Issues with Proof-of-Work

[Osama Maaz]

In my opinion proof of work i a very safe and secure method because of it give power users to contribute to solve blocks all over the world so it make a strong decentralized transaction ,
Of course it may costs us as it use high amount of electricity but now companies are coming to green energy,
 But now its a fact that it's causing a lot of environmental problems because of using fuels to produce electricity. So in future we may convert to other mechanism but best option is using green energy , i.e solar wind water .

[aidoyoh]

To summarize:
POW:
Selects proposal based on what node is making it.(selects potential proposal based on node who first solved POW)

Ideal:
Selects proposal based on best proposal for the current conditions
(Selects node based on best potential proposal)

It's not any first, it has to meet the difficulty too. And this is important because it also regulates the speed of blocks being mined. "First" is relatively easy to quantify.

"Best" on the other hand... who and how to decide what's best, in an unbiased way, plus to make sure it's not cheated and also making sure the blocks are mined at the correct speed? (The who part is meant to be a trap, since the only correct "who" is the nodes.)

"Best" can be quantified by basic quantifiable metrics like transaction speed, value spent, number of transactions, who spent transactions, where in the network they are spent from etc. just depends what the network is designed/optimized for

Regarding First solution and block difficulty they are separate things. Block difficulty is constantly changing so the system approaches on 10 min block times. This means blocks will get easier or harder to solve based on how long the last block took to mine. When the network is operating smoothly nodes who propagate a solution to the POW function first are usually accepted as that makes that solution the longest chain. This usually means the first solution is accepted unless malicious/illegitimate activity is detected.

[stompix]

Citizens(nodes) do their jobs everyday to contribute to the economy which is the ongoing macro system(make and distribute transactions). Presidents(nodes) are randomly selected to group transactions for the next block through attempts at solving the POW function for that block.  Just like a president a citizen(node) is selected for a brief time period to make potential decisions for the networks next economic state. The difference being instead of 4 years of decisions it is building 1 block/proposal worth of decisions.

Why do you keep sticking with this analogy when it's clear it's flawed to the core?
You would need to have
- citizens, people that make transactions
- city halls, where the transactions are being sent and the archive is copied
- construction workers, the miners that build the next block in which all the receipts from the transactions are kept, and they can build each block empty because they feel like doing so, or one where there are no pets allowed
- then the city halls decide on their own which block to accept to expand their archive, without any citizen vote

The population can always rebel(accept another chain), however, the problem more so lies in the fact that the “president “ only has access to a single market perspective for forming proposals.

The population can't do anything about it, not in PoS not in PoW, again stop with this analogy as it creates more confusion than it solves.
You have nodes, you have miners, and you have simple users which send transactions, stick with them and remember a miner is a node, a node doesn't have to be a miner!

[franky1]

ok so the OP is not actually trying to describe or learn PoW
nor wanting to learn how bitcoin uses PoW

but wants to instead make a whole different system where PoW means something completely different.. as thats how i am reading his posts now
where he wants to create a new system without first understanding how the current system works

..
so here goes another attempt at explaining the current system
PoW is not about "selecting proposals"  or selecting a president who controls the network..
PoW is just doing a complicated method of using electric and computational time to create a strong ID that fixes the contents of a block. whereby it would take someone else more electric to go back and change that block and afix a new block ID to the changed data.. and then try to do the same for the next newest block to overtake the leading blockheight to become the valid blocks usernodes read and follow.
which to even be capable of doing this and consistantly win every block requires alot more electric spent than the entire networks worth of mining hardware

PoW has nothing to do with changing rules. its about securing the DATA inside a block with a strong and expensive ID for the blocks contents of transactions
and that is it in a nutshell
if a malicious pool owner with such massive amount of hardware to achieve repeated winning blocks. all he can ultimately do is just select (be picky) about what transactions to include or not

separately from PoW
changing the rules(proposals) requires having a majority of user nodes, or more importantly the nodes used by businesses and serives using your changed rules code.. to THEN accept blocks that may contain a new format.
meaning you need to convince user nodes to adopt your code first.. BEFORE a new block format would be accepted

thus 2 separate activities

as for who wins the block creation. its not about nodes randomly accepting something(being picky).
its about nodes receiving something random
 
its the mining pool that manages to solve the puzzle with enough difficulty faster than its opponent, and if the block meets the rules. then that is accepted as the winner

because there is a bit of 'randomness' in the blockID creation. its not always the pool with the most hashpower that wins every time.

