been decentralized!

So what then is the drawback of PoS or is there something that I miss?

You should read that other topic for full details but the two biggest and easiest to understand ones are: premines (which most altcoins including ETH have) and exchanges (which always hold a large sum of each altcoin).

Is it realistic that a single entity reaches control over 51% of the coins?

Yes, it happened on Bitcoin in the past, you don't have to take my word on that: there are some topics about it, and there are some traces in the blockchain, that can convince you about that.

Not exactly though. There was mining pool that never "controlled" the hashrate, they just happen to have a lot of miners connect to their servers who actually went away very quickly when the pool's total hashrate surpassed 51%.

[LegendaryK]

I am a proof of work believer, because it garanties decentralization on the hardware level (layer 1).
This is not inherently the case in PoS because its consensus algorithm is not dependant on any scarce real world ressource, provided it does not require a huge amount of memory to run a full node.
In this case I would expect that with a decent amount of miners, a PoS network should still be very decentralized, because it would be very unlikely that coincidentally all miners were geografically colocated.
This assumes that the protocol would not support delegated PoS because there it is obvious that it is more centralized.

So what then is the drawback of PoS or is there something that I miss?

Proof of Work guarantees nothing, it is merely an overly wasteful way to secure a crypto.
I suggest looking at the mining pool operators , these are the real guardians of the BTC PoW coins,
as all it takes is the top 4 mining pool operators to collude and a 51% attack can occur anytime they wish.
Would the miners switch after the attack, yes, but only after, not before and not in time to stop it.
So all of btc wasted energy security is really only secured by 4 guys, mining pools centralized btc security.
https://www.investopedia.com/tech/are-large-mining-pools-bad-cryptocurrencies/

Cons of Mining Pools
Centralization and Control: As discussed previously, mining pools and farms bring cryptocurrency into a centralized validation and creation process.

Many PoS coins have more security coded into their allowance of pools than anything btc has,
and they are more decentralized and more secure because of it.

I suggest looking at the reality of the top 12 crypto coins, and notice that BTC is the only PoW coin.
PoW tech is dead on arrival , as due to energy shortages it is becoming more unsustainable by the day.

Instead of falling into the nonsense of thinking something is flawed in PoS.
Try and decide how will the flaws in PoW be prevented.

1. How will BTC , PoW function, when the rolling blackouts are daily,
and the politicians ban PoW because they need the energy so people can heat / cool their homes, or hospitals have enough power for surgeries.
* China already started a PoW mining ban, Iran just imposed a mining ban even on their licensed BTC miners,
* Most of Europe will be having rolling blackouts in less than 3 months,
* The US is on the verge of the entire southwest & Midwest having rolling backouts.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/bitcoins-intensive-energy-demands-spark-a-crypto-backlash

The enormous energy demands of Bitcoin mining are prompting some U.S. municipalities to impose moratoriums or outright bans on cryptocurrency facilities.
Bitcoin mining activity, critics warn, is leading to electricity price hikes and a revival of dirtier sources of power.
Miners seek cheap energy to maximize their profits, but their energy-intensive activities typically drive electricity costs up for everyone.
The United States is now home to 40 percent of the world’s crypto-mining business, with one-quarter of that in Texas.
Almost all cryptocurrency currencies are mined with proof-of-stake right now.
“Bitcoin,” Read says, “is cryptocurrency’s Model T.”

The time of plenty is ending, and the wastefulness of PoW can not be allowed for much longer.

Now a BTC religious fanatic will just cry fud and ignore the reality that is unfolding,
a thinking man will start to wonder how can PoW survive if the utilities can barely keep the power on.
A thinking man will also realize, that PoS networks can survive with so little energy, that they could function as secure as before and run off laptops with nothing more than solar powered backups.
And if the thinking man thought the above, he realize that is the reason that every smart developer is moving to PoS to avoid the flaws in PoW that can not be fixed.

The only thing left for you to decide is are you a thinking man or a btc cult member and you have the answer to your question.

[tadamichi]

The time of plenty is ending, and the wastefulness of PoW can not be allowed for much longer.

Now a BTC religious fanatic will just cry fud and ignore the reality that is unfolding,
a thinking man will start to wonder how can PoW survive if the utilities can barely keep the power on.
A thinking man will also realize, that PoS networks can survive with so little energy, that they could function as secure as before and run off laptops with nothing more than solar powered backups.
And if the thinking man thought the above, he realize that is the reason that every smart developer is moving to PoS to avoid the flaws in PoW that can not be fixed.

The only thing left for you to decide is are you a thinking man or a btc cult member and you have the answer to your question.

A harder thinking man knows the sun, wind, hydro, volcanoes, nuclear reactors, oil, coal, heat, gas won’t vanish overnight worldwide, and doesn’t buy into doomsday hysteria by people who have financial interests to sell inferior, centralized forms of money or political propaganda. And that the network still subsidizes miners with 6,25 Bitcoin(125.000€, can be more if we reach higher levels again) every Block(around 10 minutes) to keep their operations running.

A harder thinking man knows that a flawed consensus mechanism, can’t provide security or consensus, as well as PoW. And that all of these arguments already got debunked objectively, and got silenced in the other thread.

A harder thinking man knows that it’s never smart to base decisions around, how many people are doing something, especially if this decision gives them more power and profits, and is also done to virtue signal to some corrupt politicians.

If your decision is based on doomsday fears, following the herd and debunked assumptions, doesn’t this sound a little more cultist?

// Edit:
Another short question, if PoS is so unstoppable, so where is luna now? How many times was solana down already? What if your hypothetical energy doomsday  brings down cloud severs and 65% of Ethereums nodes?

[garlonicon]

An exchange control 51% coins? Not realistic

Why not? The whole coin supply is not mined instantly, so you don't need to get more than 10.5 million coins to get 51%. If there is one million mined, then you need only 500k. Another thing is that you don't need even 500k, having a majority of the total trading volume could be sufficient to rule Proof of Stake network. And as far as I know, it happened also on Bitcoin, with some exchanges like MtGox, when they controlled a lot of coins. You can even see such arguments in the mentioned long topic about PoW vs PoS:

Why "economy"? It is limiting the definition. I'd say the network as a whole not just the economy. For example the "economy" was centralized back in 2013 when there was one major bitcoin exchange (MtGox) controlling more than 85% of the total trading volume and it was manipulating the market. Yet bitcoin was still decentralized.

[DaveF]

Also, keep in mind if you are staking your coins there is usually a cost of time and effort to unstake them. Or if you are using a centralized service there can be other costs.
AND if for wherever reason you are disconnected from the network there may be penalties and so on.
If your mining pool goes offline most mining equipment has the ability to add multiple pools so you don't loose that much.
If your preferred mining pool starts supporting proposals you don't like you can change pools.
And so on.

-Dave

[LegendaryK]

Another short question, if PoS is so unstoppable, so where is luna now? How many times was solana down already? What if your hypothetical energy doomsday  brings down cloud severs and 65% of Ethereums nodes?

If PoW is so unstopable , where are your new coins using it?

Please provide a list of all the new ones created since 2020.  

And what is your plan again to stop the future PoW mining bans, since you claim to know more than the majority of crypto developers.


By the way , here is a list of news articles of what you call my doomsday fears.  
https://www.ft.com/content/8a29b412-348d-4f73-8af4-1f38e69f28cf

EU should ban energy-intensive mode of crypto mining, regulator says

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Europe-Faces-Rolling-Blackouts-Amid-Energy-Crisis.html

Europe Faces Rolling Blackouts Amid Energy Crisis

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/19/us/blackouts-summer-heat-extreme-weather/index.html

Blackouts possible this summer due to heat and extreme weather, officials warn

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/experts-warn-of-summer-energy-blackouts-during-bidens-green-transition/

Experts Warn of Summer Energy Blackouts

https://singularityhub.com/2022/06/08/as-power-grids-get-more-unstable-should-we-slow-the-renewables-roll/

Summer Could Bring Rolling Blackouts as Power Grids Get More Unstable

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/cubans-sweat-dark-government-scrambles-end-blackouts-2022-06-22/

Cubans sweat in the dark as government scrambles to end blackouts

https://www.cityam.com/millions-of-uk-households-could-face-blackouts-this-winter-due-to-war-in-ukraine/

Millions of UK households could face blackouts this winter due to war in Ukraine

https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/could-arizona-be-at-risk-for-rolling-blackouts-this-summer-asu-expert-weighs-in

Could Arizona be at risk for rolling blackouts this summer? ASU expert weighs in

https://www.kake.com/story/46761964/energy-prices-are-causing-chaos-in-asia-heres-why-the-rest-of-the-world-should-worry

Energy prices are causing chaos in Asia. Here's why the rest of the world should worry

https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/utility-official-expects-energy-crunch-to-continue-for-years-with-possible-rolling-blackouts/article_06958cf4-f26b-11ec-bb0f-17e4c3828d51.html

Utility official expects energy crunch to continue for years, with possible rolling blackouts

Sarcasm:
Nice to know tadamichi is smarter than the entire rest of the world, and while he wears his pink tutu riding his purple unicorn around the country side claim the above reality is fud.

But sadly for all of us who are not medicated into stupidity , have to live in the real world with real energy supply issues.
In that world , there is a reason, their are NO new PoW coins, and PoS tech is thriving across the majority of coins.
 

What if your hypothetical energy doomsday brings down cloud severs and 65% of Ethereums nodes?

Your confusion at how much energy is required to run a node and how much is required to run a warehouse full of ASICS is borderline ignorant.
If there is even 1 hour per day of utility power, it is very easy to store enough power to run a node for days,
ie: eco delta plus => https://us.ecoflow.com/ , and that is even without using solar to completely bypass the grid.

Companies like amazon cloud have backup power systems to keep their stuff running in case of utility power failure.
Your ASICS warehouses draw such an insane amount of power , that trying to have a backup power system for anything over 15 minutes utterly destroys any profit margin.
Which is why you don't see any BTC miners running off nothing but solar in the desert and using batteries to run the other 19 hours of the day when solar is below peak efficiency. They literally can't afford it.
Even being on utility power PoW Miners are in the hole below $28K, so without constant free Venture Capital (which is drying up) to keep them afloat, look for more miners to sell all of their btc before their bankruptcies this fall.  
The only real question is will the BTC PoW miners go broke and death spiral the btc network before the Governments can permaban PoW mining and death spiral the BTC network.  Either way you are going to see BTC in a death spiral , if BTC maintains PoW as it's choice for consensus.


While PoW is awaiting a deathspiral, from bankruptcy or Government Bans,
PoS continues to evolve , not really caring what happens with PoW death.
https://www.gemini.com/cryptopedia/proof-of-stake-delegated-proof-of-stake-consensus-mechanism

Varieties of Proof of Stake: LPoS, PPoS, HPoS, PoV
There are several variations of Proof-of-Stake, each with its own solution to achieve effective, resource-efficient network governance.

Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus mechanisms were designed to address inefficiencies inherent in conventional Proof-of-Work (PoW) protocols. Instead of relying on crypto mining, PoS blockchains use nodes selected based on their stake of platform tokens to verify and record transactions. The majority of new blockchain projects use some form of PoS consensus mechanism, as it is significantly more scalable, flexible, and environmentally friendly than PoW iterations.

Funny how every sane person can realize the superiority of Proof of Stake, but all a btc cultist can see is fud.  

https://fortune.com/2021/05/27/ethereum-founder-vitalik-buterin-proof-of-stake-environment-carbon/

Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin says long-awaited shift to ‘proof-of-stake’ could solve environmental woes

https://www.stilt.com/blog/2021/10/what-is-cardano/

Another popular and unique feature is Cardano’s proof-of-stake consensus protocol which is designed to reduce energy expenditure during the block production process.
This protocol includes an infinitely scalable consensus mechanism.
Cardano’s energy efficiency and ability to scale makes mining easy and ensures quick transaction times on the platform.
With Cardano, you can send and receive funds instantly with minimal transaction fees applying.

Want to compare PoW verses PoS transaction fees.
Bitcoin PoW peak transaction fee $54 , while Cardano PoS peak transaction fee of $2.85 .
https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-average-transaction-fees-lowest-in-two-years-at-1-04

Bitcoin’s average transaction fees peaked in December 2017, standing at $54.638.
The sudden spike in the transaction fees at the time mirrored the significant decline in the Bitcoin network hash rate.

https://messari.io/asset/cardano/chart/txn-fee-avg

Average Transaction Fees on 06/19/2022
$0.17

Want to compare transaction performance of PoW BTC against PoS Cardano.
Bitcoin processes 4.6 transactions per second.
Cardano currently processes approximately 250 transactions per second , and is going to increase in the future.
Cardano is over 54 times the transaction capacity of btc.

