Bitcoin and proof of stake

[d5000]

all the Bitcoiners who believe that only PoW provides true decentralization.

This is a misconception. [...] But we are all open to proposals that can provide a better algorithm.

I'm of course referring to the current situation - i.e. PoS has the problems it has, and they weren't solved so far (with "pure" PoS they're also unlikely to be solved, due to the problem of "usage of onchain assets to determine the longest chain"). Thus if Bitcoin was now forking into a PoS and a PoW version, I believe a lot of those Bitcoiners who value decentralization would stay on the PoW chain (and sell BTC-PoS like they sold BCH).

If an algorithm appears which really provides the same decentralization, openness and consensus degree that could change. Maybe something in the proof-of-capacity algorithm family, although this one uses lots of materials and thus energy (in the production process), but the ecologic balance may be slightly better. Current PoC algorithms however suffer from a couple of similar nothing-at-stake problems like PoS, but they may be solvable as "external" resources are used to determine "validation capacity" (i.e. what "hashrate" would be for PoW).

if the miners were to decide to remain on the main chain (like ETC aka the original ethereum) they would have to perform a hard fork themselves to defuse those mines!

Yep, there may be technical difficulties. But I believe ETHW probably will survive, and maybe become a top-20 altcoin like ETC.

I disagree. PoS is there to ensure shitcoins that can not attract miners (to provide security for they dying chain) remain alive.

This may work for a while, yes. But once the whole "eco"/"energy"/"climate"-story doesn't attract people anymore, because Bitcoin becomes eco-sustainable itself, then they would probably be doomed in the long term. They may stay alive but with a much lower market cap, and once somebody found an exploitable attack on PoS (which are for sure possible, only they are quite complex) they'll be history, or at least not relevant anymore.

[BlackHatCoiner]

all that has to happen is the developers update the code.

And users run that code. Don't forget this, it's a crucial part. Developers can code whatever they like, but it's down to users to run that code.

If BTC converted to Proof of Stake , it would finally give people a reason to run a full node with a full history always back to the genesis block

What does the mechanism have to do with running a full node?

The Miners wanted larger blocksizes, the developers aka blockstream refused them and shoved segwit in instead.

And the users. The users refused them.

Evolve or Die, that is btc only options.

Or just leave it with a neutral mechanism that works perfectly since block 0.

[The Cryptovator]

Because Bitcoin isn't altcoin. Bitcoin isn't pre-mined and can't stake. Why Satoshi didn't use PoS that he knows only. But I am pretty sure if it was PoS then Bitcoin won't become that level. And of course, PoS pretty much looks centralized or semi-decentralized. Most are become shit coins those using PoS lol. And you know Bitcoin doesn't have any further chances to divert it to PoS technology.

[LegendaryK]

all that has to happen is the developers update the code.

And users run that code. Don't forget this, it's a crucial part. Developers can code whatever they like, but it's down to users to run that code.

Are you saying the users would prefer to stay poor and not stake?
Seems you are insulting the btc community with that statement.

If BTC converted to Proof of Stake , it would finally give people a reason to run a full node with a full history always back to the genesis block

What does the mechanism have to do with running a full node?

PoS Node earn , PoW Nodes don't,
so their is more financial incentive for more people to run full nodes with the complete history.
Just as you have more people show up to work, if you pay them.  
Scary that has to be explained to you.

The Miners wanted larger blocksizes, the developers aka blockstream refused them and shoved segwit in instead.

And the users. The users refused them.

Nope,
Blockstream refused them, and used the threat of switching algo to one that would brick their ASICS.
Which many here supported blockstream , because they hoped they be able to mine and earn BTC,
Funny that carrot was used when it served blockstream purpose to add segwit (so they could make money off their 3rd party network such as LN or Liquid),
and completely demonized when PoS would allow the btc full node operators to earn,
then they could drop that stupid pruned node nonsense, which on it own, is a threat to the loss of bitcoin history.

Evolve or Die, that is btc only options.

Or just leave it with a neutral mechanism that works perfectly since block 0.