dumbing it down by (whatever the term is for several factors above Vigintillion)
one pools attempt at making a block might be searching for the number 987654(xVigintillion)
while another pool is searching for the number 1234(xVigintillion) where the end result needs to when converted to hex have a prefix of a certain amount of zeros

their next attempts would be a different number where a different pool has to find a lower number meaning it gets to win even though other pools might have more hashpower their number this time they need to find is higher thus needing more time to find it

[aidoyoh]

ok so the OP is not actually trying to describe or learn PoW
nor wanting to learn how bitcoin uses PoW

but wants to instead make a whole different system where PoW means something completely different.. as thats how i am reading his posts now
where he wants to create a new system without first understanding how the current system works

..
so here goes another attempt at explaining the current system
PoW is not about "selecting proposals"  or selecting a president who controls the network..
PoW is just doing a complicated method of using electric and computational time to create a strong ID that fixes the contents of a block. whereby it would take someone else more electric to go back and change that block and afix a new block ID to the changed data.. and then try to do the same for the next newest block to overtake the leading blockheight to become the valid blocks usernodes read and follow.
which to even be capable of doing this and consistantly win every block requires alot more electric spent than the entire networks worth of mining hardware

PoW has nothing to do with changing rules. its about securing the DATA inside a block with a strong and expensive ID for the blocks contents of transactions
and that is it in a nutshell
if a malicious pool owner with such massive amount of hardware to achieve repeated winning blocks. all he can ultimately do is just select (be picky) about what transactions to include or not

separately from PoW
changing the rules(proposals) requires having a majority of user nodes, or more importantly the nodes used by businesses and serives using your changed rules code.. to THEN accept blocks that may contain a new format.
meaning you need to convince user nodes to adopt your code first.. BEFORE a new block format would be accepted

thus 2 separate activities

as for who wins the block creation. its not about nodes randomly accepting something(being picky).
its about nodes receiving something random
 
its the mining pool that manages to solve the puzzle with enough difficulty faster than its opponent, and if the block meets the rules. then that is accepted as the winner

because there is a bit of 'randomness' in the blockID creation. its not always the pool with the most hashpower that wins every time.

dumbing it down by (whatever the term is for several factors above Vigintillion)
one pools attempt at making a block might be searching for the number 987654(xVigintillion)
while another pool is searching for the number 1234(xVigintillion) where the end result needs to when converted to hex have a prefix of a certain amount of zeros

their next attempts would be a different number where a different pool has to find a lower number meaning it gets to win even though other pools might have more hashpower their number this time they need to find is higher thus needing more time to find it

Im afraid you may be too focused on specifics of how bitcoins POW function operates to understand the relationship i'm explaining. You also seem to be misinterpreting the things I have said but if thats how you read it that may be on me speaking too abstractly. Believe it or not I have written my own POW functions so I understand how they work and calling me dumb because you don't understand my analogy is far from constructive. I understand you feel you fully understand how bitcoin works but how POW consensus operates on a macro level is where the analogy works. Once again, it is not about data processing/selection specifics as much as it is about representing the system from a singular network perspective.

To summarize in simple terms and try to move away from this analogy. A decentralized network must be represented my some, all, or none of its members in consensus.

Bitcoin POW falls in the category of being represent by 'some' of the network with those that solve the POW function being the only ones capable of making a public proposal. Government is also decentralized representation through 'some' of the population. Sure the selection methods might be different (solving POW functions and elections) but what i'm trying to explain is it is much more difficult for a network to adapt to network conditions if proposals are only made from a single network perspective. The way gossip protocols work not everyone in the network will have the same transactions at the same time. This means that not everyone will be building the same blocks. If the only proposal thats evaluated is the one that first solved the POW function that means only one network perspective is checked for each block(assuming two nodes don't solve the function at the same time, in which case longest chain is selected). While this method meets the minimum requirements for block security it makes it extremely difficult for the network to optimize itself as it doesn't have anything to compare with only one potential proposal.

The main issue is proportional representation(some of system/network) rather than complete representation (entire network/system).

[NeuroticFish]

Block difficulty is constantly changing so the system approaches on 10 min block times.

No, it's not. Read & learn, don't just assume.
Read about the difficulty adjustment period. The difficulty is adjusted every 2016 blocks, i.e. about every 2 weeks. That hardly can be seen as "continuously".