If after reading the above, you can't understand why PoS is superior to PoW,
well my friend you make an excellent btc cultist, and why should we let reality interfere with your fantasy Delusions.  

[tadamichi]

If PoW is so unstopable , where are your new coins using it?

Let’s just go trough the process of creating a new coin.

If we try to choose PoW, then it’s way harder to produce actual hash power(especially on a new network), than it is to stake some artificial newly created coins. Hash power is limited worldwide, it’s always a competition with Bitcoin indirectly for it, which makes it almost impossible. (But sorry ik you won’t accept actual reasons)

Now what we’re seeing in reality is that many founders don’t go trough the hassle of choosing PoW, they just pick PoS instead(not the only reason).

The irony is that even when they chose PoS for their altcoin, we still have cases where founders and devs just cash out on their altcoin and then go into Bitcoin. Are they cultists too?

Please provide a list of all the new ones created since 2020.  

I cant wait to see your face, when there’s serious merged mining projects coming out.

And what is your plan again to stop the future PoW mining bans

We won’t put energy into stopping plans, we’ll just keep mining, as always.

since you claim to know more than the majority of crypto developers.

I never claimed this, but idk how knowing someone would matter.

By the way , here is a list of news articles of what you call my doomsday fears.  
https://www.ft.com/content/8a29b412-348d-4f73-8af4-1f38e69f28cf

EU should ban energy-intensive mode of crypto mining, regulator says

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Europe-Faces-Rolling-Blackouts-Amid-Energy-Crisis.html

Europe Faces Rolling Blackouts Amid Energy Crisis

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/19/us/blackouts-summer-heat-extreme-weather/index.html

Blackouts possible this summer due to heat and extreme weather, officials warn

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/experts-warn-of-summer-energy-blackouts-during-bidens-green-transition/

Experts Warn of Summer Energy Blackouts

https://singularityhub.com/2022/06/08/as-power-grids-get-more-unstable-should-we-slow-the-renewables-roll/

Summer Could Bring Rolling Blackouts as Power Grids Get More Unstable

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/cubans-sweat-dark-government-scrambles-end-blackouts-2022-06-22/

Cubans sweat in the dark as government scrambles to end blackouts

https://www.cityam.com/millions-of-uk-households-could-face-blackouts-this-winter-due-to-war-in-ukraine/

Millions of UK households could face blackouts this winter due to war in Ukraine

https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/could-arizona-be-at-risk-for-rolling-blackouts-this-summer-asu-expert-weighs-in

Could Arizona be at risk for rolling blackouts this summer? ASU expert weighs in

https://www.kake.com/story/46761964/energy-prices-are-causing-chaos-in-asia-heres-why-the-rest-of-the-world-should-worry

Energy prices are causing chaos in Asia. Here's why the rest of the world should worry

https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/utility-official-expects-energy-crunch-to-continue-for-years-with-possible-rolling-blackouts/article_06958cf4-f26b-11ec-bb0f-17e4c3828d51.html

Utility official expects energy crunch to continue for years, with possible rolling blackouts

Im not a psychologist, but i appreciate that you have enough faith in me, to reveal your mental state. I can arrange you a session.

Your confusion at how much energy is required to run a node and how much is required to run a warehouse full of ASICS is borderline ignorant.

Centralization will be your bigger threat, energy can simply be purchased or produced. Ban or no ban, there’s enough corrupt governments that mining will never vanish, even in the most extreme unrealistic scenarios.

While PoW is awaiting a deathspiral, from bankruptcy or Government Bans,

If you’re really decentralized you don’t gotta be afraid/ bend over to governments, centralized projects might be concerned and should switch their consensus mechanisms.

Want to compare transaction performance of PoW BTC against PoS Cardano.
Bitcoin processes 4.6 transactions per second.
Cardano currently processes approximately 250 transactions per second , and is going to increase in the future.
Cardano is over 54 times the transaction capacity of btc.

I do, Bitcoin decided to scale in layers to stay decentralized. There it outscales cardano by a lot. Lightning has more than 80.000 channels at the moment, each channel can do 500 transactions per second. Which gives it a theoretical troughput of 40.000.000 transactions per second. Someone correct me if I’m wrong or something changed.

[edgycorner]

Another short question, if PoS is so unstoppable, so where is luna now? How many times was solana down already? What if your hypothetical energy doomsday  brings down cloud severs and 65% of Ethereums nodes?

If PoW is so unstopable , where are your new coins using it?

Maybe because the creators don't want the coin to be decentralized? FYI, most of the crypto ventures are infested with scummy people.

And what is your plan again to stop the future PoW mining bans, since you claim to know more than the majority of crypto developers.

Mining bans happen in authoritarian states. Not in civilized countries with sensible people in government that knows about carbon taxation :p The problem isn't with the "use", it's about how you "source" your energy. Banning xyz, isn't an answer to climate change.

[n0nce]

Thanks for your time tadamichi; I don't currently have the time to argue with LegendaryK on two different threads and go into each of his points one by one (even though I've done so in the past).

If PoW is so unstopable , where are your new coins using it?

Let’s just go trough the process of creating a new coin.

If we try to choose PoW, then it’s way harder to produce actual hash power(especially on a new network), than it is to stake some artificial newly created coins. Hash power is limited worldwide, it’s always a competition with Bitcoin indirectly for it, which makes it almost impossible. (But sorry ik you won’t accept actual reasons)

This is the most important point he doesn't seem to understand.
Being hard to create a new PoW coin from scratch and getting people to point hashpower at it, is obviously a strength for Bitcoin. Not a downside.

How can it be good if you have a consensus mechanism that allows to freely pump out shitcoin after shitcoin, with no effort or costs? How does that make them valuable? It doesn't. In fact, it makes them less valuable. If there were 10 PoW coins, each with decent hashpower going into them, it could be argued that Bitcoin would have more competition and thus lower value.

Another point that he doesn't seem to understand about his sacred CoinMarketCap top 10 list, is that while only 2 or 3 coins are PoW, it doesn't mean that there are 7 or 8 PoS coins in there.
Last time I counted, less than half were PoS actually, since there was a token and Tether which has neither consensus mechanism and is centrally issued and controlled.

Now what we’re seeing in reality is that many founders don’t go trough the hassle of choosing PoW, they just pick PoS instead(not the only reason).

Exactly; it's easy and cheap to pump out PoS coins. There literally is no cost. Maybe get a developer to download another coin's codebase off GitHub and change the project name and there you have a new PoS coin. Just like that, it will pump out a block every X minutes, without anyone doing anything. This is the definition of basically Monopoly money. Even if nobody would stake, with no risks and no chances of slashing or anything like that, blocks would be produced and coins would be issued. How can that be a good thing?

[PrimeNumber7]

In this case I would expect that with a decent amount of miners, a PoS network should still be very decentralized, because it would be very unlikely that coincidentally all miners were geografically colocated.

First of all note that there is no miner in a POS cryptocurrency. Instead, people need to stake their coins.
In a POS cryptocurrency, people with more coins can have more power and since a significant percentage of the coins are usually owned by a few number of people, they can have full control over the network and make the coin centralized.

You can make this same argument about miners regarding a PoW coin.

The reason why PoS is inferior to PoW is the ease of going from a coin holder to a miner, and vice versa.

A PoS holder could potentially become a miner, sell their coin via a derivative contract, do something malicious as a miner, and close out their derivative contract. If a PoS miner has a way to do harm to the network, they can do so without any cost to them.

OTOH, a PoW holder would need to purchase mining equipment, and it is not trivial to convert a PoW miner back into the underlying coin quickly. This means that a PoW miner who does something to harm the network would have losses from the value of their mining equipment, and the malicious party would have no way to hedge against these losses.

[pooya87]

An exchange control 51% coins? Not realistic, but could be realistic if few exchange and the foundation worked together. It happened once on STEEM network, although i don't know whether STEEM network match your definition of fully mature system.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you don't need to stake 51% of the total supply, but only to stake enough compared to the total amount that was staked by others. Not everyone would stake their PoS coins, many would just store it in their wallets, there are some lost coins, etc. making the needed amount far less than 51% of total supply.
Most PoS coins already have a low stake ratio and those with high ones (70%-80%) have a huge premine which if removed brings the ratio to less than 20%.

[mindrust]

I am a proof of work believer, because it garanties decentralization on the hardware level (layer 1).
This is not inherently the case in PoS because its consensus algorithm is not dependant on any scarce real world ressource, provided it does not require a huge amount of memory to run a full node.
In this case I would expect that with a decent amount of miners, a PoS network should still be very decentralized, because it would be very unlikely that coincidentally all miners were geografically colocated.
This assumes that the protocol would not support delegated PoS because there it is obvious that it is more centralized.

So what then is the drawback of PoS or is there something that I miss?

PoS is the same thing as the legacy banking. Those who own the majority of the shares can do whatever they want. It is energy efficient that's true though. It is the only good feature over PoW. ETH was trying to combine both PoS and PoW. I don't know which stage they are in now but you should have an eye on ETH imo.

[LegendaryK]

You got to love how hard BTC cultist fight to maintain their own personal delusions.
They claim PoW tech is the greatest, and yet can't point to any new PoW coins since 2020,
and even have the further gall to now claim that is a strength.  

Totally ignore the fact the entire world is heading into an energy crunch,
news articles & government sources, all of that is fud to the btc cultists.

The fact they point to an offchain solution as a way to increase onchain transaction capacity,
should make how delusional they are stand out.
One could point out that offchain solutions will fail, if the onchain is too jammed up to process transactions,
but the btc cultist sees only rainbows while riding their purple unicorn.

The stupidity of thinking Merge Mining will provide extra life to the BTC PoW party,  
Look at Namecoin (the first merged mined coin), to see how well merge mining with BTC works out.
Namecoin is now rank 588 on cmk, and all you see for it's news feed is No recent news for Namecoin.
Becoming a token on ethereum (evolving to PoS) has more benefits than jumping onto a dying PoW tech.
At least your token could take advantage of the smart contract system of ethereum.
 

Code:

How to raise a btc cultist blood pressure?
Tell them once BTC PoW mining is permanently banned by local governments, 
they could become just another token on the Ethereum PoS network.  :D :D :D

[PrimeNumber7]

You got to love how hard BTC cultist fight to maintain their own personal delusions.
They claim PoW tech is the greatest, and yet can't point to any new PoW coins since 2020,
and even have the further gall to now claim that is a strength. 

Totally ignore the fact the entire world is heading into an energy crunch,
news articles & government sources, all of that is fud to the btc cultists.

I invite you to respond to my specific criticisms in my above post.

The “energy crisis” was caused by Biden’s election, and his subsequent attacks on energy.

[definevalue]

I am a proof of work believer, because it garanties decentralization on the hardware level (layer 1).
This is not inherently the case in PoS because its consensus algorithm is not dependant on any scarce real world ressource, provided it does not require a huge amount of memory to run a full node.
In this case I would expect that with a decent amount of miners, a PoS network should still be very decentralized, because it would be very unlikely that coincidentally all miners were geografically colocated.
This assumes that the protocol would not support delegated PoS because there it is obvious that it is more centralized.

So what then is the drawback of PoS or is there something that I miss?

Lets start with the very beginning. Where is this PoS Node most likely going to be hosted at? Generally speaking people flock right to Google, AWS, Oracle or what is the last one... Azure or something microsofts. Now I hate to say this guys but if you take the time and maybe read a Privacy Policy or Terms of Service once in a while. Specifically for where your going to be hosting essentially a reliable 24/7 Node that has potential millions of dollars in crypto in it that is validating transactions. Your going to be damn sure they'll be utilizing that data and harvesting up them Sheeples Crypto Finances and trying you directly to what was suppose to be Anonymous in the first place. I read some cool cryptic things a few years back on those Satoshi Genesis blocks. It was about how we should be using the power of anonmity to its fullest.

I've come to realize actually back in 2010 when I played with crypto a bit heavier it wasn't to hard to actually keep myself confidently ANON in the internet space. However realisitically I've come to realize that those 500 different bitcoin addresses I used that is tied to my cell phone bill with that front facing camera pretty much defeated the entire purpose of the anonimity sides of things right there. However I was more intersted in the P2P and trading. I've been working on that How-To guide for the everyday non technical user who doesn't really care to research deep into it he just wants the 3 links and short paragraph on how-to maybe one day i'll actually get it out there on medium. Right now though I am currently trying to prepare for that ETH2.0 switch by prepping up a LOCAL-FULL Node built using hardware I bought direct from the manufacturer. Reason being with this is well just research a pre-OS bootkit or something and what they're capable of doing and how easy they are to put into your ''plug-and-play'' machines. I wholesaled out 30GPU mining units ready to go just missing GPU's and go figure I had to go into every single one and securely erase all of those sata drives.

