Bitcoin and proof of stake

[Abiky]

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.

Exactly. PoW may not be perfect, but it's the best thing around for the preservation of decentralization and censorship-resistance. Governments are still against PoW mining, not because it "harms the environment" (which is false), but mostly because they don't want to lose control. They want to prevent as much people as possible from using Bitcoin as an alternative to existing Fiat currencies.

By pushing cryptocurrencies to switch to PoS, governments will be able to make them centralized. We cannot let that happen for the sake of crypto/Blockchain tech. No one knows what the future holds for Bitcoin, so we can only hope for the best. Just my thoughts

[1714852395]

1714852395

[1714852395]

1714852395

[BALIK]

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.

Exactly. PoW may not be perfect, but it's the best thing around for the preservation of decentralization and censorship-resistance. Governments are still against PoW mining, not because it "harms the environment" (which is false), but mostly because they don't want to lose control. They want to prevent as much people as possible from using Bitcoin as an alternative to existing Fiat currencies.

By pushing cryptocurrencies to switch to PoS, governments will be able to make them centralized. We cannot let that happen for the sake of crypto/Blockchain tech. No one knows what the future holds for Bitcoin, so we can only hope for the best. Just my thoughts

Bitcoin is not the only project using POW so far, but the only thing the government is targeting is bitcoin, it shows that they know they can't control it, and they don't want to see it grow to threaten their power, not because POW is a waste of energy and a major cause of global warming.
Indeed, we cannot know the future of bitcoin if the government really wants to get rid of POW completely to secure their power, but let's hope it can last and will not be changed.

[LegendaryK]

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.

Exactly. PoW may not be perfect, but it's the best thing around for the preservation of decentralization and censorship-resistance. Governments are still against PoW mining, not because it "harms the environment" (which is false), but mostly because they don't want to lose control. They want to prevent as much people as possible from using Bitcoin as an alternative to existing Fiat currencies.

By pushing cryptocurrencies to switch to PoS, governments will be able to make them centralized. We cannot let that happen for the sake of crypto/Blockchain tech. No one knows what the future holds for Bitcoin, so we can only hope for the best. Just my thoughts

Bitcoin is not the only project using POW so far, but the only thing the government is targeting is bitcoin, it shows that they know they can't control it, and they don't want to see it grow to threaten their power, not because POW is a waste of energy and a major cause of global warming.
Indeed, we cannot know the future of bitcoin if the government really wants to get rid of POW completely to secure their power, but let's hope it can last and will not be changed.

Actually when a PoW ban is passed, it will ban all crypto using PoW not just BTC.
Right now BTC & LTC are the main one, doge has a roadmap to evolve to PoS.
So really only 2 coins out of the top 20 on cmk will be banned.

Want to keep PoW, find a way to lower it's energy waste.
New PoW algo that blocks ASICS, or regulate how much energy PoW miners can use, or only mine 4 hours out the day.
Any of these allows the wasteful PoW to continue, or just do nothing and wait for the Ban to end PoW and the coins that want to hold onto it. 
Or
Continue in the Delusion that proof of waste is not going to destroy a power grid, and pray nothing happens because the governments are just being mean to btc. 

[klidex]

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.

Exactly. PoW may not be perfect, but it's the best thing around for the preservation of decentralization and censorship-resistance. Governments are still against PoW mining, not because it "harms the environment" (which is false), but mostly because they don't want to lose control. They want to prevent as much people as possible from using Bitcoin as an alternative to existing Fiat currencies.

By pushing cryptocurrencies to switch to PoS, governments will be able to make them centralized. We cannot let that happen for the sake of crypto/Blockchain tech. No one knows what the future holds for Bitcoin, so we can only hope for the best. Just my thoughts

Bitcoin is not the only project using POW so far, but the only thing the government is targeting is bitcoin, it shows that they know they can't control it, and they don't want to see it grow to threaten their power, not because POW is a waste of energy and a major cause of global warming.
Indeed, we cannot know the future of bitcoin if the government really wants to get rid of POW completely to secure their power, but let's hope it can last and will not be changed.