"Best" can be quantified by basic quantifiable metrics like transaction speed, value spent, number of transactions, who spent transactions, where in the network they are spent from etc. just depends what the network is designed/optimized for

What does transaction speed means in your idea? Because the "speed" is related to the fee and the miners. So that's not a valid measure. Fee, maybe, but not speed.
Who spent the transaction? You should not know nor care who spent the transaction. Period.
Where are they? Are you kidding me? On a proper decentralized network this should never matter.
Number of transactions and so on are highly dependent on mempool, and, each node has a different mempool, so we cannot compare apples with oranges.

So.. all this "best" logic has shown (I will agree with franky1 here) that you don't know nor care about what bitcoin is and how it works, you just came with some half-baked ideas that cannot work.

[franky1]

again PoW has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with consensus or proposals

PoW is PURELY the mechanism to create an expensive ID of a lump of data no matter what that data inside contains(people can use PoW to identify a lump of data of library books, transactions, birth registries, medical records, anything)

PoW asics do not touch or receive the block data inside the block. not care about transaction details, number of transactions or format of transaction. it simply sha256's a sha256 with a nonce
its not complicated to create PoW

its as simple as SHA256(SHA256(data)+nonce)

and thats it
yep in its most simplest form of explaining what PoW is, is:
if prefix(4) of SHA256(SHA256(block content)+nonce) = '0000' then
ID is strong to prefix strength of levels

and thats it
bitcoin however uses 'difficulty' to calculate and adjust the prefix strength requirement

the stuff about transactions and proposals and features and functions is about CODE not PoW
Code that nodes have to verify the content. its code that looks at the data, not the PoW

[aidoyoh]

Block difficulty is constantly changing so the system approaches on 10 min block times.

No, it's not. Read & learn, don't just assume.
Read about the difficulty adjustment period. The difficulty is adjusted every 2016 blocks, i.e. about every 2 weeks. That hardly can be seen as "continuously".

"Best" can be quantified by basic quantifiable metrics like transaction speed, value spent, number of transactions, who spent transactions, where in the network they are spent from etc. just depends what the network is designed/optimized for

What does transaction speed means in your idea? Because the "speed" is related to the fee and the miners. So that's not a valid measure. Fee, maybe, but not speed.
Who spent the transaction? You should not know nor care who spent the transaction. Period.
Where are they? Are you kidding me? On a proper decentralized network this should never matter.
Number of transactions and so on are highly dependent on mempool, and, each node has a different mempool, so we cannot compare apples with oranges.

So.. all this "best" logic has shown (I will agree with franky1 here) that you don't know nor care about what bitcoin is and how it works, you just came with some half-baked ideas that cannot work.

Every 2 weeks does mean continuously though? Its a repeating process that is required for the network to operate properly?

When it comes to speed it cant be individually quantified but it can relatively quantified. The half-baked idea you are referring too I have already built and it works in local simulations so im not sure how half-baked it really is. Regarding who, bitcoin uses ECDSA signatures to sign transactions which means knowing who/public key is fairly essential in bitcoin. Where refers to where/how that transaction interfaced with the network.

If you dont understand how it can be done thats one thing but saying that these things are not possible is another. Rather than just saying im wrong it would be more productive for all parties to ask questions in order to understand what im trying to say. All im asking is that everyone try to come at this with an open mind because it is fundamentally a completely different approach to decentralized consensus. Let me clarify I'm not saying bitcoin is bad but rather asking the question is there potentially a better solution. Decentralized systems exists throughout nature and last I checked none of them use POW and have all lasted way longer than anything we have created.

[franky1]

im just wondering.
putting aside your subtle sidestepping, misunderstandings.
you seem to be wanting a system of more random people inclusion in the PoW task or hinting about faster block times

so imagine we thrashed around for many days trying to get you to understand what Pow is..
the question is:
 is your main gripe if speaking just about PoW that you personally cant with just your CPU be part of the PoW block solving task being able to make 50btc for pennies(low effort)? is that your end goal of coming to a conclusion about your "issues with PoW" your lack of involvement due to expense?

or is it about the gap of time between blocks
if it is about neither of those
and about "proposals" and rulesets... thats got nothing to do with PoW and everything to do with the code inside a node, which is a separate thing entirely, called consensus (the agreement of a set of rules by consent of the masses of nodes)

[aidoyoh]

again PoW has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with consensus or proposals

PoW is PURELY the mechanism to create an expensive ID of a lump of data no matter what that data inside contains