Your work perfectly delusion , is just that a delusion.
You have a coin network , with no real increase in onchain transaction capacity, no improvement in onchain transaction fees,
a network that increases the energy bill of any people unfortunate enough to live nearby,
including the problems caused by increasing rolling blackouts.
The extra energy wasted gives nothing back except wasting more energy.  
And the funniest thing the Government Officials are warning the BTC community of the coming PoW bans for years,
and the BTC communities keeps trying to explain how it is not happening, completely avoiding fixing the Proof of Waste network btc has become.
Don't want PoS , fine, design something else that works without causing the entire power grid to collapse.
Or
Wait for the PoW Ban, sad for the people that invested, but the people need energy to survive, so PoW has to die, and BTC with it.
The People can live without BTC, but they can't live with it, if it sucks the grid dry.

all the Bitcoiners who believe that only PoW provides true decentralization.

This is a misconception. People who have at least some understanding of the technology believe that so far there has not been any proposal that can provide better decentralization that PoW. And we know for sure that PoS provides no security or decentralization.
But we are all open to proposals that can provide a better algorithm.

BTC community is literally a cult,
All one has to do is read the development forum,
to see the same batch of btc cultists shoot down any ideas not approved by blockstream.

Really, what proposals?

Please explain what proposal allows you to keep Proof of Waste, without eventually causing a grid collapse.

[pooya87]

Yep, there may be technical difficulties. But I believe ETHW probably will survive, and maybe become a top-20 altcoin like ETC.

Hard to predict these things considering the centralization behind ethereum and the power they have.
I still remember how Poloniex (a rather big exchange at the time) caught ethereum foundation red handed trying to manipulate ETC market using their premined coins after the fork, dumping it on the market crashing ETC price.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Are you saying the users would prefer to stay poor and not stake?

No. Only an idiot with 1-digit IQ could conclude that. I said the users don't run whatever the developers code. They run code accordingly to their benefits.

so their is more financial incentive for more people to run full nodes with the complete history.

There's no financial incentive to run a full node with Proof-of-Stake, same as with Proof-of-Work. The incentive comes from staking. The incentives of running a full node are simple: Privacy & security.

Blockstream refused them, and used the threat of switching algo to one that would brick their ASICS.

And users didn't want big blocks, but you'll keep whining about Blockstream, so no point in having this conversation.

The People can live without BTC, but they can't live with it, if it sucks the grid dry.

You're a meat and drink for the ESG agenda. Fortunately, most people have a better reasoning than you.

[thecodebear]

Hilariously I saw an article this week about how Buterin was saying he was worried about Bitcoin because it is proof of work, saying it can't sustain itself and it will be easy to attack in the future. Just shows that all the founders of centralized blockchains are just out to promote their own thing. Now that Ethereum is moving to PoS Buterin feels the need to try to flip the reality and claim that PoW is insecure while PoS is better lol

I don't have anything against PoS. It is better for centralized blockchains (so basically it is better for Crypto) because it is more efficient and if you are a company with a centralized blockchain or at least a only partially decentralized blockchain you don't care about the weaknesses of PoS because you're trying to build apps not money. While PoW is infinitely better for the one highly decentralized blockchain, the one cryptocurrency that is global money - Bitcoin.

You move to PoS either because you need greater centralization or because you failed to achieve enough security through PoW because PoW is pretty much a winner take all system - as Andreas Antonopoulos once said, the world only needs one PoW blockchain, and that's Bitcoin.


As to the OP's question why Bitcoin won't go to PoS. Because (1) it would be very complicated and dangerous, (2) it is entirely unnecessary, (3) it would likely destroy the entire power and importance of Bitcoin, turning into just another crypto rather than a global money, (4) Bitcoin's PoW provides a lot of benefits to society which would completely disappear if it switched to PoS, and (5) nobody in Bitcoin wants to do it because of the above reasons and so there is zero chance it could ever happen.

[LegendaryK]

so their is more financial incentive for more people to run full nodes with the complete history.