It is true that no one can control bitcoin, even large countries cannot possibly control bitcoin.
While bitcoin is the only cryptocurrency that does not have a holder behind it, so no one controls bitcoin itself, even the price of bitcoin cannot be regulated.
Unless someone is able to massively adopt bitcoins with at least more than 60% of the bitcoin supply he holds, however I think it is very unlikely anyone can adopt more than 60% of bitcoins.
While it is noted that the person holding the largest bitcoin is Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of bitcoin itself.
However, no one knows whether satoshi still exists or not because the name satoshi is a pseudonym and only a certain handful of people know the truth about satoshi.

[BALIK]

Actually when a PoW ban is passed, it will ban all crypto using PoW not just BTC.
Right now BTC & LTC are the main one, doge has a roadmap to evolve to PoS.
So really only 2 coins out of the top 20 on cmk will be banned.

Want to keep PoW, find a way to lower it's energy waste.
New PoW algo that blocks ASICS, or regulate how much energy PoW miners can use, or only mine 4 hours out the day.
Any of these allows the wasteful PoW to continue, or just do nothing and wait for the Ban to end PoW and the coins that want to hold onto it. 
Or
Continue in the Delusion that proof of waste is not going to destroy a power grid, and pray nothing happens because the governments are just being mean to btc. 

Mining bitcoin or coins using POW is to make a profit, that is to create benefits and contribute to the development of society, so I do not consider it a waste of energy. The bitcoin mining industry is like other industries, they consume energy, but they all create value for human use, so they cannot be called wasteful. Bitcoin is not profitable for you, but it has benefited many people and helped many people have better lives, and when people's lives are better, it will improve society.

I don't know what world you're talking about, but the world I live in still doesn't have too many countries banning POW, because they know the real benefits of using bitcoin.

[Iranus]

It is true that no one can control bitcoin, even large countries cannot possibly control bitcoin.
While bitcoin is the only cryptocurrency that does not have a holder behind it, so no one controls bitcoin itself, even the price of bitcoin cannot be regulated.
Unless someone is able to massively adopt bitcoins with at least more than 60% of the bitcoin supply he holds, however I think it is very unlikely anyone can adopt more than 60% of bitcoins.

No one can control bitcoin is true, but I doubt when you say bitcoin price is not regulated. Although bitcoin is decentralized but bitcoin price is being listed on centralized exchanges, so price correction is possible, as long as the government really wants to crack it down, then bitcoin price regulation will not be too difficult for them.

That's what I'm afraid, once the regulation is in place, the government will intervene in the market, in addition to controlling us, they can also adjust the bitcoin price to their will.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Unless someone is able to massively adopt bitcoins with at least more than 60% of the bitcoin supply he holds, however I think it is very unlikely anyone can adopt more than 60% of bitcoins.

What's the reasoning behind 60%? And what power does that grant, other than financial?

No one can control bitcoin is true, but I doubt when you say bitcoin price is not regulated. Although bitcoin is decentralized but bitcoin price is being listed on centralized exchanges, so price correction is possible, as long as the government really wants to crack it down, then bitcoin price regulation will not be too difficult for them.

When the government intervenes with regulating prices, it does it to either protect the consumer or the producer, and it does it to the former for products that have inelastic demand. Bitcoin doesn't have that, it's quite oppositely seen as a luxury product by most. As for producers, I'm quite sure governments aren't going to ever pay part of miners' expenses-- nor should they.

Also, bitcoins are everywhere and nowhere. Good luck on catching violators.

[retreat]

Bitcoin is not the only project using POW so far, but the only thing the government is targeting is bitcoin, it shows that they know they can't control it, and they don't want to see it grow to threaten their power, not because POW is a waste of energy and a major cause of global warming.
Indeed, we cannot know the future of bitcoin if the government really wants to get rid of POW completely to secure their power, but let's hope it can last and will not be changed.