 I also firmly believe that PoW is the Go-To way and this POS hype Go green is a bunch of bullshit just to get your Data in fewer an fewer datacenters. To be honest the only reason why bitcoin started gaining traction in value is the cost in electricty that we the miners were consuming on a fiat level to obtain those bitcoins. So being said on a financal blockchain in todays ''mining economy'' its hard for any country to really honestly compete with the production of BITCOIN ASIC mining devices & chips at the rate which CHINA is producing them profiting from them and than reselling them to those drop shippers who are now handing those down to you the consumer. By then the difficulty has already surpassed what the consumer now has in his hand for an ASIC MACHINE. This was bitcoins glorified 'ponzu' tactic point me in a direction for a local manufacturer that can help me mass produce gerber files get me asic reels and print me out some boards at a rate thats cheaper then china(seriously I will pay a finder fee) So Proof-of-Stake can work but I can point out where 95% of those POS nodes are centrally hosted at one of them being Lido.fi which is unfortuante for me to say cuz i'm not in any DAO platforms but would be the one I would look into if I was not so stubborn on having my own local node rather as a hand on developer myself I can see my own products floushing from a node that I supported. For the services I will be building both as a freelancer and blockchain visionary myself.

Those are just my 2 satoshi's on the PoW & PoS designs. I am looking for friendly coders, visionaries and cool people who want to be apart of a private EVM multichain that will be utilizing A Proof-of-Authority & a Proof-of-Work chain that will have some game-changing things designed for mass adoption and transparency that we need. If your looking for something fun to work on voluntarily and get involed in a already small and tight knit group feel free to DM me.

In this case I would expect that with a decent amount of miners, a PoS network should still be very decentralized, because it would be very unlikely that coincidentally all miners were geografically colocated.

First of all note that there is no miner in a POS cryptocurrency. Instead, people need to stake their coins.
In a POS cryptocurrency, people with more coins can have more power and since a significant percentage of the coins are usually owned by a few number of people, they can have full control over the network and make the coin centralized.

Read above I did forget to add though one thing I am a fan of Cardano and how they did their PoS nodes the whole voting for this dudes node or that ones node to be the on validating and getting the bonus APR rate for hosting said node to me nah fuck that. Also I did like the security of Cardano using relay nodes to keeep your Crypto stake just that much safer. The only downside though is what this will do in the long run for those few people hosting these nodes letting that crypto just continiously compound is well.. Creating Whales LOL so avoiding centralization to be 100% genuinely honest is Somewhere inbetween how Monero is doing it and Ethereum ? Yet I mean why does that really matter at this point? Bitcoin is and always will remain KING of crypto and the reason being is it was the first and how did all these alt-coins and chains raise their funds you can't exactly call up a bank and be like hey guys can you wire this fiat money into this encrypted blockchain and get me out X of this crypto... right...... Bitcoin started with a value of nothing this forums traded it and turned it into a usable currency which those shepards who learned how to build blockchains themselves really knew how to go out and collect them all up. So rather then a bunch of nerds swapping BTC for FPGA boards or some cool digital game items without that risk of chargebacks extra fees and we did it Peer-2-Peer without that third party getting involved to get a cut. How Or that international wire payment costing $200 extra to send on top of high shipping costs already.

So you guys tell me with Machine Learning an Artifical Intelligencee right around the corner which I have played around with enough to know that I will be hosting my Nodes locally and you'll be damn straight I will also be offering it to my own community with some transparency on what I will be using your Data that you are giving me so I can do some high frequency automated trading on that data I am getting SO much faster just because its sitting in my local network. Okay now that I've said my peace here hopefully the fewe who read what I said can give me some constructive crisitism on my point of view or perhaps get some solid Degen bois to help me finish building this out. I'll be going for the business loan after july 14th The S-corp opened on the first of janurary and as a blockchain freelancer i've already made a 100k profit in this first quarter alone. Hopefully I can get it but I still highly doubt it EVEN though banks use encryption to send those wires abroad they still cant figure out the differnce between that paper-backed  digital dollar and that encrypted digital ''coin'' to allow me to get a business loan out since it is "too volatitle" haha well cool thanks sorry I grew up poor as fuck and just dont have the quarter million I've estimatd this entire struture to get the proper wholesale costs to solo mine the most profitable altcoin to exchange for bitcoin to HODL like a mofo while hosting my super cool ass bitcoin node on a few different devices.

You got to love how hard BTC cultist fight to maintain their own personal delusions.
They claim PoW tech is the greatest, and yet can't point to any new PoW coins since 2020,
and even have the further gall to now claim that is a strength. 

Totally ignore the fact the entire world is heading into an energy crunch,
news articles & government sources, all of that is fud to the btc cultists.

I invite you to respond to my specific criticisms in my above post.

The “energy crisis” was caused by Biden’s election, and his subsequent attacks on energy.

Read above and I would like to invite you on my logic that isn't political in anyway? I'm just using what I guess comse to me as common sense politics are for smucks. Your in crypto bro you of all people should know fuck the government its not even worth discussion.

[definevalue]

You got to love how hard BTC cultist fight to maintain their own personal delusions.
They claim PoW tech is the greatest, and yet can't point to any new PoW coins since 2020,
and even have the further gall to now claim that is a strength. 

Totally ignore the fact the entire world is heading into an energy crunch,
news articles & government sources, all of that is fud to the btc cultists.

The fact they point to an offchain solution as a way to increase onchain transaction capacity,
should make how delusional they are stand out.
One could point out that offchain solutions will fail, if the onchain is too jammed up to process transactions,
but the btc cultist sees only rainbows while riding their purple unicorn.

The stupidity of thinking Merge Mining will provide extra life to the BTC PoW party, 
Look at Namecoin (the first merged mined coin), to see how well merge mining with BTC works out.
Namecoin is now rank 588 on cmk, and all you see for it's news feed is No recent news for Namecoin.
Becoming a token on ethereum (evolving to PoS) has more benefits than jumping onto a dying PoW tech.
At least your token could take advantage of the smart contract system of ethereum.
 

Code:

How to raise a btc cultist blood pressure?
Tell them once BTC PoW mining is permanently banned by local governments, 
they could become just another token on the Ethereum PoS network.  :D :D :D

And this is sheeple logic in my opinion that will be a benefit to the shepard for some human data-chain farming. I mean eventually getting that prized goverening currrency backd by some ink and paper called the dollar down to a value of near nothing before the nuclear fall-out happens. Lets take a look into ZIL and one other popular merge mined coin which I have absolutely have killed it on taking profits with both. Just because one of them namecoin failed because of something lacking in something I don't think it had anything to do with merged mining look at dogecoin ya dumzo what did that merge mine with and then eventually surpassed 10fold over a very notorious and troll of a sheep herder except that asshat got his finger up the governments ass and got some nice contracts to make sure he was getting his paychecks lol. I bet if that same tweeter twatting sociopath gave a shoutout on namecoin and why he thought it was better even though its most likely not actively being developed on updated or anything you'll get a 150% hike or more but now were getting into a zone that i'm going to take a step back and wait.

█▄█ █▀█ █░█ ▀ █▀█ █▀▀   █▀▀ █▄░█ ▀█▀ █▀▀ █▀█ █ █▄░█ █▀▀   ▄▀█ █▄░█                   _-'-_     
░█░ █▄█ █▄█ ░ █▀▄ ██▄   ██▄ █░▀█ ░█░ ██▄ █▀▄ █ █░▀█ █▄█   █▀█ █░▀█                   /     \
                                                                                                                                                                   |       |
█▀▀ ▀▄▀ █▀█ █▀▀ █▀█ █ █▀▄▀█ █▀▀ █▄░█ ▀█▀ ▄▀█ █░░   ▄▀█ █▀█ █▀▀ ▄▀█   _______|______|________
██▄ █░█ █▀▀ ██▄ █▀▄ █ █░▀░█ ██▄ █░▀█ ░█░ █▀█ █▄▄   █▀█ █▀▄ ██▄ █▀█

[tadamichi]

You got to love how hard BTC cultist fight to maintain their own personal delusions.
They claim PoW tech is the greatest, and yet can't point to any new PoW coins since 2020,
and even have the further gall to now claim that is a strength.  

As your therapist:

Projection is a type of psychological defense mechanism. When people project, they identify their negative emotions, beliefs, or traits in someone else. People project to protect themselves from uncomfortable inner conflict and anxiety, but the behavior can interfere with all types of relationships and situations. While difficult, it’s possible to stop projecting and interact with others in healthier ways.

I seeked help from my colleagues that actually have their degrees, it seems like you’re projecting your own cultist tendencies onto us. It could be that the threat of falling into irrelevance of any altcoin, combined with your inability to evaluate different projects(because lack of knowledge + denial, makes it hard to understand complexity), makes you anxious, about the choices you made. The basis of your conclusions resembled a cult member more strongly(decoupled from facts & reality).

And now you’re looking for confirmation bias to keep your vulnerable inner self in balance. Anyone who doubts this narrative needs to be bashed now. Now don’t worry, seeking a therapist was the first step for betterment(but maybe you should choose an a actual therapist next time).

Totally ignore the fact the entire world is heading into an energy crunch,
news articles & government sources, all of that is fud to the btc cultists.

We’re not aliens, we’re paying rising energy prices too. But you’re  making an assumption out of this, that temporary energy shortage = death of PoW forever. Which is not the case, especially if you’re actually decentralized and your subsidizes are worth a lot(they’re probably worth more than many altcoins). And you understand how governments work.

PoW works on the basis that no entity can control the majority of the worlds energy, if the world will have less energy to use for some time, it’s fine for the network to loose some hashrate. It will still be just enough to secure the network, in relation to the worlds energy supply. It would actually mean that PoW is adjusting accordingly. That’s what the difficulty adjustment is for. Bitcoin adapts to the real world without us interfering, as intended.

Creating some worthless solution that is detached from reality, won’t solve what Bitcoin can solve, it will run into other problems, when it’s not energy. In our next therapy session we will work on accepting that every solution has tradeoffs, solving 1 problem, but breaking 10 other things in return, doesn’t indicate superiority.

The fact they point to an offchain solution as a way to increase onchain transaction capacity,
should make how delusional they are stand out.
One could point out that offchain solutions will fail, if the onchain is too jammed up to process transactions,
but the btc cultist sees only rainbows while riding their purple unicorn.

You only need the on-chain to open or close channels, you can keep it open for a long time. Maybe you should also checkout what the mempool and fee market does, there’s no jamming. Why do you keep ignoring that high throughput on a base layer leads to centralization. But maybe as a patient with cultist tendencies that’s something preferred. If you’re looking for this you won’t find it on Bitcoin. And if you try to bash designing things in different layers, then maybe i shouldn’t tell you that the thing you use to seek therapists, uses layers too.

The stupidity of thinking Merge Mining will provide extra life to the BTC PoW party,  

Idc what altcoins do, and Bitcoin doesn’t need them to survive. I mentioned this, because a network that can use Bitcoins hash power correctly, will have much more security than any PoS approach at the moment.

[ABCbits]

An exchange control 51% coins? Not realistic

Why not? The whole coin supply is not mined instantly, so you don't need to get more than 10.5 million coins to get 51%. If there is one million mined, then you need only 500k. Another thing is that you don't need even 500k, having a majority of the total trading volume could be sufficient to rule Proof of Stake network. And as far as I know, it happened also on Bitcoin, with some exchanges like MtGox, when they controlled a lot of coins. You can even see such arguments in the mentioned long topic about PoW vs PoS:

Why "economy"? It is limiting the definition. I'd say the network as a whole not just the economy. For example the "economy" was centralized back in 2013 when there was one major bitcoin exchange (MtGox) controlling more than 85% of the total trading volume and it was manipulating the market. Yet bitcoin was still decentralized.

That's good point, but @BusinessChain said "I am assuming a fully mature system here". I don't know his defintion, but if the coin is popular enough it's unlikely single exchange have majority of trading volume.

An exchange control 51% coins? Not realistic, but could be realistic if few exchange and the foundation worked together. It happened once on STEEM network, although i don't know whether STEEM network match your definition of fully mature system.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you don't need to stake 51% of the total supply, but only to stake enough compared to the total amount that was staked by others. Not everyone would stake their PoS coins, many would just store it in their wallets, there are some lost coins, etc. making the needed amount far less than 51% of total supply.
Most PoS coins already have a low stake ratio and those with high ones (70%-80%) have a huge premine which if removed brings the ratio to less than 20%.