There's no financial incentive to run a full node with Proof-of-Stake, same as with Proof-of-Work. The incentive comes from staking. The incentives of running a full node are simple: Privacy & security.

Nope,
their is no financial incentive to run a PoW node.

PoS Nodes need the full blockchain, so more security than PoW pruned nonsense,
PoS Nodes Stake & secure the network and therefore earn, PoW nodes don't earn & they only waste energy.

Look, we all know you are a bitch for blockstream,
why don't you ask them to pay you more,
so you can afford to actually take a class where they can explain to you , why PoW is shit. 

[pooya87]

Hilariously I saw an article this week about how Buterin was saying he was worried about Bitcoin because it is proof of work, saying it can't sustain itself and it will be easy to attack in the future. Just shows that all the founders of centralized blockchains are just out to promote their own thing. Now that Ethereum is moving to PoS Buterin feels the need to try to flip the reality and claim that PoW is insecure while PoS is better lol

Unfortunately he has been doing this for a long time trying to make his malicious hard fork look legitimate so that the foundation can make money for not doing anything except holding the premined coins.
This is exactly why we have been seeing a lot of PoS topics pop up about bitcoin for the past year (more or less).

I don't have anything against PoS. It is better for centralized blockchains

Specially if their blockchain is not immutable. After all they can easily roll back blocks again at any time they wanted.

[teosanru]

why bitcoin protocol cannot use pos instead of pow ?

First reason is that it was started with pow mechanisms and to change it to pos most of the core miners have to agree on it. Secondly ther is a very large debate regarding which method is better some argue pos does saves a lot of energy but a lot argue that it's not a valid consensus system also a person entering at a initial stage will always be better off as compared to someone who enters late when price has already skyrocketed. Due to these reasons bitcoin cannot move to pos.

PoW miners don't have to agree to anything,
all that has to happen is the developers update the code.
If BTC converted to Proof of Stake , it would finally give people a reason to run a full node with a full history always back to the genesis block,
instead of that pruned PoW node nonsense that will eventually cause the destruction of BTC by losing the blockchain history.

The Miners wanted larger blocksizes, the developers aka blockstream refused them and shoved segwit in instead.
Once a few more Bans take place, it is evolve or die for btc.
Staying a useless waste of energy that btc currently is , won't be allowed in the future.

The debate that btc community is hiding from,
is what will happen to btc,
1. When the energy is no longer available at the current supply.
2. When the Governments just outright ban it for wasting energy.

Evolve or Die, that is btc only options.

Okay but what about the problem with POS of making currencies more centralized? A person who has bought more cryptos in the initial stages or one who has large BTC holdings from start will always be the highest earning validator and no matter what I do to enter at a price of 30k I will not be able to match their holdings, therefore, they will always be ahead of a newer validator which is obviously pretty bad. And I am not even mentioning about the thesis on how POS is a far less secure methodology than POW because that can still be told debatable. I am not saying POW is the only way but so far POS isn't that secure to shift bitcoin on that.

[BlackHatCoiner]

their is no financial incentive to run a PoW node

There's no financial incentive, but you make it sound like there's no incentive at all, which is obviously not true. People run a node for security and privacy, and that's what they will always do regardless of which mechanism is supported. The fact that you're being forced to run a full node, so you can stake, just doesn't rime good.

Also, staking to a pool (just as mining to a pool) doesn't require to run your own full node. I had tried to stake some ADA once, and no full node was required; just a closed-source, centralized Exodus wallet.

Okay but what about the problem with POS of making currencies more centralized?

I wouldn't make this question to a scumbag like that, but if you want to continue: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5387588.0

[franky1]

all that has to happen is the developers update the code.

