"Surprisingly, Tail Emission Is Not Inflationary" -- A post by Peter Todd

[aliashraf]

Allow me to simplify.
{something offensive}
Got it?

It is not your sub-forum buddy, keep calm and don't panic you lucky, greedy bastard

P.S.
For saving your BTCBTC from next crashes, I'm hardly working on a project on my exhausted personal budget, are you committed wise enough to donate like half a percent of your unfairly acquired old coins?  

Allow me to simplify:

• Govs all over the world are targeting bitcoin miners for imposing bans, extra taxes, etc. Meanwhile, PoS shills are aggressively promoting their stupid ideas about PoS being the next generation, environmentally correct, energy efficient alternative to PoW, blah, blah.  
• Bitcoin is not adopted as means of payment, not even in the horizon, instead ,speculators (people like you), along with gamblers and scammers are dominating the marketplace.
• Bitcoin is not even ready for mass adoption, right now with 4-5 TPS.
• ...

The most stupid and irresponsible thing would be ignoring everything and sticking to your stash, don't do this, help us as a reasonable stakeholder would.

Cheers and bye,

[1714824138]

1714824138

[aliashraf]

What else is incomplete here? https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-June/020532.html

That idea is quite simple: you have the mainchain, you sign your coins, and then they appear on the sidechain. Then, you move those coins on the mainchain, and then they are destroyed on the sidechain. So, the whole problem is simplified into making the right output scripts.

If you think that technical description is incomplete, then you can try to see, what is really needed. To sign anything, it is needed to make an invalid transaction, that would prove you own some coins on the mainchain. To do that, you can use the signet way of signing blocks, just make "to_spend" and "to_sign" transactions, and place them on your sidechain. As far as I know, vjudeu is working on a technical description for signet-based signatures. Also, I noticed that it was recently touched on the mailing list, and BIP-322 is a good starting point, because it can be used to prove any funds, including Taproot outputs, that could contain some hidden TapScript branches, designed especially for things like sidechains.

Reclaiming sidechain balance is an old problem and is not addressable easily, LN was originally designed to circumvent this problem without PoW, some people are so pissed with PoW, you know.  
1- THEY got LN, won't cooperate.
2- Using homomorphic signatures to validate transfer of funds in the sidechain, is not the way to go, the sidechain should've approved the transfer in its ledger by accumulating work, it is all about work, forget about the minerphobic talking points in the dominating bitcoin cult, it is just whale discourse.

The latter argument leads me to the most important point: Besides the vision,  we need a model, a universal one, for the way chains interact in a hierarchy, then we need a roadmap for fitting bitcoin in the model, on top of it. As of now I'm thinking of an impedance layer and special treatment, hence homomorphic signatures, convenants, coinpools, ...,  all are worth considering, but the model is to be established priorly.

mining centralization

It is a separate problem

No, it is not. I can't imagine full-fledged sidechains without mining decentralization and vice versa, long story.  

scaling

Scaling is again a separate problem, and it is mainly about compression.

No, neither the separation nor the compression argument is correct.
Sidechains are there to scale bitcoin as well, (otherwise what would be the source of the extra income of miners as discussed by Paul?
Actually, there is no decentralized solution to scaling other than sidechains, period.
And scaling is not about compression, you achieve throughput improvements by compression which are not scalable as it becomes harder exponentially to apply in each recursion.

Speaking about recursion and back to the model issue, I strongly believe that recursion is the most important characteristic of a software model and the key to scalability in both horizontal and vertical sense.

mass adoption

Again, it is entirely different problem, also because if there are no sidechains, then some features will happen only on altcoins.

Again, you are wrong. Altcoins don't help, as they are heterogeneous and maliciously governed. No sidechains, No mass adoption.  

[tadamichi]

For saving your BTCBTC from next crashes, I'm hardly working on a project on my exhausted personal budget,

Bitcoin needs a saviour?

are you committed wise enough to donate like half a percent of your unfairly acquired old coins?  

Im not even an early holder, but saying early coins were acquired unfairly is kinda insanity.

Govs all over the world are targeting bitcoin miners for imposing bans, extra taxes, etc. Meanwhile, PoS shills are aggressively promoting their stupid ideas about PoS being the next generation, environmentally correct, energy efficient alternative to PoW, blah, blah.  

How does this matter when you’re actually decentralized?