It depends on what kind of PoS we're talking about. On dPoS, you can simply vote delegator to validate a block where the reward is shared between delegator and all voters.

[BlackHatCoiner]

They claim PoW tech is the greatest, and yet can't point to any new PoW coins since 2020

Because those who support PoW have no need of any other new, pointless, garbage, centralized shitcoins whose purpose is to just enrich developers and create new whales. You're going to need further persuasion to make a miner work for it. Unfortunately, we might not form the overwhelming majority. Most developers out there, with the slightest integrity, spend their time on developing apps to give solutions to notorious problems when an open-source libre software that has already resolved them efficiently exists.

[LegendaryK]

They claim PoW tech is the greatest, and yet can't point to any new PoW coins since 2020

Because those who support PoW have no need of any other new, pointless, garbage, centralized shitcoins
(I am a Proud Bitcoin Cult Member, everything not BTC is Shit!!)
 whose purpose is to just enrich developers and create new whales. You're going to need further persuasion to make a miner work for it. Unfortunately, we might not form the overwhelming majority. Most developers out there, with the slightest integrity, spend their time on developing apps to give solutions to notorious problems when an open-source libre software that has already resolved them efficiently exists.

Listen Kat,  

If PoW Tech were superior , then the majority of new coins would be using it.
The fact that you guys , have failed to name even one new PoW since 2020 points to your failure to promote it as a consensus technology.
Mostly the rest of the world has decided PoW sucks , and only BTC the model T of crypto is too lazy to evolve.

Funny , you have no issues with the money raised by blockstream, but all other devs are corrupt.  

Also in the old days there were a shitload of new PoW coins, and how did they do, well they died.  


@tadamichi,
If you bothered to read the numerous links, I posted,
you see the people that think opposite of you, outnumber you.
And they want PoW gone due to it's ridiculous energy waste.
So you better get a dyson sphere built if you want to stop them.

As far as LN goes, Time-Dilation Attacks on the Lightning Network
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.01418.pdf

Rolling blackouts will play havoc with a PoW network hashrate for the 4 to 8 hours, (Forking will increase Dramatically)
this will cause some miners to overwrite previous blocks to gain bitcoins, and as such will overwrite the transaction history for multiple blocks.
Even the top 4 mining pool operators will have trouble keeping the chain as secure as they do now, since their centralized control will go wonky for hours, during the rolling blackouts. This will make the Time-Dilation Attacks on the Lightning Network so easy.
But don't take my word for it , store the majority of your BTC on the LN network channels and see for yourself once the rolling blackouts goes thru multiple asic warehouse, especially Texas.  


@PrimeNumber7
While blaming 1 political party might hold a seduction for some.
In my personal opinion, every elected official since 1990s in every country has failed to secure our energy futures.
In other words, it was not one of them , it was all of them.
The energy shortages are worldwide , not limited to any single country, and have been over 30 years in the making.


 

[tadamichi]

They claim PoW tech is the greatest, and yet can't point to any new PoW coins since 2020

Because those who support PoW have no need of any other new, pointless, garbage, centralized shitcoins
(I am a Proud Bitcoin Cult Member, everything not BTC is Shit!!)
(Or taking a realistic stance on the current market. The new coins you’re referring to don’t even serve any purpose, other than pump and dump or becoming a platform for others to do pump and dump schemes. It doesn’t make any economical sense for people or businesses to use centralized, oftentimes badly coded, unregulated, no responsibility, regularly hacked, lacking security, third party owned Blockchains for any of their needs(there are better centralized/ custom solutions). Why should a business make any of their operations dependent of some weird founders that have zero actual knowledge in these fields. Being a nerd isn’t enough and doesn’t make someone a all knowing deity, and copying a database architecture from another project doesn’t solve all the problems in the world. I had these discussions with business owners and a lot of times they lack knowledge in software engineering and just buy into VC hype. Tokenisation of everything also won’t happen and won’t ever make sense, because it violates basic economic principles of money. One or a few base layers of universal money will come out as a winner, in contrast with starting to trade in 20.000 different tokens, each with their own bs attached to it, that hinder the actual role of money.

Pump and dumb is a lucrative business only for VCs and founders, what about the people that lost everything for your VC hype experiment Coin Luna, ik you won’t care, you rather shit your pants that there won’t be electricity anymore in 2022 and spread fud. But then shill centralized garbage at the same time, that has nothing to do with the actual ethos that lead to Bitcoin, without Bitcoin none of your trash projects would have even gained any traction, 99% of these projects wouldn’t be here, if they couldn’t make money with it, Bitcoin started when it wasn’t profitable to do so, and is successful, because it actually solves a problem, that no other asset could so far.)
 whose purpose is to just enrich developers and create new whales. You're going to need further persuasion to make a miner work for it. Unfortunately, we might not form the overwhelming majority. Most developers out there, with the slightest integrity, spend their time on developing apps to give solutions to notorious problems when an open-source libre software that has already resolved them efficiently exists.

Listen Kat,  

If PoW Tech were superior , then the majority of new coins would be using it.
The fact that you guys , have failed to name even one new PoW since 2020 points to your failure to promote it as a consensus technology.
Mostly the rest of the world has decided PoW sucks , and only BTC the model T of crypto is too lazy to evolve.

Funny , you have no issues with the money raised by blockstream, but all other devs are corrupt.  

Also in the old days there were a shitload of new PoW coins, and how did they do, well they died.  

Amico mio,

you’re naive to think that any new project with the properties i mentioned above, will even have the chance to compete for hash power with Bitcoin. Make a coin and prove that you can do it, otherwise it’s obvious that scams/ toys need PoS, because they won’t be able to compete with Bitcoin to secure their network. It’ll probably be so irrelevant that it won’t need any security tho.

@tadamichi,
If you bothered to read the numerous links, I posted,
you see the people that think opposite of you, outnumber you.
And they want PoW gone due to it's ridiculous energy waste.
So you better get a dyson sphere built if you want to stop them.

It doesn’t matter what they want or if they outnumber me, because Bitcoin is actually decentralized. This is literally one of the effects of decentralization, it puts a limit on the influence, stupidity can have from the outside. As long as most node runners keep having more than 1iq, Bitcoin is fine. And they do. We can render billions worth of investments useless with a few clicks, if we have to, and adjust to any possible scenario that can happen. This is one of the few systems with actual separation of powers, we don’t sit in the same room with each other wasting tax payers money.

Rolling blackouts will play havoc with a PoW network hashrate for the 4 to 8 hours, (Forking will increase Dramatically)

I won’t make it easy on you, because it’s easy to claim things and be vague. Tell me exactly which kind of abrupt hash rate drop you’re expecting. This is a worldwide network in different time zones and people can mine from everywhere. If people will make more money from mining, than putting anything into a non functional grid, they will do mining, as hard as that sounds. I don’t wanna see your face if Bitcoin actually stays more functional compared to traditional banking systems during blackouts.

Another question, how will you trade nfts when opensea and other centralized marketplaces looses power(or the people that use them)? How will you stake your tokens without Coinbase and other centralized exchanges, when their or your internet is gone, if you have less than 32 eth for example? Isnt there also penalties for being offline in PoS? This will affect most users of your networks, they don’t care about decentralization in the first place, so how are they prepared?

@PrimeNumber7
While blaming 1 political party might hold a seduction for some.
In my personal opinion, every elected official since 1990s in every country has failed to secure our energy futures.
In other words, it was not one of them , it was all of them.
The energy shortages are worldwide , not limited to any single country, and have been over 30 years in the making.

It’s a problem, but stop shitting your pants about it, PoS founders aren’t your friends or care about you. It’s better to realize this early than too late. They won’t save you from anything. Maybe you came here for fun, but it’s just obvious that the community here is way higher level than any braindead PoS herd(these poor amateurs still put fortunes in, while a scam was going to 0, because they thought it’s just a dip). Who do you think can outlive more upcoming challenges/ attacks? Pick who you put on your side more carefully.

[Wind_FURY]

They claim PoW tech is the greatest, and yet can't point to any new PoW coins since 2020

Because those who support PoW have no need of any other new, pointless, garbage, centralized shitcoins
(I am a Proud Bitcoin Cult Member, everything not BTC is Shit!!)
 whose purpose is to just enrich developers and create new whales. You're going to need further persuasion to make a miner work for it. Unfortunately, we might not form the overwhelming majority. Most developers out there, with the slightest integrity, spend their time on developing apps to give solutions to notorious problems when an open-source libre software that has already resolved them efficiently exists.

Listen Kat,  

If PoW Tech were superior , then the majority of new coins would be using it.

The fact that you guys , have failed to name even one new PoW since 2020 points to your failure to promote it as a consensus technology.

It's because it's VERY HARD to bootstrap a non-scam/non-shitcoin POW cryptocurrency network, which instead makes shitcoin "developers" print tokens out of thin air to bootstrap their "POS network". I'm not saying POW is perfect, or Bitcoin will never die, BUT it has been running for more than 10 years, chugging along without downtime. Bitcoin's life expectancy will be longer than expected. The Lindy Effect.

[hZti]

It's because it's VERY HARD to bootstrap a non-scam/non-shitcoin POW cryptocurrency network, which instead makes shitcoin "developers" print tokens out of thin air to bootstrap their "POS network". I'm not saying POW is perfect, or Bitcoin will never die, BUT it has been running for more than 10 years, chugging along without downtime. Bitcoin's life expectancy will be longer than expected. The Lindy Effect.

In fact if satoshi or others that were present at the beginning of bitcoin had decided that they would mine large amounts to dump them later bitcoin could have very easily become a shitcoin too. It is only because satoshi disappeared and locked most of the early coins forever that bitcoin did not become a shitcoin.

[BlackHatCoiner]

If PoW Tech were superior , then the majority of new coins would be using it.

Wrong. Proof-of-Work is provably superior, because there's only one remarkable unit to measure it; bitcoin. It doesn't matter what the majority of cryptocurrency developers have to say, because the authorities' opinions hold no sway in this system. The creators have abandoned it, there's no "founder-expert" to address.

No Proof-of-Stake system has proven to survive like this, because no such system works so objectively and neutrally towards its users. This is why it's so valuable. It's pathetic to count success by the number of cryptocurrencies, because they're abundant. It doesn't benefit anyone besides the undignified creators.

[stwenhao]

If PoW Tech were superior , then the majority of new coins would be using it.

That's the mistake of many Proof of Work altcoins: they use their own hash functions, or mine their own chain of the heaviest work, instead of being connected to Bitcoin by Merged Mining. The same with Proof of Stake: by creating new altcoins, the situation is not better, it is actually worse. Users don't need new coins, they need new features on existing coins.

There is Merged Mining, there is Merged Signing, there are ways to make new features, without creating coins out of thin air. I still don't get it, why altcoins do that, when there is no need, and when trading and speculation can destroy them, even if their idea will be genius, just because developers force users to choose between coin A with feature A, and coin B with feature B, they enforce choosing for no reason, why they can't just get feature B on coin A?

[PaschalUzochukwu]

I am a proof of work believer, because it garanties decentralization on the hardware level (layer 1).
This is not inherently the case in PoS because its consensus algorithm is not dependant on any scarce real world ressource, provided it does not require a huge amount of memory to run a full node.
In this case I would expect that with a decent amount of miners, a PoS network should still be very decentralized, because it would be very unlikely that coincidentally all miners were geografically colocated.
This assumes that the protocol would not support delegated PoS because there it is obvious that it is more centralized.

So what then is the drawback of PoS or is there something that I miss?

[tadamichi]

There is Merged Mining, there is Merged Signing, there are ways to make new features, without creating coins out of thin air. I still don't get it, why altcoins do that, when there is no need, and when trading and speculation can destroy them, even if their idea will be genius, just because developers force users to choose between coin A with feature A, and coin B with feature B, they enforce choosing for no reason, why they can't just get feature B on coin A?

The answer sounds generic, but I’ll still give it, because that’s how it is.

In 2021 alone 30.000.000.000$ were funded into crypto startups/ companies. You just gotta gain some hype/ knowing the right people to get a piece of the pie overnight, no long term strategy needed. You can become a millionaire/ billionaire overnight with just providing some cool show and a little code. You don’t gotta be a genius for this, most coders here could probably pull this off, if they want to and do it in a clever way. It’s just a matter of decision. This will only work for a limited amount of time, before regulations etc. jump in, so everyone needs to jump on fast to get their piece of the pie. After this they can live their life however they want to. And they will get a lot of recognition and virtue signaling at the moment, because they can play into what’s trendy at the moment(not using energy etc.). What they build just needs to last as long as they can milk it. Also it gives them full control over their users vs being limited by actual decentralization.