And users run that code. Don't forget this, it's a crucial part. Developers can code whatever they like, but it's down to users to run that code.

disclaimer: do not respond with more "let devs do anything"(you wearing the human loyalist hat) and instead think about the bitcoin protocol(wear the bitcoin network security hat)
the bitcoin network protocol, and its nodes should be ensuring that devs cannot do anything they like, to change the network at their whim/choosing.. unless the majority truly ready to validate and verify and all data, whereby then the feature activates/is used

proper consensus is that new features do not activate until its deemed safe to activate when majority of users are using software compatible with new feature to fully recognise, validate and verify new feature. then it activates.

however by a quirk of trickery. devs can now make changes without the users having to run the updated code to be able to validate/verify it. by treating new features as 'valid' without doing the security checks on the data, meaning those nodes are not fuly validating/securing the network. .

devs can mandate a activation by forming a group of economic nodes (notable merchant services/exchanges) to reject blocks/relayed tx/not relay to peers unupgraded, etc who are not flagging for the feature, even if those economic nodes do not themselves even have the validation/verification code required to check the new feature, after mandated activation. or during the vote process

accepting unrecognised format (or those that have been stripped of unknown data) as valid by default.
is not the same as default validating/verifying all data.
..
there are many backdoors and bug implications of allowing new formats and new features to be added without first ensuring majority of full nodes are able to actually verify and validate the data

[pooya87]

devs can mandate a activation by forming a group of economic nodes (notable merchant services/exchanges) to reject blocks/relayed tx/not relay to peers unupgraded, etc who are not flagging for the feature, even if those economic nodes do not themselves even have the validation/verification code required to check the new feature, after mandated activation. or during the vote process

What you are intentionally ignoring is that anybody can do that, they can create an alternative chain that rejects anything that they consider "invalid". The important thing is reaching majority, otherwise a minority group creating such forks become altcoins like what bcash did and they did have "a group of economic nodes" with them.

[NotATether]

Hilariously I saw an article this week about how Buterin was saying he was worried about Bitcoin because it is proof of work, saying it can't sustain itself and it will be easy to attack in the future. Just shows that all the founders of centralized blockchains are just out to promote their own thing. Now that Ethereum is moving to PoS Buterin feels the need to try to flip the reality and claim that PoW is insecure while PoS is better lol

Perhaps because it would be humiliating to Buterin if he admitted that PoW blockchains are just fine (ignoring the hysteria about power consumption, which is what it seems to be - hysteria) and that a PoS upgrade was never really needed for Ethereum's survival.

All it has accomplished is demonstrating that they will allow [international] governmental interference in their blockchain.

[LegendaryK]

why bitcoin protocol cannot use pos instead of pow ?

First reason is that it was started with pow mechanisms and to change it to pos most of the core miners have to agree on it. Secondly ther is a very large debate regarding which method is better some argue pos does saves a lot of energy but a lot argue that it's not a valid consensus system also a person entering at a initial stage will always be better off as compared to someone who enters late when price has already skyrocketed. Due to these reasons bitcoin cannot move to pos.

PoW miners don't have to agree to anything,
all that has to happen is the developers update the code.
If BTC converted to Proof of Stake , it would finally give people a reason to run a full node with a full history always back to the genesis block,
instead of that pruned PoW node nonsense that will eventually cause the destruction of BTC by losing the blockchain history.

The Miners wanted larger blocksizes, the developers aka blockstream refused them and shoved segwit in instead.
Once a few more Bans take place, it is evolve or die for btc.
Staying a useless waste of energy that btc currently is , won't be allowed in the future.

The debate that btc community is hiding from,
is what will happen to btc,
1. When the energy is no longer available at the current supply.
2. When the Governments just outright ban it for wasting energy.

Evolve or Die, that is btc only options.

Okay but what about the problem with POS of making currencies more centralized? A person who has bought more cryptos in the initial stages or one who has large BTC holdings from start will always be the highest earning validator and no matter what I do to enter at a price of 30k I will not be able to match their holdings, therefore, they will always be ahead of a newer validator which is obviously pretty bad. And I am not even mentioning about the thesis on how POS is a far less secure methodology than POW because that can still be told debatable. I am not saying POW is the only way but so far POS isn't that secure to shift bitcoin on that.