Bitcoin is not adopted as means of payment, not even in the horizon, instead ,speculators (people like you), along with gamblers and scammers are dominating the marketplace.

Cringe, when soft and hard money circulate together, the hard money will be hoarded and circulates less, aka bad money drives out good money. Until the soft money lost too much value and then hard money starts to be used as a means of payment, aka good money drives out bad money. Simple economic principles, no need to insult people for doing what’s rational or trying to fiddle with things that can’t be solved artificially. There’s speculators and gamblers but over 60% of Bitcoin is being hodld even now, ridiculous to assume the majority of people are gamblers or speculators. Simply storing value is a legitimate use case when inflation is over 10% and we’re still early in the adoption cycle.

Bitcoin is not even ready for mass adoption, right now with 4-5 TPS.

We didn’t even reach a point yet were TPS hindered mass adoption, mass adoption is a long process that depends on many factors outside of this. Just increasing tps alone isn’t what will make mass adoption happen overnight.

[aliashraf]

@tadamichi,
No offense, but don't play it this way, the guy comes here bragging about his money and insulting people, deserves a backlash, this is it. Let it go.

As of the old coins being fairly acquired or not:
Mining one bitcoin costs more than $15K nowadays, check for the costs in 2011 and make a judgment for yourself.

[vjudeu]

And scaling is not about compression, you achieve throughput improvements by compression which are not scalable as it becomes harder exponentially to apply in each recursion.

It actually is. If we would have sidechains, it would be the first real Layer Two (because Lightning Network is Layer One And A Half). And it is about compression, because you first peg funds in, then you transact inside, and then you peg funds out (and LN cannot "transact inside" if you never had a channel). It would be the same if you would have transaction joining on-chain, on mempool level, where you could send transactions to nodes, and where miners would mine A->Z transaction with a no-double-spending-proof, instead of mining A->B->C->...->X->Y->Z transactions. Another thing is that making the real Layer Zero is also about compression, because each sidechain should trace the heaviest Proof of Work chain, and distribute coins accordingly. So, if some attackers have 99% of the whole SHA-256d mining power, then the honest nodes should get only 1% of the coins, because in other case, it would be unsafe, and because of Merged Mining, those chains could be easily reorged (or lose a peg) if they would grant the full amount, and if they would have their own difficulty. That was another NameCoin's mistake.

No sidechains, No mass adoption.

From discussions on the mailing list, you should know, that it is very unlikely to get BIP-300, BIP-301, or similar proposals activated. And for that reason, it should be introduced as a no-fork, because it won't be accepted as a soft-fork, not to mention hard-forks, that would be instantly rejected (and they are also unnecessary in case of sidechains). And that's the point when I disagree with Paul Sztorc, because he still seems to believe that doing it in a soft-fork is reachable. Technically it may be, but practically it is unlikely. The mainchain should have no idea that there are any sidechains at all, and that's why the whole logic should happen on each sidechain separately. So, that means:

1) each sidechain should collect all SHA-256d headers, to get the heaviest Proof of Work chain
2) coins should be created by signing the mainchain coins (because any kind of peg is needed, to get 1 BTC = 1 sidechain_BTC)
3) it should be impossible to know, how many sidechains there are, and what is their internal state, from the mainchain perspective (because then they could be blocked by some kind of soft-forks)

You won't get sidechains by telling people that "sidechains are good, so we should activate them". Paul Sztorc tried that way and failed. Also, that way is not sufficiently decentralized, because it means that you need to reach some kind of "permission" to use sidechains at all. So, to make it permissionless, the best way is to find out, how to make it without touching consensus. One of those ways can be homomorphic encryption, but it is only one possible way. There are other ways, like adding new sighashes, that could also activate sidechains "as a side-effect". For example, it could be something like "if you want eltoo, you will also get sidechains", or "if you want SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT, you will also get sidechains". I don't expect people will tell you "yes, we want sidechains". They probably won't choose that route, it is harder than that, and it is a test of decentralization: if you can introduce sidechains without going through any soft-fork procedure, then your solution is decentralized enough.

[NeuroticFish]

@tadamichi,
No offense, but

[~snip~]
 
Mining one bitcoin costs more than $15K nowadays, check for the costs in 2011 and make a judgment for yourself.