The alternative would be to work altruisticly on proposals like yours, for no pay mostly, that will have a hard time to give capitalists opportunities to make a quick buck in a matter of a few months, so less/ no funding. This won’t make you rich. It takes work, innovation and much more time etc. You will have to convince the hardest people and make it bulletproof. Without getting much/ anything in return.

The is a decision between quick fast money and recognition, or free altruistic work.

The results are what we’re seeing in the market currently.

[NotATether]

You just gotta gain some hype/ knowing the right people to get a piece of the pie overnight, no long term strategy needed. You can become a millionaire/ billionaire overnight with just providing some cool show and a little code. You dont gotta be a genius for this, most coders here could probably pull this off, if they want to and do it in a clever way.

Yeah, I wholeheartedly agree. It's actually disgusting how little effort is necessary to convince a bunch of VCs to fund a crypto project. Because when the times get tougher and the profits thinner, most of these people get cold feet and capitulate their startups.

This will only work for a limited amount of time, before regulations etc. jump in, so everyone needs to jump on fast to get their piece of the pie. After this they can live their life however they want to. And they will get a lot of recognition and virtue signaling at the moment, because they can play into whats trendy at the moment(not using energy etc.). What they build just needs to last as long as they can milk it. Also it gives them full control over their users vs being limited by actual decentralization.

Hmm, I'm having "the great PoS crash of 2027" in mind as I type this.

[OgNasty]

There is Merged Mining, there is Merged Signing, there are ways to make new features, without creating coins out of thin air. I still don't get it, why altcoins do that, when there is no need, and when trading and speculation can destroy them, even if their idea will be genius, just because developers force users to choose between coin A with feature A, and coin B with feature B, they enforce choosing for no reason, why they can't just get feature B on coin A?

Your question is one that someone who wasn't here for 2016-2017 would ask.  A lot of people poured thousands of hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars into building businesses on Bitcoin when it was younger and relatively unknown.  These people took insane chances that nobody else was willing to take to help build Bitcoin into something.  Then, suddenly the rules changed and Bitcoin was pushed as a store of value where users were urged to hodl instead of transact.  Many of these businesses found themselves asking users to pay $50 transaction fees to buy a 'cup of coffee' as they say.  Developers drew the line saying 1mb was the limit (look up all the shady stuff that surrounded the NY Agreement) and basically forced these businesses to fork the network or lose their entire investment of time and money, which they did to grow Bitcoin and was wildly appreciated at the time.  The world was watching and they didn't want to risk a rogue developer with an inferiority complex destroying their future businesses, so they eliminated that risk by issuing their own altcoins.  It was a perfectly reasonable response that was met with extreme hate, as Bitcoiners wanted their coin to be the only game in town, and for them to have to do nothing but hold it to get rich.

[stwenhao]

Your question is one that someone who wasn't here for 2016-2017 would ask.

Well, I was not here for 2016-2017. I started buying Bitcoin in 2018, maybe 2019.

Developers drew the line saying 1mb was the limit (look up all the shady stuff that surrounded the NY Agreement) and basically forced these businesses to fork the network or lose their entire investment of time and money, which they did to grow Bitcoin and was wildly appreciated at the time.

What happened, should stay in the past. Now we know that new features can be introduced with no forks at all, even no soft-fork is needed, you can read more about it here: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-June/020532.html. Of course, sidechains can also solve "coin merging" problem, but I think not many altcoiners want to for example merge BTC and BCH into a single coin again, so there is no need for that yet. But it is just a matter of proportions, any altcoin can reach a peg again, if they don't want to do that, they are free to stay unpegged, just they should not be surprised that their coins will be left behind the heaviest chain, if they designed it to be a competition, instead of reusing the strongest source of SHA-256d hashes, no matter where it will be produced. They could do a soft-fork or no-fork back then, big blocks are different from small blocks only by the time when each tranaction is included. They could get it protected by Merged Mining (and commitments could protect them from chain reorganizations), and have their transactions included later, it was that simple. I guess people were just unaware of possible technical solutions that always existed, from the first released version. And they still are, including me, it is a continuous process of learning, what is possible.

so they eliminated that risk by issuing their own altcoins

Now they could issue their own sidechains. No permission is needed, coins can be created by signing on-chain coins, and destroyed by moving them. Nothing else is really needed, the rest is about making it convenient, and protecting mainchain coins with the right output scripts, to allow moving them if (and only if) each and every owner of that coin agreed to move back to the mainchain.

It was a perfectly reasonable response that was met with extreme hate, as Bitcoiners wanted their coin to be the only game in town, and for them to have to do nothing but hold it to get rich.

Pure speculation with no usage will lead us nowhere. If people want to speculate, or if they want to never use their coins, they should have that choice. Holding coins forever is like owning something on OP_RETURN. You can do that, but it won't be useful. You need money to pay for goods and services, the whole value can be created from real usage and real features. Of course it can be created artificially, but then it will vanish over time. And I don't want to make things that will be worthless after few years, I want to make a system I would want to also use, from the perspective of some non-miner and non-developer, who will have no power, and will just want to write some applications for existing coins. It should be still useful in that case, because it is all about control, and to make it decentralized, the creator should have no control over the network, even if it will be based on Proof of Stake.

[LegendaryK]

@PoW supporters aka Bitcoin Cultist

No one is creating any new PoW tech coins.
Because they all know PoW is dying.

How many BTC did any of you mine today?
Odds are zero because you can't afford the fiat to complete in the centralized PoW network.
You can't even afford to take part in the dying mining tech you love so much.  

@tadamichi
Anyone that can't understand how rolling blackouts will cause increase forking in a PoW mining network,
well go find someone that has ~3 days to waste explaining things to you like you are an idiot, because you are.  


Merge Mining  
https://publications.sba-research.org/publications/201709%20-%20AJudmayer%20-%20CBT_Merged_Mining_camera_ready_final.pdf

Introduction of New Attack Vectors The advantage of merged mining is that miners
are no longer forced to choose between mining one cryptocurrency or another. However,
its biggest strength can also be viewed as a potential attack vector [27].
The ability to generate blocks for the merge-mined child blockchains at almost no additional cost,
apart from maintaining a client node, allows misbehaving miners to carry out attacks
without risking financial losses in both the parent and other child blockchains.
Such an attack was carried out by the Eligius mining pool in 2012.
Without their explicit consent, its miners were coerced to participate in an attack led by the pool operator,
ultimately stalling the operation of the fledgling cryptocurrency CoiledCoin by mining empty blocks.
This attack serves as the predominant example for highlighting threats posed by merged mining on child cryptocurrencies:
the miners of the pool did not suffer any financial loss and, as it appears, were not even aware of the attack, as all actions
were performed solely by the operator.

Kind of shows what happens when a PoW Pool operator decides to screw the centralized PoW network.  

Now all the BTC cultist , repeat to themselves
that can't happen to btc, that can't happen to btc, that can't happen to btc, that can't happen to btc,
now go pet your purple unicorn and take your Xanax.
 

[garlonicon]

How many BTC did any of you mine today?

Around one satoshi per day, because I can do that on my CPU. Of course I mined it inside LN channel with a friend, during testing decentralized mining, so you wouldn't see that on-chain. And I can ask the same question, when it comes to the Proof of Stake: how many blocks you reached by signing something? One? Less than one, by signing messages in some centralized pool? How many altcoins you gained for staking today? And do you really have them, or maybe you just handled your coins somewhere in a custodial way, on some centralized exchange, and got nice numbers displayed on some web page? Do you receive your coins in some decentralized way, or maybe there are the same kind of centralized pools for staking, like there are for mining?

[tadamichi]

@PoW supporters aka Bitcoin Cultist

No one is creating any new PoW tech coins.
Because they all know PoW is dying.

Are you a parrot by any chance?

How many BTC did any of you mine today?
Odds are zero because you can't afford the fiat to complete in the centralized PoW network.
You can't even afford to take part in the dying mining tech you love so much.  

Zero and yet Bitcoin is more decentralized than any other coin. It would be foolish to deny this. This whole argument is also flawed, because it’s not just about affording, any profitable business operation can get enough funding, but it’s also about time, space, location, access to energy and willingness to do this.

@tadamichi
Anyone that can't understand how rolling blackouts will cause increase forking in a PoW mining network,
well go find someone that has ~3 days to waste explaining things to you like you are an idiot, because you are.  

I don’t need and explanation of what happens to the chain, im asking you how many blackouts you’re expecting in different countries at the same time and how much loss in hash power you’re expecting. Because then we actually know what your fears are based on.

Kind of shows what happens when a PoW Pool operator decides to screw the centralized PoW network.  Wink

I forgot that PoS staking pools are free from any abuse potential and nothing ever happened there. *cough*

[stwenhao]

Without their explicit consent, its miners were coerced to participate in an attack led by the pool operator, ultimately stalling the operation of the fledgling cryptocurrency CoiledCoin by mining empty blocks.

But you know that the popular way of implementing Merged Mining is not what Satoshi intended? NameCoin made the same mistake: there should be one chain of block headers with the heaviest Proof of Work, Proof of Stake, or Proof of Something, and each Merge-Mined chain should receive a fraction of coins proportional to the whole power of all chains. In this way, attacking any altcoin by reaching 51% power, 51% coins, or 51% something is possible if (and only if) you have a majority on all chains together. And of course people didn't implement Merged Mining in that way. Also, when it comes to Proof of Stake, there is an alternative called Merged Signing. And guess what: people are still unaware of that, and they still think that creating new coins will make the whole situation better, but nobody gave any reason, why it is needed to create new coins at all, instead of signing existing coins from other chains, and build new protocols on top of that.

[LegendaryK]

How many BTC did any of you mine today?

Around one satoshi per day, because I can do that on my CPU. Of course I mined it inside LN channel with a friend, during testing decentralized mining, so you wouldn't see that on-chain. And I can ask the same question, when it comes to the Proof of Stake: how many blocks you reached by signing something? One? Less than one, by signing messages in some centralized pool? How many altcoins you gained for staking today? And do you really have them, or maybe you just handled your coins somewhere in a custodial way, on some centralized exchange, and got nice numbers displayed on some web page? Do you receive your coins in some decentralized way, or maybe there are the same kind of centralized pools for staking, like there are for mining?

 
You claim to mine PoW bitcoin on an OFFCHAIN network.  
By that mindset, any bank that lends out BTC is a miner.  Nope!
Dude, it is not onchain, so it is not mining.
Even in that LN nonsense , you are losing more in energy costs, than if you just turned your LN node off and used the fiat to buy btc.
Wasteful hobby, but you're not mining,
call back when you have a warehouse full of asics and on the verge of bankruptcy because of utility bills like the regular PoW miners.  


Cardano pays 2.6% yearly on my total every 3 days.
When Compounding makes it a little higher, and I have no external energy costs.
I have no issue using a Cardano pool, because unlike btc PoW pools where only 4 guys control over 51%,
Cardano has over 3000 staking Pools to choose from, with program coded safeguards that prevent things
like => BTC PoW has less than 20 pools with the top 4 pool operators controlling over 51%.
And yes , if I wanted too, I could stake my Cardano without a pool.

How many BTC did any of you mine today?

Zero

Exactly you have no say whatsoever in PoW consensus,
you might as well stick with a bank.  

@tadamichi
Anyone that can't understand how rolling blackouts will cause increase forking in a PoW mining network,
well go find someone that has ~3 days to waste explaining things to you like you are an idiot, because you are.  

I don’t need and explanation of what happens to the chain, im asking you how many blackouts you’re expecting in different countries at the same time and how much loss in hash power you’re expecting.

Apparently you do,  
1. rolling blackouts won't happen all over the world at the same time, that is why they are rolling,
    public school education, huh.
2. Those top 4 mining pool operators that secure your centralized PoW BTC and limit forking and orphans due to their centralized control.
    Will lose their over 51% dominance throughout a 24 hours period, meaning those other poor bastards pools % will be higher for brief times,
    and unlike the top 4 colluding to protect btc, the poor bastards pools just want to earn and sell, so they may or may not include the transaction history
    for any orphan blocks, they overtake during their however brief dominance, and once the power is back in the hand of the top 4 colluding pool operators
    they may overwrite hours of blocks to regain their centralized control of new btc and the transaction history.  
    
 (Yeah I know you still don't get it. Which is why I won't waste 3 days on you.)    

[garlonicon]

Dude, it is not onchain, so it is not mining.