Ok,
The problem with the centralized argument is simple.
Say you had a large holding of 10000 bitcoins, all the way from 2010.
In 2022, you missed the $60K peak, and decide you need to buy a house and new car , and pay for your 3 kids college fund,
oh and don't forget you are buying clothes , food and utilities every month so you sell however many btc it takes to afford what you need.
You see , you can't just run to a vendor and say I have this many bitcoins and I am going to keep them and you give me your service/product for free,
you have to sell the btc for fiat or give the btc to the vendor to get what you want.
The only difference if btc was PoS, is you can sell the stake interest to slow down your decrease in btc quantity.
The lack of understanding is this : Staked interest for most coins is lower than 4% yearly, and you get taxed on it,
which means for your number of coins to grow , you can't spend any,  
this also means that the coins everyone else owns is not also staking, so you can see how flawed your thought process is on centralization.

A simpler way to put it , in your flawed concept of interest and centralization,
someone could open a savings account of 5%, and within 100 years completely own the US$ currency.
I hope you can see how wrong that is now.
Because it assumes, you never have to spend any, it assumes no one else is staking, it assumes that taxation is not lowering your %.
This is why the myth that PoS cause centralization is pure nonsense, because in reality those above assumptions don't happen.

[LegendaryK]

their is no financial incentive to run a PoW node

There's no financial incentive, but you make it sound like there's no incentive at all, which is obviously not true. People run a node for security and privacy, and that's what they will always do regardless of which mechanism is supported. The fact that you're being forced to run a full node, so you can stake, just doesn't rime good.

Also, staking to a pool (just as mining to a pool) doesn't require to run your own full node. I had tried to stake some ADA once, and no full node was required; just a closed-source, centralized Exodus wallet.

BTC PoW node offers no security and no privacy.
Where do you get that nonsense.
Let me guess blockstream tutorial.  

BTC is an open blockchain, nothing is hidden, their is no privacy that a little cross referencing won't utterly uncover.
Security in PoW is provided by the miners hashrate, nodes provide no security of transactions.
Non-mining nodes do absolutely nothing except provide history, no security, and pruned nodes are a security flaw just waiting to happen.

When you stored ADA on Exodus , you were storing it on an distributed Exchange,
Exodus runs the full node with the entire cardano history so you did not have too.

Since you admitted to using a staking coin, don't you have to turn in btc cult card now.  
I mean at least you have to quit using the btc cult handshake at dinner parties or be seen as a blasphemer.  

Hilariously I saw an article this week about how Buterin was saying he was worried about Bitcoin because it is proof of work, saying it can't sustain itself and it will be easy to attack in the future. Just shows that all the founders of centralized blockchains are just out to promote their own thing. Now that Ethereum is moving to PoS Buterin feels the need to try to flip the reality and claim that PoW is insecure while PoS is better lol

Perhaps because it would be humiliating to Buterin if he admitted that PoW blockchains are just fine (ignoring the hysteria about power consumption, which is what it seems to be - hysteria) and that a PoS upgrade was never really needed for Ethereum's survival.

All it has accomplished is demonstrating that they will allow [international] governmental interference in their blockchain.

PoW has always been insecure, it just took some people longer to realize it.
PoW is unable to achieve transaction finality, algorand PoS design does transaction finality after 4 seconds.
Transaction Finality means you don't have to keep waiting for additional blocks to secure your transaction.
PoW flaws are 51% attack, insane ever growing power usage with no performance increase, a mere 4 mining pool operators securing your transactions.
4 people to secure a PoW network, shows the lack of IQ that PoW supporters continue to ignore 4 people literary own all of btc ass.  

One would speculate if PoW were really worth anything at all , why are none of the new coins using it, but avoiding it like the plague.
The true reason all new crypto development is everything but PoW,
kind of shows the people that design crypo security have all realized that Proof of Waste is shit and a dying tech.  

So when the worldwide PoW ban occurs, btc & maybe litecoin (if they don't die earlier) are the only coins that are affected.