I still can't understand how they say that Bitcoin with its POW causes global warming because the device for mining it uses fossil energy to run, even though bitcoin mining only impacts 0.1% of world pollution and air pollution caused by coal-fired electricity generation is much bigger compared to Bitcoins. It seems they turned a blind eye to the facts before their eyes and let it go. They're just afraid that the adoption of Bitcoin is getting massive and they can't control it any further, so they raise issues like this and make a lot of people think that Bitcoin is one of the main culprits of air pollution, even though it's not.

[franky1]

leg-end
i understand your PoS adoration is the principle of "free money" where you want speculated value without any real cost upfront

we get it you dont care about security you just care about your personal greed

however PoW does provide security and the cost of that security then backs the coins value.

i know you want to have bitcoin cost at a penny per btc while speculating at $15k+ where you dream of your get rich quick scheme.. yes thats why you now promote a "new bitcoin pow thats anti-asic"

by now suggesting a new lower cost bitcoin PoW algo.. you are again not recognising the value of Pow. and also by changing algo just delays the competition where people just run multiple "rigs" to compete. causing the cost/value to rise again.. solving nothing over all
in short your dream of "the good old days of GPU mining coins for pennies" would last... 3 months before it changes to high competition high cost..

going to GPU just reduces the hash per kwh.. for a couple difficulty cycles(fortnights-months)
eventually people will just have multiple GPU where instead of 2m asics at 3KWH
people end up using 20m GPU at 300w each = yep easy math 2m 3kwh.. but with less hashrate meaning less security.. thus again not solving anything

asics solve things they make the hash per kwh more efficient.
yes if we lived in a GPU only crypto era.. you would be the one asking for ASICS to be invented to bring the cost per hash down(if you cared about security and environment)

..
we all know all you really care about is your malice and "missing the boat" that you cant mine a coin for pennies. and also be in the market for thousands

we know you want to "mine like its 2010" while "market like its 2021" and thats all you care about

[SirLancelot]

Bitcoin is not the only project using POW so far, but the only thing the government is targeting is bitcoin, it shows that they know they can't control it, and they don't want to see it grow to threaten their power, not because POW is a waste of energy and a major cause of global warming.
Indeed, we cannot know the future of bitcoin if the government really wants to get rid of POW completely to secure their power, but let's hope it can last and will not be changed.

I still can't understand how they say that Bitcoin with its POW causes global warming because the device for mining it uses fossil energy to run, even though bitcoin mining only impacts 0.1% of world pollution and air pollution caused by coal-fired electricity generation is much bigger compared to Bitcoins. It seems they turned a blind eye to the facts before their eyes and let it go. They're just afraid that the adoption of Bitcoin is getting massive and they can't control it any further, so they raise issues like this and make a lot of people think that Bitcoin is one of the main culprits of air pollution, even though it's not.

So you are saying that the mining device are the ones that must be blamed here and not bitcoin directly? But, these devices are still mining Bitcoin so BTC is involved here. There are still miners who are now using a clean energy for mining like solar, hydro and others and there's also big companies like shell who want's to push these clean mining.

This must be our hope to make the name of Bitcoin clean again and maybe after it, a lot of countries or people are now going to adopt it. If the problem isn't about mining but if it's about bitcoin being decentralized then I am afraid that the bans and discrediting towards Bitcoin are still going to remain. It's not possible anymore for BTC to become centralized.

