Why btc cannot move pow to pos

[udayantha11]

This question comes, Do btc network can move to POW to POS?
I am just asking and there is a issue that electricity bill too. Energy problem is most hottest topic all now. so lets discuss this

[Charles-Tim]

PoS is far more centralized. If you want possible more decentralized system, bitcoin PoW is it.

Bitcoin mining hashrate is increasing. It means bitcoin mining is profitable for miners. Even despite the recent significant bear market, bitcoin mining hashrate still reached all-time-high.

[tranthidung]

Proof of Stake is more easily to be manipulated. I don't naively say that Bitcoin network (with Proof of Work) does not have risk of 51% attack. In the past, there are some pools which have same owner groups, had enough total hash rate to run 51% attack. Fortunately for Bitcoin network, those mining pools wisely to not do such attacks.

You can compare how to collect enough hash rate with Proof of Work from mining rigs, mining pools to collect enough hash rate with Proof of Stake from stakers. I am sure the procedure would be more easily with Proof of Stake. There are more complicated things to run 51% attacks on PoW network than on PoS network.

The estimated cost of 51% attack using NiceHash price: https://www.crypto51.app/
The estimated confirmations of altcoin networks which are equivalent to 6 confirmations of Bitcoin network: https://howmanyconfs.com/

You can easily see how strong and safe the Bitcoin network is. By that I imply, why do Bitcoin miners, investors want to move from the strongest, safest to a weaker one?

[BlackHatCoiner]

It can move, and actually, it does have forked to Proof-of-Stake, which failed miserably: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoinpos/

The reason why reasonable people don't want it to switch to Proof-of-Stake is because they're reasonable. Proof-of-Stake, if you didn't know, comes with significant downsides. Here's a useful thread: [Megathread] The long-known PoW vs. PoS debate.

Also, the TL;DR differences between these two mechanisms:

Proof-of-Work

 1. Entrance of new voters can't be forbidden. All that's needed is energy and machines that are capable of calculating hashes. Therefore, a miner who once owned 1% of the hash rate, can't make sure he'll maintain his percentage forever.
 2. You can't try to cheat without being punished, because you're spending energy. For example, if a malicious miner, who owns 10% of the hash rate, tries to reverse a transaction 6 blocks deep, and fails, his real cost is equal with the income he could have had if he had chosen to mine bitcoin; he spent energy for nothing.
 3. It's very difficult to steal the units that contribute to the security of the network (e.g., ASICs, GPUs etc.)

Proof-of-Stake

 1. Entrance of new voters is down to the stakers' permission. A staker who owns 1% of the total coins in circulation (presuming the total supply is fixed) can retain the same voting power overtime, if he just chooses to hold them.
 2. You can cheat without being punished. That's known as Nothing-at-stake problem[1].
 3. It's much easier, compared to Proof-of-Work, to steal the units that contribute to the security of the network. For instance, say an attacker hacked an exchange. He'd instantly gain a lot of voting power.

One more core difference is that Proof-of-Stake doesn't give a solution to the Byzantine Generals' problem[2]. That's why it suffers from producing consensus, and that's why it's commonly referred to as "subjective mechanism"[3]; not objective as Proof-of-Work.


  [1]: https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/2402/what-exactly-is-the-nothing-at-stake-problem
  [2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20090309175840/http://www.bitcoin.org/byzantine.html
  [3]: https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/11/25/proof-stake-learned-love-weak-subjectivity

[tranthidung]

The reason why reasonable people don't want it to switch to Proof-of-Stake is because they're reasonable. Proof-of-Stake, if you didn't know, comes with significant downsides.

Moving to Proof of Stake network like BNB and Binance Smart Chain. Binance team can decide to halt their chain whenever they want such as BNB Chain Halts After 'Potential Exploit' Drained Estimated $100M in Crypto.

Another example is Terra in May this year. Terra Validators Halt Blockchain for Second Time to Plot Next Steps

Reasonable people don't want Bitcoin to switch from PoW to PoS, I agree with you completely. Two case studies above are enough for PoS enthusiasts to get rid of that idea.