Indeed, there's a huge difference in mining costs. However, if one change is made wrong, Bitcoin price can easily go south badly. So bad that even mining price won't matter. So bad that you will look to <insert altcoin here> and sigh "bitcoin could have been even better".
This is always to be taken into account, hence you should not dismiss so easily people like @TraderTimm or @tadamichi (or their opinion), no matter how badly or offensive they express this reality.

Now, to @TraderTimm: don't worry, this discussion is more at academic level (i.e. ideas and nothing more), I don't expect anything really change.

[aliashraf]

where miners would mine A->Z transaction with a no-double-spending-proof

Actually, the only practical no-double-spend-proof is the ledger maintained by the sidechain, committed by work. Additionally, homomorphic DS has limited application in real-world applications, as the locked utxo is usually dispersed too much as a result of fee collection by sidechain miners on one hand and the rapid circulation of ligh txns on the other hand, it is hardly fit in coin-join model efficiently as it needs to have a set of consumed output exactly match the amount of the reclaimed balance, hard to achieve AFAICS.

Let's stay focused on this part, waiting for your reply. I'll come to the next part afterwards.

[tadamichi]

@tadamichi,
No offense, but don't play it this way, the guy comes here bragging about his money and insulting people, deserves a backlash, this is it. Let it go.

Maybe i took it differently, but fine let’s not discuss about this one.

As of the old coins being fairly acquired or not:
Mining one bitcoin costs more than $15K nowadays, check for the costs in 2011 and make a judgment for yourself.

I get it, but that’s just the nature of the thing. There’s certain opportunities to get something for way below it’s worth, but that’s only possible if you’re there earlier than most other people. They went in when it was barely worth anything and needed to hold it for a long time and trough a lot of uncertainty to make gains. I don’t think there’s another way to handle this, as you need some incentives for earlier holders so this thing takes off in the first place. These opportunities will be there again for other things, for people who missed this one. One door closes and another one opens. This only matters for people who wished to get rich from Bitcoin tho. To me that’s not the goal, i just think the soundest money will benefit society the most, no matter if average workers or millionaires. But the real benefit being for regular people.

On an individual level Bitcoin still offers the same properties to everyone in a time where it couldn’t be needed more, that’s valuable. Just having a money that won’t inflate over time could be huge for the average family over time. It doesn’t matter if someone holds 1000x more than us, because Bitcoin still serves everyone and the potential is still huge, with a lot less uncertainty than back then.

It could be considered unfair, the same way you could consider it unfair that older people had the opportunity to buy apple and amazon shares at pennies, but the future is uncertain and we have expenses in the present, there was a reason they were traded at this price in one point in time and people had to take real risks. I would focus on future opportunities instead of missed opportunities, as there will be plenty. Mining costs will even increase in the future and people will look the same way at us now and think it’s unfair and we’re lucky. But it’s not easy to just go in and mine for most people, even tho we know that we have a unique opportunity rn.

[vjudeu]

the ledger maintained by the sidechain, committed by work

And how the mainchain is informed about that ledger in Paul Sztorc's proposal? By voting. And that's all, because sidechain rules can be anything.

Additionally, homomorphic DS has limited application in real-world applications, as the locked utxo is usually dispersed too much as a result of fee collection by sidechain miners on one hand and the rapid circulation of ligh txns on the other hand, it is hardly fit in coin-join model efficiently as it needs to have a set of consumed output exactly match the amount of the reclaimed balance, hard to achieve AFAICS.

Yes, it is hard, but it is Worse is Better approach. You can decentralize mining by collecting all shares from all miners, so if there are 4 MB blocks, and you have 1000 miners, you can collect 4 GB of data, and validate them all. Excluding repeated parts, it will be smaller in practice, but as miners can include their own transactions, you have to be prepared for the worst case, where all miners will mine their own coinbase transactions, and they will include an artificial traffic between themselves, making transactions that won't repeat. So, it is not technically impossible, it is only inefficient. And blockchains are inefficient by design, if everything else will fail, then we will be forced to decentralize mining in such way, just by processing everything. Fortunately, on-chain settled data can be later pruned, because each sidechain has a mainchain, when it can be settled, and deeply confirmed. So, only the mainchain has a problem of "non-removable data". For sidechains, historical data can be removed, because they are only temporarily needed to handle disagreements.