[franky1]

bitcoin is greener then some pretend

majority of asic mining is done in large asic farms on very good electric contracts with power companies locking in xxGW deals per quarter

these contracts are majority with renewables
however some "anal"(half assed analyst) claims the numbers are lower by fudging their data set with "guestimates" "assumptions"

bitcoin is more efficient on watts per thash then some pretend

the agenda is simple. say its bad, use very bad math, made up guesses and assumptions, create a regulation or campaign pretending it will help change the results.. then reveal the real numbers later and pretend you changed things with a lame "look mom, look what i did"

https://ccaf.io/cbeci/index/methodology
amounts : words mentioned
40 : estimate
27 : assumption
15 : average
 8  : best-guess
 4  : assumptions
 3  : hypothetical
 3  : theoretical
 1  : approximates

just looking at energy usage using better math
the 2 main asics of bitcoin (low efficiency high efficiency)


140 for 2.88kw (21watt per thash) - efficient (low power per thash)
250 for 5.2kw (21watt per thash) - efficient (low power per thash)

95 for 3.25kw (34watt per thash) - inefficient (high power per thash)

so network is lower bound 222exahash recently
so network is lower bound 267exahash recently

lower bound 4566857142watt (low power low hashrate)
upper bound 9134210526watt(high power high hashrate)

result:
lower bound 4.566Gw/h
upper bound 9.134Gw/h

yet they "guestimate" 5-15gw/h

[Abiky]

Bitcoin is not the only project using POW so far, but the only thing the government is targeting is bitcoin, it shows that they know they can't control it, and they don't want to see it grow to threaten their power, not because POW is a waste of energy and a major cause of global warming.
Indeed, we cannot know the future of bitcoin if the government really wants to get rid of POW completely to secure their power, but let's hope it can last and will not be changed.

Of course. But I believe Bitcoin will eventually become the only PoW cryptocurrency, as altcoins face heavy pressure from mainstream governments. The vast majority of them switched to PoS, so I wouldn't be surprised if PoW chains like Litecoin and Dogecoin do the same sometime in the future.

The goal of the government is not to make crypto "carbon-neutral", but rather centralize it for their own benefit. Switching to PoS will give the power back to the government. I'm sure BTC devs won't let that happen, for the sake of the network's decentralization and censorship-resistance. The future is widely unpredictable, so we can only hope for the best. Just my opinion

[franky1]

PoS fails in its eventual need to custodianise to syndicate(combine value) the stake to meet the thresholds. making places like coinbase a central point of failure of PoS (as we are seeing with ethereum that is highly staked and custodianised in coinbase

[Abiky]

PoS fails in its eventual need to custodianise to syndicate(combine value) the stake to meet the thresholds. making places like coinbase a central point of failure of PoS (as we are seeing with ethereum that is highly staked and custodianised in coinbase

Exactly. Due to the flawed design of PoS, big exchanges holding large amounts of users' funds will be able to dictate which transactions go in or out on the Blockchain. It's like giving the power back to traditional banks. A better approach would've been to use a hybrid consensus mechanism (PoW + PoS) that would help keep a balance between decentralization and performance/cost-efficiency. Something like how Peercoin does today.

I don't think Bitcoin will ever change its PoW consensus algorithm, especially when it hails itself to be the most decentralized cryptocurrency in the world. It's fine just the way it is. Governments won't like it, but Bitcoin really doesn't care. I won't be surprised if sometime in the future, BTC remains the only PoW coin will the rest switch to PoS due to fears from getting scrutinized by the government. Who knows what lies for the entire crypto/Blockchain industry? Just my opinion

[franky1]

PoS fails in its eventual need to custodianise to syndicate(combine value) the stake to meet the thresholds. making places like coinbase a central point of failure of PoS (as we are seeing with ethereum that is highly staked and custodianised in coinbase

Exactly. Due to the flawed design of PoS, big exchanges holding large amounts of users' funds will be able to dictate which transactions go in or out on the Blockchain. It's like giving the power back to traditional banks.

simply put if coinbase held most stake.. users would not like to oppose a coinbase proposed algo change, because opposing it means stake is lost.. users wont want to sacrifice their stake to avoid a bad proposal. thus a bad proposal becomes what people follow to keep their stake in play. and thats another reason why PoS fails

[NotATether]