I could say in the same way about signing: "Dude, it is not onchain, so it is not staking". But seriously, you can mine anything. That means, we can reintroduce mining on Proof of Stake coins if we will be forced to do that. For example, we can mine transactions, like this: 000000000fdf0c619cd8e0d512c7e2c0da5a5808e60f12f1e0d01522d2986a51.

call back when you have a warehouse full of asics and on the verge of bankruptcy because of utility bills

Maybe I will reach a warehouse one day, for now, I have only my CPUs. But it could be also beneficial to the network, scraping bytes here and there can be used to compress things, and that makes it cheaper to push later on-chain. So, even by scraping signatures on CPUs, you can still get some satoshis.

And yes , if I wanted too, I could stake my Cardano without a pool.

But you don't, and that means, you only care about getting paid, you don't check what is really signed, and if you really agree on that. So, it has the same centralization issues, because mining is not enforced directly in a P2P way, so it is not decentralized.

[LegendaryK]

Dude, it is not onchain, so it is not mining.

I could say in the same way about signing: "Dude, it is not onchain, so it is not staking". But seriously, you can mine anything. That means, we can reintroduce mining on Proof of Stake coins if we will be forced to do that. For example, we can mine transactions, like this: 000000000fdf0c619cd8e0d512c7e2c0da5a5808e60f12f1e0d01522d2986a51.

call back when you have a warehouse full of asics and on the verge of bankruptcy because of utility bills

Maybe I will reach a warehouse one day, for now, I have only my CPUs. But it could be also beneficial to the network, scraping bytes here and there can be used to compress things, and that makes it cheaper to push later on-chain. So, even by scraping signatures on CPUs, you can still get some satoshis.

And yes , if I wanted too, I could stake my Cardano without a pool.

But you don't, and that means, you only care about getting paid, you don't check what is really signed, and if you really agree on that. So, it has the same centralization issues, because mining is not enforced directly in a P2P way, so it is not decentralized.

PoS coins Stake.

PoW mining is for dummies that can't understand input costs, but can find Venture Capitalist to float them some fiat.
VC money is now drying up fast, thanks to baby boomer retirements.

Dude , that LN nonsense is costing you more than just buying btc outright.
Poorer it can make you , not richer.  

My PoS coins participate in the network security,
I decide where they are placed and how they are used , or even if I just stored them and did not stake them.
Those are my choices.
And no Cardano does not have the centralization issues of PoW BTC.
1. Cardano lowers the stake if a pool gets too large, to prevent issues like BTC 4 mining pool operator that have over 51%.
2. Cardano has over 3000 staking pools, BTC less than 20 mining pools.


You can't participate in PoW mining at all, so pretending you have any choice is ridiculous.

[tadamichi]

Exactly you have no say whatsoever in PoW consensus,
you might as well stick with a bank.  

My node is enforcing consensus rules 24/7/365 but nice try, i decide what changes go onto my node, and which not. Everyone is free to submit proposals to core anytime they want, if they wanna improve something. No mining is necessary to have influence on rules in Bitcoin. Its not a dictatorship by miners or devs.

@tadamichi
Anyone that can't understand how rolling blackouts will cause increase forking in a PoW mining network,
well go find someone that has ~3 days to waste explaining things to you like you are an idiot, because you are.  

Apparently you do,  
1. rolling blackouts won't happen all over the world at the same time, that is why they are rolling,
    public school education, huh.

Dont explain me anything. Since you’re an energy expert im just asking you, when will we see the blackouts? Which days, what time? At what time in which countries? How much of each of their energy supplies will be affected, and exactly when? Just give me a list of all 195 countries, because im sure you already calculated this and don’t just act from your feelings you got from media articles.

[LegendaryK]

BTC Cultists Delusion,
There are no new PoW coins, because BTC is best.
I mine PoW onchain Bitcoins on LN offchain network.
My non-mining nodes controls and secure PoW bitcoin.
PoW mining does not waste energy or cause power grid failures.
Government PoW mining Bans are Fud.

BTC cultists are so devoid of intellect, that actual reality escapes them.
Reality
There are no new PoW coins, because the whole rest of the world know PoW is a dying tech.
Mining can only occur onchain.
Non-mining nodes don't do jack to secure a network, turn them all off , and no one will notice. Only Mining nodes can secure a PoW network.
Numerous Countries are banning PoW mining, and the list is growing, the US is only ~2½ years away from doing to same.

What Bitcoin Cultist don't get,
Proof of Stake has moved on, and could care less what happens to Proof of Waste.
Proof of Stake has solved how to keep pools from becoming centralized
Proof of Stake has solved the energy efficiency issue.
Proof of Stake has solved transaction finality.

So to avoid having anymore clueless bitcoin cultists waste any more of my time.
Wasting money, energy, & time seems to be all PoW supporters know how to do.

I shall leave you to praise your dying BTC PoW fantasies, unabated.
 
 

 

[tadamichi]

BTC Cultists Delusion,
There are no new PoW coins, because BTC is best. (They can’t compete for limited hash power worldwide against Bitcoin)
I mine PoW onchain Bitcoins on LN offchain network. (He meant it’s possible to earn sats without asics on lightning, an analogy to getting mining rewards)
My non-mining nodes controls and secure PoW bitcoin.  (My full node enforces consensus rules)
PoW mining does not waste energy or cause power grid failures.  (Exactly, and high energy usage != waste)
Government PoW mining Bans are Fud.  (Thinking mining will stop because of this is fud)

Nice try to put everything out of context.

Non-mining nodes don't do jack to secure a network, turn them all off , and no one will notice.

Now you outed yourself, this is hilarious.

What Bitcoin Cultist don't get,
Proof of Stake has moved on, and could care less what happens to Proof of Waste.
Proof of Stake has solved how to keep pools from becoming centralized
Proof of Stake has solved the energy efficiency issue.
Proof of Stake has solved transaction finality.

So to avoid having anymore clueless bitcoin cultists waste any more of my time.
Wasting money, energy, & time seems to be all PoW supporters know how to do.

I shall leave you to praise your dying BTC PoW fantasies, unabated.
 

Honestly, with the outing you just made, i dont think this is a big loss for Bitcoin, more like a blessing.

[KualaBit]

@PoW supporters aka Bitcoin Cultist

No one is creating any new PoW tech coins.
Because they all know PoW is dying.

Not that PoW is dying, POS is cost-efficient in scamming people.  That is one of the best reasons why many prefer POS than PoW

In a money-grab developer's mind: why bother with PoW when they can use PoS to mine 100% of the coins and sell them to unsuspecting investors.  If you happen to see the pattern of new projects today, there are lots selling their pre-mined coins/token here and there.

[pooya87]

In fact if satoshi or others that were present at the beginning of bitcoin had decided that they would mine large amounts to dump them later bitcoin could have very easily become a shitcoin too. It is only because satoshi disappeared and locked most of the early coins forever that bitcoin did not become a shitcoin.

That only works for altcoins because they are useless so people who buy them are only buying them while they are pumping and when they dump they all abandon it effectively killing the altcoin. This is never true about bitcoin simply because bitcoin is useful so even if the price dropped and those who wished to become rich overnight sold their bitcoins, bitcoin will sill remain useful and people will continue buying it.
In other words even if the imaginary big wealth of Satoshi were sold, bitcoin would continue being useful and people bring the price back up.

[NotATether]

3) Proof of Work clearly separate miners (those who own equipment) from whales (those who have coins). In Proof of Stake, whales control the network. That means, in Proof of Stake, the whole network can be ruled by some exchange, just because it is popular, and users deposited a lot of coins there.

That actually is the same as in 1). Is it really realistic that an exchange would control like 51% of tokens? I am assuming a fully mature system here.

Yes. Imagine for a second you lauch some coin, that gets about $1 billion market cap. Exchanges list it, and its price goes up, but there is one exchange in particular where more trading activity is done than the others (through leveraged buying options) until the exchange holds a little more than $500 million of the coin's supply, or about half. Then it can effectively censor transactions it is legally compelled to censor (or perhaps even wants to).

[BusinessChain]

Thanks for your discussion.

Here are my three take-aways on why PoS is inferior to PoW:

1. PoS requires no decentralized, scarce real world ressource for mining. This means that there is no inherent incentive for the network topology to decentralize itself. This is in stark contrast to PoW where new miners need to find new geografic locations in order to tap new energy sources.

2. In PoS, voting power distribution is volatile and uncertain, since voting power is tied to virtual tokens which can be transfered almost intantly an with very little cost. Again, this is in stark contrast to Bitcoin where it is extremely costly and difficult to relocate a mining facility. This means that in Bitcoin the network topology is much more stable.

3.In PoS, because there is virtually no cost to mine, existing miners will have extremly high profit margin, increasing their staking power even further. This is a positive feedback loop which escalates the power of those who already have alot thereof. In Bitcoin, it requires big capital investment, knowledge and communal support to run a mining facility. This means that not necessarily the richest miners will be successfull, but the best (i.e. most efficient, most skilled, most innovativ etc.).

[n0nce]

If PoW Tech were superior , then the majority of new coins would be using it.

How is 'ease of spinning up a new coin' a qualifier for evaluating the quality of a consensus mechanism?

If you're looking for an alternative to PoW, your main qualifier shouldn't be 'how easy is it to create more coins', but 'how secure is it and does it achieve consensus'. Everything else comes after that.

I think everyone agrees that it's hard to make new coins that are based on PoW; in fact, for some people it's even too much effort building a whole new PoS blockchain, so some coins of your sacred 'CoinMarketCap top 10 list' don't even have their own blockchain. Does that make them better? Should Bitcoin also not have its own blockchain and become an Ethereum token?

Also in the old days there were a shitload of new PoW coins, and how did they do, well they died. 

I've got a newsflash for you: PoS existed back then, too, and died already back then. It's just that enough time has passed that people have forgotten about it and that enough new people joined the market who never heard about PoS before. This gave developers the opportunity to 're-introduce' it as something new and revolutionary, partly aided by the premise of being more environmentally friendly that is right now en vogue, and allows them to control the whole network and most importantly becoming rich overnight due to pre-mine and owning a large portion of the 'shares'.

How many BTC did any of you mine today?
Odds are zero because you can't afford the fiat to complete in the centralized PoW network.
You can't even afford to take part in the dying mining tech you love so much. 

I can afford it! And it can be bought for BTC, as well.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403168.0

It costs roughly $500 for 'hashboard only' version.

You can't participate in PoW mining at all, so pretending you have any choice is ridiculous.

LOL you really believe that? Look up Bitcoin home mining on Twitter.

Don't beat your utility bill, Eat your utility bill!

A quick thread on a home mining project that will profitably heat a home this winter. This immersion rig heats water & augments the home furnace

#bitcoinmining #bitcoin #cryptocurrecy @CoinDesk
  @BitcoinBrains
 @SGBarbour

THIS IS TRUE DECENTRALIZATION

Pleb mining pic thread.

I hear ppl say home mining is dead, but then I see pics like these. I love how innovative our mining community is even during hash at ATH the stacking sats game is strong!

#Bitcoin
#blockchain
#BTC



[...]

When looking at the above linked search term, I found something relating to blackouts; @LegendaryK since you're so worried about them.

Anyone that can't understand how rolling blackouts will cause increase forking in a PoW mining network

The Texas-based #Bitcoin mining facility @RiotBlockchain
 got a text earlier this year during intense weather, “The power grid needs support. Please curtail now.”

The company then immediately shut down their machines and provided their power to 20,000 additional Texan homes.

[LegendaryK]

@n0nce

I was done with this topic,
however when you put out something so stupid  that it will cost others their hard earned money,
that deserves a quick reply to offset the home miner nonsense.
https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/B07YGP1ZGR?reviewerType=all_reviews

Jim W.
2.0 out of 5 stars Don’t buy
Reviewed in the United States on November 26, 2019
Verified Purchase
Owned for a month. Nice design and cool product but once I did the math, it would take years to earn enough just pay it off (over $430 with taxes)! Litecoin mining just can’t be done to make anything on this device. I ran it for a month straight 24/7 and made $.50. Shortly after, I bought a antminer L3++ which mines at 500mh/s (keep in mind this Apollo does about 120mh/s) and even the antminer didn’t produce enough to make a profit. With the price of electricity here being .24/kWh these devices aren’t made for you to make money. Another thing i didn’t like about this was that the manufacturer forces you to “donate” 1% of your hashing power back to them! What a joke. Device doesn’t run unless you agree to the “donation” scam. Back to Amazon it goes.

dcon
1.0 out of 5 stars Don't waste your money.. do your research
Reviewed in the United States on November 9, 2019
Do the math people.. there are simple easy to use websites.. stop feeding the pockets of these people that sell products that are 1-2 years outdated.. you will LOSE money, at minimum $0.12 per day.. and that doesn't take into account purchase price. Do your research.. if you want to mine.. but probably better to just "invest" buy low sell high.. lot less complicated. Again.. this miner is not nearly powerful nor efficient enough to EVER make money, what you spend on it will be completely lost and you will LOSE more money each day. Just go to whattomine and enter in details.

https://www.coinbureau.com/analysis/make-money-mining-bitcoin/

many Bitcoin miners have discovered the hard way that they end up paying more for electricity than they receive in Bitcoin rewards

Now feel free to continue your insane waste of money, but anyone buying a btc or ltc PoW miner,
just realize you might as well flush that money down the toilet, as their is only loss no profit.