[LegendaryK]

Allow me to simplify:

• Govs all over the world are targeting bitcoin miners for imposing bans, extra taxes, etc. Meanwhile, PoS shills are aggressively promoting their stupid ideas about PoS being the next generation, environmentally correct, energy efficient alternative to PoW, blah, blah.  
• Bitcoin is not adopted as means of payment, not even in the horizon, instead ,speculators (people like you), along with gamblers and scammers are dominating the marketplace.
• Bitcoin is not even ready for mass adoption, right now with 4-5 TPS.
• ...

The most stupid and irresponsible thing would be ignoring everything and sticking to your stash, don't do this, help us as a reasonable stakeholder would.

Cheers and bye,

Govs banning btc because of PoW mining energy bans, FUD FUD FUD, crys the bitcoin cultists.  

Reasonable people, see Proof of stake as the tech evolution needed to propel the tech to new heights of innovation.

Here is some reality for your digestion, take your time as it may be hard to swallow.  

PoS users don't care what happens with PoW coins, we moved on.
(Their are so few PoW coins left, and fewer every year, who cares.)
PoW users are way more obsessed about PoS Tech, ignore it, as we Ignore you.  

So your only real problem is
what is PoW BTC going to do to avoid government bans.
education program on how PoW energy waste is a good thing, good luck with that.  
(See BTC is more secure crys the bitcoin cultist.)  
I doubt that Texans will believe that when they are sitting in the dark for a year,
because the BTC PoW miners cause their power grid to collapse when their transformers exploded.
Kind of Proves China was smarter than Texas, since they already banned PoW mining.  
Texas would have to buy new transformers to repair the damage , wait for it, from China, (currently 1-3 year backlog.)  


BTC was designed to move from rewards based profit to transactions fee based profit.
Segwit , refusing to increase block size, offchain networks such as LN & Liquid have blocked that evolution of pay structure for the miners.
With limited blocksize , the PoW miners only option is to increase transaction fees to offset the loss of rewards.
This insures that the regular person will never transact onchain due to costs, and offchain networks are the only game in the house affordable to the normal people,
while the banks , whom LN and Liquid are really being made for , can still profit by making millions to trillions of transactions offchain, with only a single monthly onchain transaction to update their ledgers.
With that future as BTC goal, having an ridiculous low onchain transaction capacity becomes it's designated design, which is also why you see tons of research going into offchain , and basically none on improving onchain BTC. For actual onchain improvements you have to look to other coin networks.
 
FYI:
In an earlier comments, you mentioned what would happen if the whales took over.
Answer is apparent : They would make BTC network less expensive to maintain.
By one of the following.
1.  Regulate who was allowed to mine and how much % of the hash rate allowed, keeping the energy used down to a sustainable level.
    *This also allows regulated miners to control transactions, which would give control to the government to block btc transactions.*
or
2.  Switch to another algo.

FYI2:
Tail emission is a non-issue for btc, as lost coins are to be replaced not by new coins,
but by increasing the decimal points used to the right side of the decimal.
BTC currently uses 8 points to the right of the decimal,
LN will use 12 points  to the right of the decimal.
And that number can always be increased , which increases the usable units, while never increasing the actual coded 21 million supply.
It is a math scam that can only happen in a virtual setting, and is totally impossible to achieve in the physical world.
1/1 =1   usable unit
1/.1=10 usable units
1/.00000001 = 100000000 usable units
1/.000000000001  =1000000000000 usable units

micro and pico satoshis .  

[aliashraf]

the ledger maintained by the sidechain, committed by work

And how the mainchain is informed about that ledger in Paul Sztorc's proposal? By voting. And that's all, because sidechain rules can be anything.

In my model, and not Paul's, the mainchain, or to be more accurate, the upperchain, is not supposed to be informed about the ledger, only the work, and not even an SPV proof, whatsoever, just the mere fact that blocks coming up from the lowerchain, are consistently and continuously asking for the funds to be released.

I'll share this model asap, but it doesn't matter right now, just take it as an example of how a PoW network should be scaled: by PoW.

Additionally, homomorphic DS has limited application in real-world applications, as the locked utxo is usually dispersed too much as a result of fee collection by sidechain miners on one hand and the rapid circulation of ligh txns on the other hand, it is hardly fit in coin-join model efficiently as it needs to have a set of consumed output exactly match the amount of the reclaimed balance, hard to achieve AFAICS.

Yes, it is hard, but it is Worse is Better approach.