PoS fails in its eventual need to custodianise to syndicate(combine value) the stake to meet the thresholds. making places like coinbase a central point of failure of PoS (as we are seeing with ethereum that is highly staked and custodianised in coinbase

Exactly. Due to the flawed design of PoS, big exchanges holding large amounts of users' funds will be able to dictate which transactions go in or out on the Blockchain. It's like giving the power back to traditional banks.

simply put if coinbase held most stake.. users would not like to oppose a coinbase proposed algo change, because opposing it means stake is lost.. users wont want to sacrifice their stake to avoid a bad proposal. thus a bad proposal becomes what people follow to keep their stake in play. and thats another reason why PoS fails

And then it can be spurned as a "company decision made by the board of directors" which in fact is a masquerade to them becoming the final arbiters for decisions on coins like Ethereum. Nothing Vitalik and Co. can do about that.

[franky1]

leg-ends real/main qualm against bitcoin PoW is bicoins expense to mine it

he thinks if he can get it to be pennies per coin he can get rich, not realising the bitcoin value:market rate would correct down also. thus just bringing things back down to 2010-12 levels of value speculation
(ethereums value has rescinded by 20X and its speculated price is being artifically held up via bitcoin arbitrage, and has yet to have its correction.. but will)

however also changing to a new PoW (GPU) is not going to cause rapid correction to 2011 levels of value/price and then a lengthy 4 year growth correction and then go back to 2014 levels and another 9 years to get to 2023 levels

a PoW change back to GPU would simply cause a 6 month value crash and then new asics come back into play getting value back to todays levels within 18 months

so whats the point of both.. they both wont make leg-end be able to become an player/hash competitor to make thousands out of pennies for very long. ..

his qualms are not actually about environment. thats just his silly motives to hide his true desires

[Jawhead999]

I will give you a fun fact:

Bitcoin is decentralized and using Proof of Work protocol, while Ethereum is centralized and using Proof of Stake protocol, why does Bitcoin's fee is more cheaper rather than Ethereum? Ethereum is created out of thin air and the supply isn't fixed, the fee should be cheaper since it's not scarce and not really valuable.

Expensive fee is nothing new for a coin has huge market cap and volume, altcoin's fee is cheap because not many people adopt it.

[pooya87]

Bitcoin is not the only project using POW so far, but the only thing the government is targeting is bitcoin, it shows that they know they can't control it, and they don't want to see it grow to threaten their power, not because POW is a waste of energy and a major cause of global warming.

Interestingly enough a couple of years ago the Chinese government released a list containing a handful of cryptocurrencies which they referred to as "trusted" and basically good cryptocurrencies. In that list you couldn't see bitcoin but you saw ethereum on top of the list!

[Abiky]

Interestingly enough a couple of years ago the Chinese government released a list containing a handful of cryptocurrencies which they referred to as "trusted" and basically good cryptocurrencies. In that list you couldn't see bitcoin but you saw ethereum on top of the list!

Of course Bitcoin isn't on the list. China doesn't like it, especially when it's a decentralized and censorship-resistant cryptocurrency. With Ethereum, that's no longer the case due to the fact that the network made the switch to PoS. If China or any other country want to control ETH, all they have to do is go after centralized exchanges. After all, these entities will be the ones staking most of the ETH on the network. If they control the exchanges, they can control ETH.

I cannot say the same about Bitcoin, becuase it has a different consensus algorithm. By being a PoW cryptocurrency, anyone can secure the blockchain with their mining hardware. Exchanges can't use customer funds to perform decisions on the Blockchain. They will need to set up a huge mining farm that will be able to mine 51% of the blocks if they want to control BTC (which is very unlikely they will be able to do this). Believe me, PoS is nothing more than an agenda for governments to control crypto/Blockchain tech. It's all disguised as "protecting the environment", but the truth is that governments are pushing devs to turn their coins into PoS so they can control them (centralization). Who knows if BTC remains "the only PoW coin in town"? Just my thoughts