As far as Texas,
https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/crypto-could-strain-texas-faulty-power-grid-ercot-issues-warnings-summer-heat-14120691

Texans were asked to conserve energy during a warm spell last month, and this summer could break temperature records. Now, just a day into June, many Texans are already praying that the state’s power grid can handle the heat

Texans are being asked to turn their ACs off, so the miners can keep running, don't expect that to last too long, before the rage toward the miners creates a ban.
Thinking that PoW miners that waste electricity will be able to increase it for others, is something only a btc cultists would believe.
If a PoW miners draws down the energy resources for a state for years and turns off for 1 day to avoid the energy price hikes he was about to receive, you want to claim the energy hog produced energy, so insane, it is not even laughable.

*Now where were we, :
I shall leave you to praise your dying BTC PoW fantasies, unabated.*

[NotATether]

Texans are being asked to turn their ACs off, so the miners can keep running, don't expect that to last too long, before the rage toward the miners creates a ban.
Thinking that PoW miners that waste electricity will be able to increase it for others, is something only a btc cultists would believe.
If a PoW miners draws down the energy resources for a state for years and turns off for 1 day to avoid the energy price hikes he was about to receive, you want to claim the energy hog produced energy, so insane, it is not even laughable.

There's an easy solution for that: Don't mine in Texas. Mine in the midwest, and then its basically a cat-and-mouse game with governors at that point.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I shall leave you to praise your dying BTC PoW fantasies

Please do. Leave this place, and that might make my day. You're the only person who recognizes fantasies. You don't want arguments, because they don't want you either. You've made it clear you put authorities above everything, but this is not how we work in here. We don't convince with "you're dumb enough to keep something that will definitely die". Your only argument was the blackouts, that has been debunked repeatedly; you're just too gormless to accept it.

Get your obnoxious, smarty-ass persona and get the hell out of here.

[tadamichi]

Thanks for your discussion.

Here are my three take-aways on why PoS is inferior to PoW:

1. PoS requires no decentralized, scarce real world ressource for mining. This means that there is no inherent incentive for the network topology to decentralize itself. This is in stark contrast to PoW where new miners need to find new geografic locations in order to tap new energy sources.

2. In PoS, voting power distribution is volatile and uncertain, since voting power is tied to virtual tokens which can be transfered almost intantly an with very little cost. Again, this is in stark contrast to Bitcoin where it is extremely costly and difficult to relocate a mining facility. This means that in Bitcoin the network topology is much more stable.

3.In PoS, because there is virtually no cost to mine, existing miners will have extremly high profit margin, increasing their staking power even further. This is a positive feedback loop which escalates the power of those who already have alot thereof. In Bitcoin, it requires big capital investment, knowledge and communal support to run a mining facility. This means that not necessarily the richest miners will be successfull, but the best (i.e. most efficient, most skilled, most innovativ etc.).

I also like to look at technologies in practice and if their approach could even work, under the assumption that this technology would have taken over the world. Even tho this is a little theoretical.

I think we have to assume that a technology like PoS or PoW has to work under extreme wealth inequality, because that’s how the world is. I think there’s a fundamental economical flaw in staking, because it has to lock up capital. There’s PoS coins where more than 70% of the supply is locked up, bringing it out of the circulation. It just lays there and grows without any economic benefit or impact.

Which leaves just 30% of the supply in circulation for the economy to use. Another problem is that most of the world doesn’t have any significant savings, or the possibility to build them. Even in rich countries the majority is starting to live from paycheck to paycheck. This creates a problem, because if 70% of a coins supply, in the hands of a few people, can hit the economy anytime, we could see massively planned inflationary events and take overs of real industries, by people who could afford to just let their money lay around and then bring huge parts of the economy in more and more small hands, at their will. The economic attack vector is there and we see similar impacts with money printing in fiat, this could carry over to PoS in a similar fashion, because most of the world can’t lock up their capital, and inflationary events could prevent regular people from being able to do it even more. There will never be corrections in this system, because it’s impossible for them to loose any money while staking, there’s no entrepreneurial risk, they will forever stay at the top and gain more and more power automatically. So i think the centralisation issue will not just be an technical one, but also spread over the economy.

PoW in combination with a fixed supply works differently(under the assumption it would have taken over the world). There is no locked up capital that can grow over time. People will have to use their capital in economic activities to even make any gains, which is always tied to market risks and competition. The big capital can be lost if they mess up or don’t satisfy the market. It will always bring in a certain risk. And it will be best for all coins to be in circulation, instead of just sitting there forever. Many potential economic attack vectors won’t even occur, leading to a much more stable and fair economy(it won’t be an Eldorado for the rich). It won’t just be a lot of work to create new blocks, but it will also take a lot of work and beating the competition to succeed at the economy or growing capital.

It’s remarkable how the philosophies behind them, carry over to other things.

[PrimeNumber7]

Thanks for your discussion.

Here are my three take-aways on why PoS is inferior to PoW:

1. PoS requires no decentralized, scarce real world ressource for mining. This means that there is no inherent incentive for the network topology to decentralize itself. This is in stark contrast to PoW where new miners need to find new geografic locations in order to tap new energy sources.

<>

I disagree with this point. PoW gives miners incentives to gravitate towards locations that have cheap electricity. This is something that we have in fact seen by way of certain areas of the world have concentrated amounts of mining by various entities, while other parts of the world, even if the same country, have little mining activity.

[n0nce]

@n0nce

I was done with this topic,
however when you put out something so stupid  that it will cost others their hard earned money,
that deserves a quick reply to offset the home miner nonsense.
https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/B07YGP1ZGR?reviewerType=all_reviews

[...]

First of all, do you even check your sources? You linked to the wrong device. You also obviously didn't read the thread I sent; where I review the device and say that it doesn't really pay back.

However, there are 2 important points:
[1] You can't say that it's impossible to mine at home, since I just showed that it is possible. You didn't say that it has to be possible to mine profitably at home everywhere in the world.
[2] The Twitter users I linked, don't even have Apollos, but show different creative ways to run industrial miners at home, often at even higher efficiency (e.g. by using the excess heat), which makes them much more profitable than the little Apollos and other silent home miners.

So I don't understand how you think it's 'so stupid' to say that [1] it's 100% possible to mine [at all] at home and [2] in many places, with the right equipment and a little bit of handiwork, you can even do this profitably.

Now feel free to continue your insane waste of money, but anyone buying a btc or ltc PoW miner,
just realize you might as well flush that money down the toilet, as their is only loss no profit.

To be honest, I've always been thought that if something's too good to be true, it most probably is.
If someone told me there was a way to mine something, around the world, with a huge amount of profit and little to no outside costs, I would immediately smell 'scam'.

As far as Texas,
https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/crypto-could-strain-texas-faulty-power-grid-ercot-issues-warnings-summer-heat-14120691

Texans were asked to conserve energy during a warm spell last month, and this summer could break temperature records. Now, just a day into June, many Texans are already praying that the state’s power grid can handle the heat

Texans are being asked to turn their ACs off, so the miners can keep running, don't expect that to last too long, before the rage toward the miners creates a ban.
Thinking that PoW miners that waste electricity will be able to increase it for others, is something only a btc cultists would believe.
If a PoW miners draws down the energy resources for a state for years and turns off for 1 day to avoid the energy price hikes he was about to receive, you want to claim the energy hog produced energy, so insane, it is not even laughable.

*Now where were we, :
I shall leave you to praise your dying BTC PoW fantasies, unabated.*

I shall ask you: are you against free-market capitalism? Do you believe governments should decide who is allowed to buy how much power, where and when? It surprises me, because most people around here are against such ideas and believe that if there's demand for more energy, more energy will be provided; if a grid becomes too unstable for industrial mining, miners will move, and all these characteristics of a free market.

[...]

You bring up a good point: 'locked up capital that does nothing', is a type of waste; for anyone who believes PoS creates no waste. If there's such a high incentive not to use your capital (because it gives guaranteed profits - compared to investing in something that can gain or lose value), why would anyone use it? And locked up capital is waste, because if it wasn't locked up, it would circulate in the economy and be 'productive'.

[BusinessChain]

Thanks for your discussion.

Here are my three take-aways on why PoS is inferior to PoW:

1. PoS requires no decentralized, scarce real world ressource for mining. This means that there is no inherent incentive for the network topology to decentralize itself. This is in stark contrast to PoW where new miners need to find new geografic locations in order to tap new energy sources.

<>

I disagree with this point. PoW gives miners incentives to gravitate towards locations that have cheap electricity. This is something that we have in fact seen by way of certain areas of the world have concentrated amounts of mining by various entities, while other parts of the world, even if the same country, have little mining activity.

I think you are mistaken. Because even though there might be hot spots of cheap energy that attract alot of miners, guess what happens next... that energy becomes more expensive. Now you have again the situation where new miners have to divert in geografic location.

 And by the way, do you know where there is cheap sustainable energy in most abundance? Exactly, it is the deserts. Soon we will witness miners building large solar plants in the deserts powering their mining plants. Luckily, deserts are all over the globe.

[pooya87]

Soon we will witness miners building large solar plants in the deserts powering their mining plants. Luckily, deserts are all over the globe.

That doesn't seem realistic because mining bitcoin is not just about providing the electricity, it also has another very important part which is cooling. ASICs produce a lot of heat and they run all day, so it will quickly become a nightmare to coll all that equipment in the middle of the desert with its natural high temperature.

P.S. I should mention that I've seen at least one person claiming to have done this successfully but never provided proof. So I remain skeptical.

[satscraper]

ASICs produce a lot of heat and they run all day, so it will quickly become a nightmare to coll all that equipment in the middle of the desert with its natural high temperature.

In this case they can be scheduled to   run exclusively at night and powered by electricity accumulated from energy captured during the day. "The average Sahara Desert temperature during the night is 25 degrees Fahrenheit or -4 degrees Celsius."

[tadamichi]

Now feel free to continue your insane waste of money, but anyone buying a btc or ltc PoW miner,
just realize you might as well flush that money down the toilet, as their is only loss no profit.

To be honest, I've always been thought that if something's too good to be true, it most probably is.
If someone told me there was a way to mine something, around the world, with a huge amount of profit and little to no outside costs, I would immediately smell 'scam'.

That’s how it is, there’s no free money without a catch in most cases. The risks of Bitcoin mining were always clearly communicated by the people i met so far, you even mentioned it in your post, that it’s not a money printing machine.

The PoS crowd keeps selling fairytales on the other hand. Staking isn’t possible for anyone, especially not the poor. And inexperienced newbies also risk their capital while going into staking, have some downtime and get slashed, the poor have to give up self custody, sounds completely riskless. This guy is scared about worldwide energy failures but doesn’t realise if 1/3 of Eth PoS validators are down they can’t finalise Blocks. While 69% of ethereum nodes already run in the cloud. A laptop and a battery is enough preparation for sure.

[...]

You bring up a good point: 'locked up capital that does nothing', is a type of waste; for anyone who believes PoS creates no waste. If there's such a high incentive not to use your capital (because it gives guaranteed profits - compared to investing in something that can gain or lose value), why would anyone use it? And locked up capital is waste, because if it wasn't locked up, it would circulate in the economy and be 'productive'.

It is a waste and a dangerous one on top of this, it’s like throwing ever growing nuclear waste into the populations drinking water and thinking nothing can go wrong, because they thought about it long enough and this method consumes less energy and is easier to do. Clean water must’ve been just a spectrum in the first place, we’re smarter now. And this is the best case scenario.

In the average case you’re giving the most wealthy part of the population more and more economic nukes over time, with the legality to use them wherever and whenever they want, while the working class is only allowed to play with sticks, and then thinking power will stay decentralized. Plus using nukes will have an financial incentive by whoever uses them, minus the damage for themselves.

ASICs produce a lot of heat and they run all day, so it will quickly become a nightmare to coll all that equipment in the middle of the desert with its natural high temperature.

In this case they can be scheduled to   run exclusively at night and powered by electricity accumulated from energy captured during the day. "The average Sahara Desert temperature during the night is 25 degrees Fahrenheit or -4 degrees Celsius."

Maybe they could use the cold at night to freeze liquids and then use this to cool the facility during the day to keep their operations running. But this needs to be evaluated in practice.