I couldn't find an answer to my argument, but I do strongly admit that software architecture and design is about elegance and simplicity and about restriction rather than utilization. It is all I have learned in the field where I used to be anti-fatware, since very beginning.

Back to the discussion, my point was something as follows:
For your proposal to work (as a cryptographic proof and still, not a cryptocurrency one), you need to track down the set of sidechain coins which are going to burn (in an outchain txn), to respective outputs of their genesis (inchain txns) such that they are quantitatively matched. How feasible is it without too many restrictions on the sidechain? Or something like dedicated bots, crawling exhaustively, hunting occasional matches etc.

You can decentralize mining by collecting all shares from all miners, so if there are 4 MB blocks, and you have 1000 miners, you can collect 4 GB of data, and validate them all ...

It is impractical because of propagation delay, let alone other stuff.  
Mining decentralization can be realized  without any chain (in any layer) being involved in (fully) validating anything other than its own blocks, it is a nutshell design principle, elegance and simplicity, remember?

Let's have a bit more elaboration:  
What makes the current, centralized mining pools, more efficient than a decentralized alternative like P2Pool, is that P2P designers were obsessed with full validation of the blocks, even though %95 of the shares are not going to the blockchain ever. As a result, P2Pool is not able to offer more than a 20 times leverage (the factor by which a pool reduces the target difficulty) to its participants, otherwise orphans and chain splits will show-up, hence as a participating miner, you need 5% of total bitcoin hashrate to hit a share in ~ 10 minutes. It'd be mostly useless, compared to what centralized pools offer, leveraging up to a factor of 10 million where home miners with a single average device are able to generate enough shares per minute to use the pool's dashboard for monitoring the device's online status!


From your post, I suspect you may be trapped in the same rabbit hole as P2P guys: the excessive verification discourse, which is crafted deceptively to undermine PoW, the true and the only source of value in bitcoin.

EDIT: the closing paragraph was bootstrapped.

[larry_vw_1955]

Allow me to simplify.

Don't fuck with my money.

that type of advocacy isn't going to go very far in convincing anyone that changes aren't necessary but anyhow.

This isn't an "experiment" anymore. The moment people incorporated it into their lives and DEPEND on it -- it ceases to be something that you can view as your personal petri dish.

bitcoin is an experiment. do your own due diligence before putting your money in. people are always going to be proposing changes to bitcoin.

Take this shit seriously, and don't propose changes just to soothe your ego. This is a real system that people depend on. We could give a shit about how clever you think you are.

Don't fuck with OUR money.

people are always going to be proposing changes to bitcoin. the reason they do that is to try and make it "better". that's what you signed up for when you put money into bitcoin. is that development process. DYODD.

Got it?

yeah, I got that you don't want a tail emission but unfortunately, just because you don't want that doesn't mean someone else is not going to be advocating for it and arguing its technical merits. you'll might want to argue against it based on technical reasoning. because saying "don't mess with my money" is kind of ridiculous sounding honestly. someone with the "don't f*** with my money mentality" probably should be keeping their money under their mattress.

[aliashraf]

Reasonable people, see Proof of stake as the tech evolution needed to propel the tech to new heights of innovation.

It is pretty much, off-topic, if not vandalism. There is a topic for PoW/PoS debate, Good luck convincing people about your blind faith in Proof of Sh*t.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Take this shit seriously, and don't propose changes just to soothe your ego.

You're here since 2011 and you've yet to understand that making discussion, proposing changes and producing consensus is what take the cake? We soothe no ego, and even if we do, that's how it works, sorry.

Bitcoin was not discovered. It was invented, and whatever is invented by a person can also be changed, recreated, molded by a person. We need none of your permission to do it. There's no such thing as democracy in this system. You're the one who's, crucially, responsible for your monetary policy, and who's an economic resource for those who follow that same policy. You don't gain this shit elsewhere. That's why it's so valuable.

We have a problem. We seek for a solution. You're free to disapprove it, and if the overwhelming majority acts likewise, then it's likely not a viable solution. But, discussion needs to be made, to reach to a conclusion. Otherwise your ecosystem might falter on its own. Granted, tail emission or any other change in mining economics cut no ice, but acknowledge that the system's security might be at some crisp risk in the future.

[NotATether]

Tail emission is a non-issue for btc, as lost coins are to be replaced not by new coins,
but by increasing the decimal points used to the right side of the decimal.
BTC currently uses 8 points to the right of the decimal,
LN will use 12 points  to the right of the decimal.