PoW asics do not touch or receive the block data inside the block. not care about tran number of transactions or format of transaction. it simply sha256's a sha256 with a nonce
its not complicated to create PoW

its as simple as SHA256(SHA256(data)+nonce)

and thats it
yep in its most simplest form of explaining what PoW is, is:
if prefix(4) of SHA256(SHA256(block content)+nonce) = '0000' then
ID is strong to prefix strength of levels

and thats it
bitcoin however uses 'difficulty' to calculate and adjust the prefix strength requirement

the stuff about transactions and proposals and features and functions is about CODE not PoW
Code that nodes have to verify the content. its code that looks at the data, not the PoW

how many times do I have to tell you I know how the POW mechanism works. If a node does not solve the POW mechanism the block proposal can not be added to the chain or evaluated. It doesnt matter if its code that looks at the data within the block, if you only have one proposal for that code to check what are you optimizing. There is nothing to compare with the proposal/block!

Just like people have unique perspectives so do nodes within a network. Stop getting caught up on the specifics of the POW function, like you said the POW function doesnt have anything to do with the data in the block which is what im trying to optimize. The POW mechanism just narrows down which proposals are eligible for evaluation/verification. Since you narrow down to one proposal using the POW mechanism you cannot compare it with anything because its all you have access to. POW and POS are both selection mechanisms for which node(s) will be involved in that blocks proposal. This is not an issue with how the POW mechanism works from a technical standpoint but how many proposals it allows to be compared and optimized.

gap of time is an issue but more its an issue of optimization. As computers and networking gets faster the network should evolve alongside technology through natural optimization. The issue is that since Bitcoins POW mechanism narrows down the proposals before the network sees them all it is very difficult for the network to optimize itself as it doesnt even have access to all the network info.

Imagine the metaverse is actually a thing and we all live in it for a majority of our lives are we still going to be relying on 10 min time capped blocks for our transactions. It works fine for what its used for now but for real daily use in a digital world it needs to innovate alongside technology. Fundamentally POW is designed to narrow down to as few proposals/nodes as possible before network consensus begins. This is the issue. The reason POW works is the same reason it wont work nearly as well in the future.

Additionally with POW:
better computers = same network output with more wasted computation

[Wind_FURY]

PoW is PURELY the mechanism to create an expensive ID of a lump of data no matter what that data inside contains

Let me just interject, for OP and the newbies in the forum who might misunderstand the post, that the mechanism is NOT "purely useless", it was designed as a way to be a Sybil Attack protection mechanism for the network. It's also where Satoshi's brilliance is shown because it also was implemented to be the mechanism for issuing the currency, and therefore also incentivizing the miners to keep continuing.

[cryptocoupons]

The consensus mechanisms used by Bitcoin and Ethereum, Proof of Work (POW) and Proof of Stake (POS) respectively, do have their own limitations. POW has been criticized for its high energy consumption and scalability issues, while POS has been criticized for its potential centralization of power among wealthy stakeholders.

[franky1]

@windfury
POW is a mechanism to make an expensive id
NO where did i say useless (dont even start more social drama by injecting your own words)

satoshi chose PoW instead of PoS because Pow is useful for the fact that it has a cost component of making an ID.. its why it has the word "work" in it, because it requires effort, which means more work for a malicious user to do to undo such effort, and then re-do and then catch up. to make a malicious persons more expensive effort get any recognition

the decision was put as a consensus(separate feature) rule.

if the OP is having issues about decisions of timing or if PoS should be used, or if difficulty should be adjusted to CPU rated solving. that is a CONSENSUS issue/debate.. not a PoW debate

PoW does not make decisions. it just makes a strong ID
satoshi beautifully patched together many many different mechanisms that all had their functions to create bitcoin

the choices/decisions are part of consensus debates of what decisions should remain as set hard rule that should not be touched, or things that could be(if done safely without risk, bug, breaks of the network) changed

EG the adjustments of difficulty via counts of 'if +/- 2016 blocks per fortnight, adjust difficulty +/- accordingly' are not made by PoW its made by consensus rules in user nodes.. not inside PoW asics

PoW is not about currency issuance.. again currency issuance is not done in an ASIC. its done by user node consensus rules
it doesnt matter of a block has 1 tx or 2000 tx. it doesnt matter if the coin reward is 5000000000sats or 625000000sats. the PoW mechanism still (in simple terms) sha's a sha of the same length

[aidoyoh]

POW is a mechanism to make an expensive id
NO where did i say useless (dont even start more social drama by injecting your own words)

satoshi chose PoW instead of PoS because Pow is useful for the fact that it has a cost component of making an ID.. its why it has the word "work" in it, becasue it requires effort

the decision was put as a consensus(separate feature) rule.

if the OP is having issues about decisions of timing or if PoS should be used, or if difficulty should be adjusted to CPU rated solving. that is a CONSENSUS issue/debate.. not a PoW debate

PoW does not make decisions. it just makes a strong ID

the choices/decisions are part of consensus debates of what decisions should remain as set hard rules that should not be touched, or things that could be(if done safely without risk, bug, breaks of the network)

Are you reading what I'm saying? I didnt say you said it was useless? I also didnt say to change anything within POS or POW im saying both are not ideal. I also didnt say POW made decisions. You are mostly arguing semantics.