[BusinessChain]

Soon we will witness miners building large solar plants in the deserts powering their mining plants. Luckily, deserts are all over the globe.

That doesn't seem realistic because mining bitcoin is not just about providing the electricity, it also has another very important part which is cooling. ASICs produce a lot of heat and they run all day, so it will quickly become a nightmare to coll all that equipment in the middle of the desert with its natural high temperature.

P.S. I should mention that I've seen at least one person claiming to have done this successfully but never provided proof. So I remain skeptical.

Cooling is solved. You place desalination facilities in the coast region, then you build pipelines into the deserts. Because not only do you need cooling, you also need water for all the inhabitants of those new mining oasis. And you need to clean the panels.

[n0nce]

Thanks for your discussion.

Here are my three take-aways on why PoS is inferior to PoW:

1. PoS requires no decentralized, scarce real world ressource for mining. This means that there is no inherent incentive for the network topology to decentralize itself. This is in stark contrast to PoW where new miners need to find new geografic locations in order to tap new energy sources.

<>

I disagree with this point. PoW gives miners incentives to gravitate towards locations that have cheap electricity. This is something that we have in fact seen by way of certain areas of the world have concentrated amounts of mining by various entities, while other parts of the world, even if the same country, have little mining activity.

I think you are mistaken. Because even though there might be hot spots of cheap energy that attract alot of miners, guess what happens next... that energy becomes more expensive. Now you have again the situation where new miners have to divert in geografic location.

 And by the way, do you know where there is cheap sustainable energy in most abundance? Exactly, it is the deserts. Soon we will witness miners building large solar plants in the deserts powering their mining plants. Luckily, deserts are all over the globe.

Interesting point; I didn't comment, but also initially agreed with your points 2 and 3, while disagreeing on point 1. Just because I thought you hadn't fully understood the concept of decentralizing the network (nodes). It's absolutely crucial for the nodes to be decentralized and plentiful, a thing that is rarely the case in any altcoin. Hence I thought you were confusing things.

But indeed; they neither have decentralized 'backbone' (full nodes), nor decentralized mining. I believe the core issue is that they don't have any tie to real-world resources at all; not to speak of decentralized or not.
Having decentralized hashpower is nice to have (on top of decentralized node infrastructure), and I'm glad that desert mining appears to be a potential future development in the Bitcoin mining industry. I can definitely see watercooling of server racks as a way to deal with the heat; solar panels are insanely efficient in the desert latitudes due to sun angle and long days + no real winters.

[pooya87]

Cooling is solved. You place desalination facilities in the coast region, then you build pipelines into the deserts. Because not only do you need cooling, you also need water for all the inhabitants of those new mining oasis. And you need to clean the panels.

Wouldn't that add a huge cost on top of everything else? You would have to transfer the water all the way to the desert just for a mining facility. Not to mention that you still have to reduce the water temperature in order to actually cool the equipment in hot environments, this requires additional energy that could negate all the befits of mining in the desert.

[j2002ba2]

Cooling is solved. You place desalination facilities in the coast region, then you build pipelines into the deserts. Because not only do you need cooling, you also need water for all the inhabitants of those new mining oasis. And you need to clean the panels.

What about sandstorms? A single sandstorm could burry the whole mining facility. And they become more and more frequent.

[satscraper]

Mining BITCOIN in the DESERT:"I just bought 6 Bitmain Antminer S19 Pro 110Th Bitcoin miners which are in a container in the desert of West Texas and powered by flared natural gas. I drove out there with @SPACE DESIGN WAREHOUSE to see the entire operation and set my miners up. In this video, I tell you all about the operation, why I spent this money, what my expectations are, and more. "

[pooya87]

in the desert of West Texas and powered by flared natural gas.

It's not so much about the "desert" which would be all about using clean energy of the sun, it is instead all about using the same fossil fuels that pollute the environment already to generate the needed energy. In other words the location is not the real factor here.

[BusinessChain]

Cooling is solved. You place desalination facilities in the coast region, then you build pipelines into the deserts. Because not only do you need cooling, you also need water for all the inhabitants of those new mining oasis. And you need to clean the panels.

Wouldn't that add a huge cost on top of everything else? You would have to transfer the water all the way to the desert just for a mining facility. Not to mention that you still have to reduce the water temperature in order to actually cool the equipment in hot environments, this requires additional energy that could negate all the befits of mining in the desert.

Yes, it will add to cost but that doesn't mean it can't be profitable. Of course this assumes a very high Bitcoin price. In the mean time you can build facilities near the coast, so you may even cool directly with sea water via a heat exchanger of course.

Within the desert, I can cool the water for free during the night, because in the deserts it usually gets very cold during night time. During the night, I will run a Sterling engine run by hot water and cool air generating electricity and, as a byproduct will cool the water.

[BusinessChain]

Cooling is solved. You place desalination facilities in the coast region, then you build pipelines into the deserts. Because not only do you need cooling, you also need water for all the inhabitants of those new mining oasis. And you need to clean the panels.

What about sandstorms? A single sandstorm could burry the whole mining facility. And they become more and more frequent.

You build the solar panels elevated, like 4 meters or more. This allows for farming below the panels in the half shade. If indeed you the level of sand rises, you would have to remove it.

[pooya87]

Of course this assumes a very high Bitcoin price.

Technically speaking since mining is always competitive and hashrate (difficulty) changes after each price change (goes up with price rise) the profit shouldn't really change when price goes up and things balance out again.

Within the desert, I can cool the water for free during the night, because in the deserts it usually gets very cold during night time. During the night, I will run a Sterling engine run by hot water and cool air generating electricity and, as a byproduct will cool the water.

But if the water is used for cooling during the ~12 hours of day it has to be constantly cooled because after a short time at the beginning of the day its temperature will increase and you have to wait until nightfall to cool it again or spend additional money for its cooling.

[BusinessChain]

Of course this assumes a very high Bitcoin price.

Technically speaking since mining is always competitive and hashrate (difficulty) changes after each price change (goes up with price rise) the profit shouldn't really change when price goes up and things balance out again.

Not so fast.
It is true that hash rate rises with the price, but there will come the day where there will be no more easy accessible energy anymore. At that point in time, mining in the deserts will actually be the cheapest way for large scale mining(I am talking about hundreds of Giga Watts). So if the price of Bitcoin rises further, new mining competitors will produce their electricity in the same way as existing ones, meaning profit margin will stay just high enough for maintaining a mining facility like this.

Within the desert, I can cool the water for free during the night, because in the deserts it usually gets very cold during night time. During the night, I will run a Sterling engine run by hot water and cool air generating electricity and, as a byproduct will cool the water.

But if the water is used for cooling during the ~12 hours of day it has to be constantly cooled because after a short time at the beginning of the day its temperature will increase and you have to wait until nightfall to cool it again or spend additional money for its cooling.

Imagine in the morning you have 1m³ of water at 20°C. Now you run your miners and cool them with the water. In that process the temperature gets 80°C. If it reaches that temperature, you store it in a large tank. During the night, I will cool that water with an air to water heat exchanger (Or a Sterling Engine) such that in the next morning it will have a temperature of 20°C again. If during the night I produce additional hot water, I will cool that with additional heat exchanger capacitiy during the night.

[tadamichi]

Within the desert, I can cool the water for free during the night, because in the deserts it usually gets very cold during night time. During the night, I will run a Sterling engine run by hot water and cool air generating electricity and, as a byproduct will cool the water.

But if the water is used for cooling during the ~12 hours of day it has to be constantly cooled because after a short time at the beginning of the day its temperature will increase and you have to wait until nightfall to cool it again or spend additional money for its cooling.

Imagine in the morning you have 1m³ of water at 20°C. Now you run your miners and cool them with the water. In that process the temperature gets 80°C. If it reaches that temperature, you store it in a large tank. During the night, I will cool that water with an air to water heat exchanger (Or a Sterling Engine) such that in the next morning it will have a temperature of 20°C again. If during the night I produce additional hot water, I will cool that with additional heat exchanger capacitiy during the night.

There is actually easier ways to store ice/ provide cooling in the desert with some smart engineering, ancient persia did this. This design could be improved upon with modern methods.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qanat#Ice_storage

https://www.maxfordham.com/research-innovation/the-physics-of-freezing-at-the-iranian-yakhchal/

[n0nce]

[...]
Imagine in the morning you have 1m³ of water at 20°C. Now you run your miners and cool them with the water. In that process the temperature gets 80°C. If it reaches that temperature, you store it in a large tank. During the night, I will cool that water with an air to water heat exchanger (Or a Sterling Engine) such that in the next morning it will have a temperature of 20°C again. If during the night I produce additional hot water, I will cool that with additional heat exchanger capacitiy during the night.

Little back-of-the-envelope calculation..
Specific heat capacity of water: 4.1813 J/gK or 1 calorie.
So it takes 1,000,000 calories or 4,181,300 Joules to heat 1 cubic meter of water (1 ton) by 1 Kelvin.

We assume 60K of temperature delta, so we need 60 million calories = 250,878,000J = 69.69kWh to heat 1 cubic meter of water from 20°C to 80°C. It means that 1m³ of water at 20°C can provide 69.69kWh of cooling before it gets too hot.
If a miner runs 24/7 at 3kW power draw, it puts out 24 x 3 = 72kWh of heat in a day.

Your math pretty much checks out, to be honest! A cubic meter is not an unreasonable amount of space to provide all-day cooling for a single miner. If it runs through some piping to increase surface area, I'm sure it can be cooled very well at night when the desert gets super cold.

[PrimeNumber7]

Thanks for your discussion.

Here are my three take-aways on why PoS is inferior to PoW:

1. PoS requires no decentralized, scarce real world ressource for mining. This means that there is no inherent incentive for the network topology to decentralize itself. This is in stark contrast to PoW where new miners need to find new geografic locations in order to tap new energy sources.

<>

I disagree with this point. PoW gives miners incentives to gravitate towards locations that have cheap electricity. This is something that we have in fact seen by way of certain areas of the world have concentrated amounts of mining by various entities, while other parts of the world, even if the same country, have little mining activity.

I think you are mistaken. Because even though there might be hot spots of cheap energy that attract alot of miners, guess what happens next... that energy becomes more expensive. Now you have again the situation where new miners have to divert in geografic location.

There has been, and will always likely be, a limit as to how many miners are produced per unit of time, and there are costs associated with moving existing mining equipment.

And by the way, do you know where there is cheap sustainable energy in most abundance? Exactly, it is the deserts. Soon we will witness miners building large solar plants in the deserts powering their mining plants. Luckily, deserts are all over the globe.

Deserts have an abundance of solar energy, but solar energy is expensive to harvest. Costs associated with harvesting solar energy include the depreciation costs of the solar panels.

[aliashraf]

Hello everyone,

Recently, Vitalik Buterin, responded to a tweet against his scheme with a 'pro-tip'  :

pro-tip:
It has been debated for so long and both sides have their own arguments, so my scheme is legitimate enough to be treated more respectfully.
[Isn't worth exact quoting]

This is what they earned with this debate: legitimacy.
True-pro-tip #1: Do not argue with PoS advocates, they abuse the implicit legitimacy credited to them, the honor of being invited to a discussion.

Do not get me wrong, PoS could be a good technique within a PoW ecosystem where it is not used for printing money out of thin air. It is the point: PoS advocates use a feasible technique (which would be useful in transaction processing somehow ) in a very sensitive, irrelevant domain: printing money, and it is sick.  Any single coin printed by virtue of 'stakes' is a scam token with almost zero value, ways worse than fiat money. The latter, fiat, has something to say about its value as a notification of debt, what has a pure PoS born token to say about its value? Nothing!

A government can argue about its credit as a security behind fiat money, what is behind the PoS alternative? Nothing!
Even if the staking tokens were Proof of Work, like what Buterin has fallen in love with, it wouldn't help. The newly-minted tokens would suffer from the same vanity as their pure Pos counterparts.

As of the post-merge Ethereum, unlike what they say, the whole ETH coins are at stake and not a 10% fraction or so, because for any brand new PoS token that is going to be printed after the transition, a tiny portion of each existing coin is vanished as a result  of their fungibility!
 
True-pro-tip #2: Do not hold Ethereum!

[pooya87]

Do not argue with PoS advocates, they abuse the implicit legitimacy credited to them, the honor of being invited to a discussion.

I disagree, because on public forums (bitcointalk, reddit, even twitter) you and the PoS advocate are not alone, a lot of newbies are reading the misinformation that the PoS advocate is spreading so their lies have to be challenged.
It's the same with SegWit, even today we are seeing people who are confused about how SegWit transactions work if they "remove" the signature just because in 2017 someone gave them wrong information about signatures being removed.