[franky1]

devs can mandate a activation by forming a group of economic nodes (notable merchant services/exchanges) to reject blocks/relayed tx/not relay to peers unupgraded, etc who are not flagging for the feature, even if those economic nodes do not themselves even have the validation/verification code required to check the new feature, after mandated activation. or during the vote process

What you are intentionally ignoring is that anybody can do that, they can create an alternative chain that rejects anything that they consider "invalid". The important thing is reaching majority, otherwise a minority group creating such forks become altcoins like what bcash did and they did have "a group of economic nodes" with them.

what you are forgetting is.. (or coerced to script speak old scripts of 2017 about misguided events)

how there is code, blogs posts by core devs and actual block data that show that those supporting segwit but not ready to verify it in june-august2017 were the cause of the split (yep core devs admit to the mandatory tactics and the NYA).. there is no point in you trying to change history if the core devs now admit to it. becasue you are just trying to create drama again to cause pages of debate trying to denie history until you think people will give into old stories of crap
the blockckdata shows the timeline of events. the blockdata does not follow your outdated fantasy version of events

as for explaining what consensus is..
consensus = having an idea, majority agree with(consensus: agreement, use a dictionary please!) where THEN the activation happens and because majority had the code to validate/verify at the vote.. there is no split. (consensus is and should be voting when majority agree and ready to verify/validate .. its called protocol security!)
if majority dont like the idea or not ready to verify/validate it.. it does not activate.. its that simple. no activation also means no split
in both cases a consensus activation or not.  does not result in a contentious split!!

when you talk about splitting the network. thats not consensus. thats a contentious fork or standard altcoin creation.. ..
anyone can make a fork anyway/anytime/any reason.. that has nothing to do with consensus

core loyalists however changed the rhetoric and tried to imply consensus is about splitting networks and throwing off objectors as how they view consensus was designed,
their version was where even without having the validation/verification code . they would/have/did activate the feature by simply rejecting anyone that didnt flag for it.
even if those flagging for it, were not al ready to validate/verify it/create segwit tx's.
their activation was not about users that had the code to fully validate/verify/create segwit transactions. it was just a request to change a certain bit in the block header. that decided who stays vs who goes.
(that is not consensus)

thus if a considerable amount didnt want the feature, those would become an altcoin. whereby leaving a weak network activating segwit pretending to have 100% support(reality not possible to get 100% but core faked it)  then there was a mad rush to then get exchanges and explorers and custodial services and litewalets and merchants to then actually download it.
(EG blockchain.com flagged for segwit but didnt implement it fully until well into 2018)

again
they mad rushed to change the block space rules and fee policy rules with cludgy code to make legacy more expensive and seem less useful.  but knew there was not enough nodes to support the segwit transaction format, which is why they didnt release the wallet part until 2018

please dont use some chummy loyalty buddy group or social media as your source. read the code, read the bips, look at the block data. use the stats.

yep they had to strip data and treat that stripped data 'as valid' even if those nodes on the network couldnt even verify/validate segwit block data.
it was a massive protocol bug risk and exploit/bypass of good security

data is available.. go research

but the emphasis is simple..
consensus activation is about coming to an agreement by having nodes running software that is ready and fully capable of verifying and validating it.. to then activate when the network is fully ready and able to validate and verify the new rules should they activate.
consensus is not about fork creating, altcoin creating via contention and mandatory activations. where even after activation not all nodes remaining were able to verify/validate the new rules..

please dont respond if your going to defend devs ability to change the bitcoin network and ignore the network nodes readiness/ability to verify/validate. by simply throwing those not ready off the network
now with that all said
if economic nodes (exchanges/merchants) want to have a PoS coin(influenced/coerced by regulations).. they can go make a altcoin.

however we need to obide by real consensus. not the 2017 crap rhetoric/mechanism they used..

where we dont get into another situation of another controversial/contentious mandatory split event.. where businesses(economic nodes(2017 NY agreement equivalent) collude with the core devs they paid(2017 blockstream dev code writers of the mandatory split)to flag an event of forcing Pow(objectors to pos/normal unupgraded nodes) into an altcoin, leaving those that did flag(pos supporters) declaring pos as btc