[NeuroticFish]

This question comes, Do btc network can move to pow to pos?
I am just asking and there is a issue that electricitybill too. Enery problem

Bitcoin can easily move to PoS. This code is already has that implemented.
The problem is not technical. The problem is that moving to PoS is stupid. Moving to PoS will make bitcoin centralized, hence pretty much useless.
Maybe you should read a bit into https://bitcoincleanup.com/

[Accardo]

Those that moved to POS because of the energy consumption of POW know little about POW, and it's the only reason people complain about POW. To maintain the decentalized nature of Bitcoin POW should remain. POS looks childish, unlike the POW that requires mathematical knowledge and good amount of power to mine a block. This is actual work and it's more secured than the POS. I think it'll be difficult for the government to regulate bitcoin with POW in place and easier if BTC uses POS.

[DooMAD]

It boils down to incentive.  Miners are not incentivised to torpedo their entire business model.  Users are not incentivised to give power over the network to centralised entities like exchanges that hold vast sums of BTC.  In PoS systems, those who hold the most tokens control the network.  Bitcoin provides greater utility, value and reward the way it is.

Bitcoin can easily move to PoS. This code is already has that implemented.

Beat me to it, heh.


//EDIT:

*** IMPORTANT NOTICE ***
Pay no attention to the replies later in this topic by user LegendaryK/TangentC/Khaos77/Zin-Zang.  They are an imbecile and a troll.  Place them on ignore as they don't deserve your time or attention.

[posi]

I think bitcoin can move to POS just like ETH did. But POS is centralized, moving bitcoin to POS will be the end of bitcoin's decentralization and then bitcoin will be no different from existing assets, which will be controlled by the government. It is a bad idea and I believe that if this proposal is made, it will be strongly opposed by miners and the community. Until now, apart from the limited supply leading to the price increase, decentralization is the biggest beauty of bitcoin that no other asset class has.

[Findingnemo]

It can be moved or it can be merged as ETH2.0 so yes it can be but it will completely destroy the decentralisation and bring censorship along with reversibility so the trust will be no more so just let it be. Energy consumption maybe a small problem and we community doesn't meed to get manipulated by what media shows and what government wants to prove even though it's not entirely true.

[hosseinimr93]

This question comes, Do btc network can move to pow to pos?

You can change the code and create a new coin which uses POS algorithm. But that would no longer be bitcoin. That would be a shitcoin like many other cryptocurrencies.

I am just asking and there is a issue that electricitybill too. Enery problem

If you think that bitcoin consumes so much energy, I recommend you to read the topic created by fillippone.
Debunking the "Bitcoin is an environmental disaster" argument.

[electronicash]

the government is very hawkish to BTC, so turning it to POS will really destroy everything that Satoshi worked for. SEC will eat our lunch money after turning BTC as security. don't give so much trust to these greenpeace and call for renewable energy, they are also backed by motives. so you have to figure who benefits when BTC goes POS.

[KingsDen]

I think bitcoin can move to POS just like ETH did. But POS is centralized, moving bitcoin to POS will be the end of bitcoin's decentralization and then bitcoin will be no different from existing assets, which will be controlled by the government. It is a bad idea and I believe that if this proposal is made, it will be strongly opposed by miners and the community. Until now, apart from the limited supply leading to the price increase, decentralization is the biggest beauty of bitcoin that no other asset class has.

That is a very nice insight from you which is a fact also
Apart from the tendency of Bitcoin being highly centralised if it is moved to proof of stake, there is also going to be a problem of too many forks of Bitcoin.
If there were supposed to be migration of Bitcoin from proof of work to proof of stake it should have been done early enough when the network was not so large but with the large network of Bitcoin today any attempt to do that we throw the miners into big confusion and the resultant effect will be up to three forks of Bitcoin.

It is a very fearful thing to behold. Bitcoin can undergo many changes, but migrating from PoW to PoS is one of the last things we will see if it will everly happen.