POW Mechanism = POW function that is solved to create Block ID
POW consensus = entire system involving the POW mechanism

It doesnt feel like your even trying to understand what I'm saying your just trying to prove that I'm wrong?
Please reread what I said above regarding proportional representation as that is the root of the issue I'm speaking on.

[franky1]

my last post was to windfury.. as stated

moving on to OP's stuff
i tried once to get passed all your mis-use of mechanism wording and function to ask you to get to the crux/summarise what you are saying
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5436832.msg61668951#msg61668951

so
OP you are the one that is talking about 'proposals'.. POW has nothing to do with that.
however your latest post and hints else where is about proportional representation

i gather you are talking about wanting whole network involvement

but here is the thing again
are you wanting whole network involvement of the POW (this topic is wrote about POW issues after all)
meaning when you say "proposals" you actually mean possible blocks candidates outside of a pooled system?

or is it about whole network usernode involvement in code ruleset decisions(proposals)
..
if you are talking about a system where many nodes can collate transaction lists (each/independently) and secure them with a weaker(independent manageable) ID and broadcast their independent block to the network

you have to factor in how over X years people will find their own way to move away from that (as thats how bitcoin was in 2009) where by they then create mining rigs and asics and start pooling them ..
meaning your attempts is just temporary and end up returning to the same situation again

[aidoyoh]

OP you are the one that is talking about 'proposals'.. POW has nothing to do with that.
however your latest post and hints else where is about proportional representation

i gather you are talking about wanting whole network involvement

but here is the thing again
are you wanting whole network involvement of the POW (this topic is wrote about POW issues after all)
meaning when you say "proposals" you actually mean possible blocks candidates outside of a pooled system?

or is it about whole network usernode involvement in code ruleset decisions(proposals)
..
if you are talking about a system where many nodes can collate transaction lists (each/independently) and secure them with a weaker(independent manageable) ID and broadcast their independent block to the network

you have to factor in how over X years people will find their own way to move away from that (as thats how bitcoin was in 2009) where by they then create mining rigs and asics and start pooling them ..
meaning your attempts is just temporary and end up returning to the same situation again

Ah beautiful I think i'm with you now. I'm saying the issue with POW is its designed to minimize the number of solved block IDs(ideally one per block so chain doesn't split). Im also saying ideally a decentralized consensus method would involve the whole network as to get all relevant network perspectives. If the whole network was involved, however, there wouldn't be a need for a POW mechanism anymore. Im referring to a system where every node in the network creates a proposal from their own local transaction pools and the most 'efficient' proposal is automatically spread and verified/confirmed.

and yes mb proposals = possible blocks
I'm not great at turning my thoughts into words so thank you for being patient.

[franky1]

that is not a PoW issue

its a usernode issue
where by the usernode would have extra consensus rules in your scheme that:
things go back to "solo mining"
mine in a method that does not allow outside contribution (mining pool/syndication/external efficiency improved device)

this has nothing to do with limitation of PoW
PoW can still be used, but at a weaker difficulty to be managable to make a ID with just CPU power in X timeline(much like 2009 solo mining)

but as just said to prevent history repeating itself you will need another consensus/rule mechanism to prevent syndicating/pooling effort or using devices not CPU rated/internal to nodes device

that is the hard part. again its not related to PoW

trying to prove the ID was created by only the node and nothing helping/supporting it externally is where you need to find a solution for
most things can be emulated. EG faking IP addresses. using GPU instead of CPU multiple devices spoofed as one. one device spoofed as many

PoS does not solve this. because people can easily just run 1000 pc's all signing with the same key to have 1000 attempts of same
or have 1000 pc's with different keys to appear as different users when its actually hidden away that its just 1 person
this is called a sybil attack

satoshi chose PoW as one mechanism feature of making blocks due to the cost/effort.. thus preventing someone from cheaply broadcasting out masses of block prospects/candidates
..
the issue with having 1000 block prospect/candidates is that when a network only deems 4mb is broadcast safe per 10minutes. having a user spam out 1000 block prospect every second. then harms the bandwidth of other user nodes receiving(multiple users) millions of block prospects every second and trying to choose one out of the flood spam of blocks

having a system where only 1 prospect/candidate block is seen every 1-20minutes is safer.. thus having some form of difficulty/cost/inclusion threshold involved in the block creation is a must

[LegendaryK]

satoshi chose PoW instead of PoS because

Incorrect,

Satoshi choose PoW because it was the only option available in 2008 for what he wanted.