We can easily support up to 4 additional decimal points in L1, because the fee rate is 1000 sats/Kilobyte. So only a soft fork is needed to add a new entry in txin/txout, with the remaining 4 decimals and then lower the command line option of maxfeerate to 1 (sats/Kilobyte).

And that number can always be increased , which increases the usable units, while never increasing the actual coded 21 million supply.

Further precision increases are impossible unless the unit for fee rates is changed in all new clients (as the maxfeerate must be an integer), which will not be done. Besides, increasing the precision of the coins does not imply implementing tail emmission, because miners are already accepting these small values, but they can't do anything meaningful with them currently.

P.S. I do not like the idea of tail emission in the first place. I'm more of a "people will migrate to LN" guy.

[garlonicon]

Further precision increases are impossible unless the unit for fee rates is changed in all new clients

There is no such need, because you can allow free transactions, and then put more restrictions on top of that. Allowing free transactions is possible without any changes in code, the only needed change is in configuration file.

Code:

minrelaytxfee=0.00000000
blockmintxfee=0.00000000
dustrelayfee=0.00000000

Also note that if you have 1000-of-1000 multisig Taproot address, then you can have one satoshi on-chain, where everyone owns one millisatoshi off-chain, and then, all sub-units can be enforced by signatures. And if you want to have any on-chain representation of those fractional satoshis, you can use zeroes, and then connect those outputs in such transactions, then skipping any zero satoshi output in such transaction would make other signatures invalid.

But we have a separate topic for that: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5330102.0

[NotATether]

Further precision increases are impossible unless the unit for fee rates is changed in all new clients

There is no such need, because you can allow free transactions, and then put more restrictions on top of that. Allowing free transactions is possible without any changes in code, the only needed change is in configuration file.

Code:

minrelaytxfee=0.00000000
blockmintxfee=0.00000000
dustrelayfee=0.00000000

Well yes, that is another way to implement that solution, as you've already mentioned to me in an earlier post.

[LegendaryK]

Reasonable people, see Proof of stake as the tech evolution needed to propel the tech to new heights of innovation.

It is pretty much, off-topic, if not vandalism. There is a topic for PoW/PoS debate, Good luck convincing people about your blind faith in Proof of Stake

Actually you mentioned PoS 1st.  

• Govs all over the world are targeting bitcoin miners for imposing bans, extra taxes, etc. Meanwhile, PoS shills are aggressively promoting their stupid ideas about
  PoS being the next generation, environmentally correct, energy efficient alternative to PoW, blah, blah.  
• Bitcoin is not adopted as means of payment, not even in the horizon, instead ,speculators (people like you), along with gamblers and scammers are dominating the marketplace.
• Bitcoin is not even ready for mass adoption, right now with 4-5 TPS.
• ...

The most stupid and irresponsible thing would be ignoring everything

Your one confusion is this , there is no PoS vs PoW anymore.
PoS won, and only a few PoW coins are left to evolve or die,
PoS supporters could care less about the dying PoW tech.

The Coming battle with PoW is this:
It is PoW vs People right to use affordable energy.
PoW vs Having an Air Conditioner
PoW vs Having electric Heat
PoW vs Having Lights
PoW vs Having Hot Water/Cook Food
PoW vs Playing Video Games
PoW vs Having Freezer/Refrigerator
PoW vs Basically anything else using electricity

Which is why PoW is a dead end, because eventually it prevents people from using energy for anything else.

FYI:  Be sure and sign the petition to stop btc PoW mining in Navarro county, Texas.
https://www.change.org/p/no-to-riot-bitcoin-mine-in-navarro-county

Navarro County/ Corsicana TX is looking to allow an industrial Bitcoin Mining operation to move here & use our resources.

We do NOT want this enormous burden on our already fragile infrastructure.

We do not want the increase in water and electricity bills.

We do not want the increase in environmental temperature in the immediate vicinity of the factory-that-produces-nothing.

We do not want the noise pollution that 500,000 computers running 24-7 will produce.

We do not want our county to facilitate in the illegal activity Bitcoin is used for, such as money laundering, child, human and sex trafficking, tax evasion and drug trafficking.

WE. DO. NOT. WANT. THIS. FACILITY. IN. NAVARRO. COUNTY.

This is NOT a done deal.