[Abiky]

Hilariously I saw an article this week about how Buterin was saying he was worried about Bitcoin because it is proof of work, saying it can't sustain itself and it will be easy to attack in the future. Just shows that all the founders of centralized blockchains are just out to promote their own thing. Now that Ethereum is moving to PoS Buterin feels the need to try to flip the reality and claim that PoW is insecure while PoS is better lol

I don't have anything against PoS. It is better for centralized blockchains (so basically it is better for Crypto) because it is more efficient and if you are a company with a centralized blockchain or at least a only partially decentralized blockchain you don't care about the weaknesses of PoS because you're trying to build apps not money. While PoW is infinitely better for the one highly decentralized blockchain, the one cryptocurrency that is global money - Bitcoin.

You move to PoS either because you need greater centralization or because you failed to achieve enough security through PoW because PoW is pretty much a winner take all system - as Andreas Antonopoulos once said, the world only needs one PoW blockchain, and that's Bitcoin.


As to the OP's question why Bitcoin won't go to PoS. Because (1) it would be very complicated and dangerous, (2) it is entirely unnecessary, (3) it would likely destroy the entire power and importance of Bitcoin, turning into just another crypto rather than a global money, (4) Bitcoin's PoW provides a lot of benefits to society which would completely disappear if it switched to PoS, and (5) nobody in Bitcoin wants to do it because of the above reasons and so there is zero chance it could ever happen.

PoS is flawed by design. Not only it enriches whales, but it makes the Blockchain more centralized. All of the buzz surrounding PoS is the energy-efficiency compared to PoW. But the latter can also be energy-efficient if miners rely on renewable energy sources. Most altcoins will turn themselves to PoS, as it would benefit exchanges and developers more than anyone else. Bitcoin will never become PoS for many obvious reasons. I'm glad the community prefers to keep it that way for the good of the BTC blockchain's decentralization. Who knows if BTC remains the only PoW cryptocurrency on the market? Just my opinion

[tranthidung]

PoS is flawed by design. Not only it enriches whales, but it makes the Blockchain more centralized.

That is true. Flaw by design because it can be manipulated by huge staking weights that is proven with small blockchain networks. If we naively assume Ethereum network just too big to be hardly controlled by huge stakers, that is not correct.

All of the buzz surrounding PoS is the energy-efficiency compared to PoW. But the latter can also be energy-efficient if miners rely on renewable energy sources.

Please take into account that over time, new generations of ASICs are more effectively and beneficially in energy consumption and hashrate it can produce. In addition, with time, miners have gradually switched to new electricity resources and they aim at cheaper as well as more environmental friendly, renewable resources.

Anyway, take this discussion to look back at what satoshi wrote 12 years ago.

Right.  Otherwise we couldn't have a finite limit of 21 million coins, because there would always need to be some minimum reward for generating.  In a few decades when the reward gets too small, the transaction fee will become the main compensation for nodes.  I'm sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume.

The Proof of Work algorithm and the finite total supply of Bitcoin has pros and cons. It will not have an ending in between great success and failure. Just ends in one way or another. If Bitcoin price can keep jumping into another high level after each halving, miners will keep mining because they will still have profit. That in turn will make the Bitcoin network becomes bigger and bigger as we have been witnessing last 13 years. Else, miners will abandon and Bitcoin network will become less secure and even a dead one.

I know about difficulty retarget after each 2016 blocks but what satoshi wrote is true.

[BitProdigy]

This is about how we trust the "book-keepers" and admins of transactions, how you have trust in a decentralised system. PoW forces the book-keepers to expend energy in a digital lottery where they try to guess the right number, competing against all the other book-keepers who are guessing as well; if a book-keeper tries to censor transactions, but fails to guess the right number for the block, their energy is wasted, and the transaction can get through any of the other book-keepers who aren't censoring anyone and happen to guess the right number.
That random nature of the contest, and being forced to expend actual "work" that costs something to do, is how you get trust decentralised.

This seems to be the right answer.