Satoshi left bitcoin behind in 2011.
https://robbreport.com/lifestyle/finance/bitcoin-founder-satoshi-nakamoto-1234613022/

On April 23, 2011, he sent a farewell email to a fellow Bitcoin developer. “I’ve moved on to other things

https://cointelegraph.com/news/the-history-and-evolution-of-proof-of-stake

Proof of Stake (PoS) was first introduced in a paper by Sunny King and Scott Nadal in 2012 and intended to solve the problem of Bitcoin mining’s high energy consumption.

Satoshi left in 2011 , Proof of Stake concept was founded in 2012.
He never choose PoW over PoS, because he had no knowledge of the newer more efficient superior PoS technology.

Had he not dropped the bitcoin community like they were foul-smelling excrement in 2011,
he might have stay long enough to replace that worthless proof of waste algorithm, that the btc cultists hold on to for pure stupidity stake.
* Satoshi believe in using program coded checkpoints to secure the blockchain, the btc cultists that took over after him quit using that security feature.*

Not only is PoW a waste of energy and a growing environmental disaster, an centralized *only 2 mining pools control over 51% of the hash rate *
it's Noise Pollution alone is getting communities to ask their governments to start banning it.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/19/us/north-carolina-crypto-mine-noise-weir-wxc/index.html

But then she heard the sound of crypto,
a noise that neighbor Mike Lugiewicz describes as “a small jet that never leaves” and her ambivalence turned into activism.
The racket was coming from stacks and stacks of computer servers and cooling fans,
mysteriously set up in a few acres of open farm field down on Harshaw Road.

Once they fired up and the noise started bouncing around their Blue Ridge Mountain homes,
sound meters in the Lugiewicz yard showed readings from 55-85 decibels depending on the weather,
but more disturbing than the volume is the fact that the noise never stopped

This unrelenting demand for electricity was one reason China banned cryptocurrency,
touching off a virtual gold rush from Appalachia to New York’s Finger Lakes.
Crypto miners began putting down stakes in places where power is cheap and affordable, and if land use or noise regulations even exist, enforcement is weak.
The mine in Murphy is just one of a dozen in Kentucky, Tennessee and North Carolina owned by a San Francisco-based company called PrimeBlock, which recently announced $300 million in equity financing and plans to scale up and go public.

But a year and a half after crypto came to this ruby red pocket of Republican retirees and Libertarian life-timers,
anger over the mine helped flip the balance of local power and forced the Board of Commissioners
to officially ask their state and federal officials to
“introduce and champion legislation through the US Congress that would ban
and/or regulate crypto mining operations in the United States of America.”

 
 

Proof of Stake Energy Efficient and Space Efficient and Excess Onchain Transaction Capacity and most important if you live near one, Quiet.  

[franky1]

@leg-end
you think that PoW was the only mechanism ever imagined in the cypherpunks idea house pre 2009

there were many. just because they were not called "PoS":
concepts of selected/random individuals to sign a block of data at no cost.
concepts of unit/value penalty for rule breaking
did exist

there is a reason satoshi ignored those ideas and went for PoW instead

[serveria.com]

after doing dev work with ethereum and bitcoin it seems that both consensus options are blatantly fairly flawed. POW has obvious scaling issues and POS seems like a bandaid solution with wealthy people automatically being allocated more currency through an infinitely compounding cycle. Is the crypto/blockchain community not open to new type of consensus? It seems like POW and POS just keep getting updated rather than addressing the real issue and switching base mechanisms. Do others just not see issues with POW or POS?

Not sure how POW is connected with scaling issues? What exactly do you mean? Please elaborate.

With POS it's sort of clear - selling/giving control of the blockchain to billionaires/corporations. Never gonna happen to Bitcoin (hopefully). With the transition to POS, ETH was a shitcoin since day 1 but after POS it turned into a complete shitshow.