We have the power & authority to deny access to our municipal water supply.  We're in a drought and already experience brown-outs during the summer months.

This factory-that-produces-nothing will affect every single citizen of Navarro County and MUST BE STOPPED!

People are trying to ban PoW mining to save their communities.
 

[BlackHatCoiner]

nonsense

Which part of "it is off-topic" don't you get? Go whine about Proof-of-Work elsewhere. This isn't the proper thread.

[LegendaryK]

Reasonable people, see Proof of stake as the tech evolution needed to propel the tech to new heights of innovation.

It is pretty much, off-topic, if not vandalism. There is a topic for PoW/PoS debate, Good luck convincing people about your blind faith in Proof of Stake

Actually you mentioned PoS 1st.  

• Govs all over the world are targeting bitcoin miners for imposing bans, extra taxes, etc. Meanwhile, PoS shills are aggressively promoting their stupid ideas about
  PoS being the next generation, environmentally correct, energy efficient alternative to PoW, blah, blah.  
• Bitcoin is not adopted as means of payment, not even in the horizon, instead ,speculators (people like you), along with gamblers and scammers are dominating the marketplace.
• Bitcoin is not even ready for mass adoption, right now with 4-5 TPS.
• ...

The most stupid and irresponsible thing would be ignoring everything

Your one confusion is this , there is no PoS vs PoW anymore.
PoS won, and only a few PoW coins are left to evolve or die,
PoS supporters could care less about the dying PoW tech.

The Coming battle with PoW is this:
It is PoW vs People right to use affordable energy.
PoW vs Having an Air Conditioner
PoW vs Having electric Heat
PoW vs Having Lights
PoW vs Having Hot Water/Cook Food
PoW vs Playing Video Games
PoW vs Having Freezer/Refrigerator
PoW vs Basically anything else using electricity

Which is why PoW is a dead end, because eventually it prevents people from using energy for anything else.

FYI:  Be sure and sign the petition to stop btc PoW mining in Navarro county, Texas.
https://www.change.org/p/no-to-riot-bitcoin-mine-in-navarro-county

Navarro County/ Corsicana TX is looking to allow an industrial Bitcoin Mining operation to move here & use our resources.

We do NOT want this enormous burden on our already fragile infrastructure.

We do not want the increase in water and electricity bills.

We do not want the increase in environmental temperature in the immediate vicinity of the factory-that-produces-nothing.

We do not want the noise pollution that 500,000 computers running 24-7 will produce.

We do not want our county to facilitate in the illegal activity Bitcoin is used for, such as money laundering, child, human and sex trafficking, tax evasion and drug trafficking.

WE. DO. NOT. WANT. THIS. FACILITY. IN. NAVARRO. COUNTY.

This is NOT a done deal.

We have the power & authority to deny access to our municipal water supply.  We're in a drought and already experience brown-outs during the summer months.

This factory-that-produces-nothing will affect every single citizen of Navarro County and MUST BE STOPPED!

People are trying to ban PoW mining to save their communities.
 

Which part of "it is off-topic" don't you get? Go whine about Proof-of-Work elsewhere. This isn't the proper thread.

No one wants to use that proof of waste circlejerk topic you created , kat.
(It smells like old kitty litter.)

Why don't you put me on ignore, so you quit wasting my time,
or does that lower your payment in satoshis to spread propaganda?

Plus, I was not the 1st person to use the PoS term in this topic.  

Maybe you should just have the mods ban all posts with PoS in it, since you now want to claim btctalk owner status, kat.

Also you are one to talk about being off-topic.

Sorry if that's off-topic, but isn't the whole "use a watchtower" option obtuse? So, you prefer paying a third party monthly to watch the chain in case for cheating attempt, wherein there's trust involved and you don't gain the same level of privacy, and not paying for a power supplier, to be sure you'll be running 24/7? On top of that, you're connected with people who have a reputation to maintain. Not only won't they choose to cheat because of the loss of money (from the penalty transaction), but because of their fame preservation.

OK listen up everyone,
No one is allowed to Mention
PoS or Proof of Stake or any potential issues that are derogatory toward bitcoin.
According to a decree from blackhatcoiner/kat aka dumbhatcoiner.
See if we can't make kat happy.

aliashraf pay attention since you started all of this.

 

FYI:
There goes any debate, just sing hymns of praise to btc from now on.  
Well BTC is a cult, what did you expect?