[fillippone]

This question comes, Do btc network can move to pow to pos?
I am just asking and there is a issue that electricitybill too. Enery problem

Bitcoin can easily move to PoS. This code is already has that implemented.
The problem is not technical. The problem is that moving to PoS is stupid. Moving to PoS will make bitcoin centralized, hence pretty much useless.
Maybe you should read a bit into https://bitcoincleanup.com/

When there is a fork, the chain with more cumulated work is considered Bitcoin.
In the remote event of a consensual change to PoS, how would we determine the “true” bitcoin?
Even if the move would be consensual there would still be miners on the “old POW chains) so, there would be a POW bitcoin.

Highly speculative.

[hyudien]

This question comes, Do btc network can move to pow to pos?
I am just asking and there is a issue that electricitybill too. Enery problem

If Bitcoin moves to PoS then I'm sure it won't be approved by many. After all, PoS only creates centralization which no longer results in anonymity. Control can be disconnected at any time. And don't expect Bitcoin to be like Ethereum which miners now don't like. Bitcoin must remain PoW and whenever it must remain PoW, we only have Bitcoin consistently whereas when other altcoins move to PoS then it does not apply to Bitcoin. The electricity bill is just talking about having stakeholders have complete control and that's not what Bitcoin is all about. Still, raising the issue of environmental pollution? an alibi that until now has never been proven bitcoin damage the environment. Believe Bitcoin is always friendly to the environment.

[kryptqnick]

Bitcoin can switch to proof-of-work if consensus is reached, I think. But since it won't ever be reached, it can't, there can only be a fork but Bitcoin will remain PoW. Why will it remain PoW? It's a more secure and less centralized option, the arguments were already noted in the thread. Since it's not merely a whim, I think people should try to push for the PoS. Take GPUs, for example, which are getting increasingly more power-hungry. They, let's be honest, are usually used for leisure, as not a lot of people do the kind of work that requires a very powerful power-hungry GPU. They do get more powerful with every generation, but that leads to increase in energy consumption. I don't see people calling to ban GPUs or ask gamers to play less demanding games and buy simpler gear.

[avikz]

This question comes, Do btc network can move to POW to POS?
I am just asking and there is a issue that electricity bill too. Energy problem is most hottest topic all now. so lets discuss this

They sure can move to POS. It just needs to go through the consensus of miners. At least 51% of miners need to provide their consent and remaining 49% can fork out. This is how it can be done.

However, considering how big the miner network is for bitcoin, I don't see it happening ever. At least not in our lifetime to be honest. Also moving to pos means the network will be more centralized and miners will loose their investments that they had done on their mining gears. So I doubt if a consensus will ever be reached.

[darkangel11]

Like others said before me, PoS is more centralized than PoW. Why? Because the entry point is much higher. With bitcoin you need to buy a decent miner, but look at ETH. You need a lot of money invested to be able to stake it. 32 to be exact. That's almost 50k usd! You could solo mine bitcoin with less money invested.
People who cannot afford to stake alone use big pools and this makes all stakers centralized in 2 or 3 biggest pools. I've read that over 30% of ETH staking deposits is in one pool and this can grow in time.
You don't want this to happen with bitcoin.

Bitcoin can switch to proof-of-work if consensus is reached,

You mean proof of stake, right?

[cheezcarls]

Ain't in favor of Bitcoin moving from PoW to PoS if ever that happens in the future. If we need true decentralization, PoW is the best bet. I am not saying that Proof of Stake is bad, but it does have some positives such as energy consumption and transaction fees.

However, the bad side of PoS is that it's centralized. Now that Ethereum has moved to PoS, it's no longer a decentralized coin like Bitcoin is right now.

[fillippone]

Ain't in favor of Bitcoin moving from PoW to PoS if ever that happens in the future. If we need true decentralization, PoW is the best bet. I am not saying that Proof of Stake is bad, but it does have some positives such as energy consumption and transaction fees.

However, the bad side of PoS is that it's centralized. Now that Ethereum has moved to PoS, it's no longer a decentralized coin like Bitcoin is right now.

Ethereum has evolved from semi-decentralised shitcoinery to a form of decentralised shitcoiney.
In lntellect honesty you cannot rule  out a passage to PoS transition , the outcome will be totally different from bitcoin.