Annual 10% bitcoin dividends if mining were Proof-of-Stake

[mgburks77]

Let's not forget that all PoS implementations so far also suffer from quite a bunch of potential attacks that PoW does not.

This is disingenuous.

Bitcoin also "suffers" from a multitude of "potential attacks". There's been attempts to launch these attacks on PoS coins but none were have been successful producing a double spend or other anomalous behavior on solid altcoins, with development, as far as I know.

There is a lot of monetary disincentive for those types of attacks because they require a large stake would would necessarily be destroyed in the attack. So it is a theoretical question for the most part. No one will ever do it

[1714098567]

1714098567

[1714098567]

1714098567

[1714098567]

1714098567

[1714098567]

1714098567

[1714098567]

1714098567

[mgburks77]

PoW : consensus is achieved by people who have capital at risk; rewards flow to those who perform the most work.

PoS : consensus is achieved by people who have capital; rewards flow to those who have the most capital.

This is bad logic

Both are examples of capital at risk and work being performed to secure a network. The difference is one is performing a type of "work" that is essentially useless and has a high overhead due to excessive power usage. Rewards flow to those that have the most capital in both scenarios.

[itod]

Look at the following pie chart from Blockchain.info . In the Unknown pie slice are private datacenters and ASIC manufacturers that are large enough to keep the 1% typical pool fee for themselves. Suppose there are four very large datacenters in there. Count the named pie slices and add say 4 for the private datacenters in Unknown and get 12.

Those 12 miners control Proof-of-Work Bitcoin mining.

Wrong, these "named slices" are not miners, they are public pools with thousands miners contributing to each one. The second those miners sense their pools get bribed to destroy bitcoin, their source of income, they would switch to non-corrupted one. Instantly, within a day. With each month passing and more and more money being poured in mining hardware the chances that hardware being obsoleted by some external bribing attempt are diminishing rapidly.

No, you are wrong and here is why. These "named slices" plus a few private datacenters are the miners, only they execute a few instances of bitcoind.

The numerous ASIC owners execute cgminer or another program that adheres to the stratum protocol which is not a part of the Bitcoin Network and was never envisioned by Satoshi.

...
[long block of text omitted]
...

You can write a wall of text and that will not make your statement less false: "named slices" are not some entities which are hard to control, they are simple pools run on a few servers. Those servers serve thousands of real miners, people that invested hundreds of millions of dollars in their equipment, people that spend electricity, people that are real flash and blood of bitcoin network. "Named slices" can go up or down in their network percentage at the whim of the miners, and that already happened several times through the life of the bitcoin. And it will happen again, those names that we see on that chart will probably not be there in a year or two. Those handful of servers each pool consists of provide healthy competition for their services to the miners, if that was not a case we would not have 0-fee-pools we have today, and if any of them ever starts to misbehave it will go down in hours. There's no reason we should worry about "named slices" as you call them, they are by far most easily controllable part of the bitcoin community.

[Peter R]

PoW : consensus is achieved by people who have capital at risk; rewards flow to those who perform the most work.

PoS : consensus is achieved by people who have capital; rewards flow to those who have the most capital.

This is bad logic

PoS = proof of stake and PoW = proof of work.  They are two different mechanisms that can be used for achieving consensus in peer-to-peer networks.  With PoS, consensus is formed by those holding stake; with PoW, consensus is formed by those doing work.  

You can dance around this fact as much as you like, but that's what it comes down to Mgburks77.  The question is which mechanism will the market prefer?

I would actually like to see a PoS alt-coin and I believe that through blockchain mergers of like-minded alt coin communities one can grow to challenge litecoin.  This will help us answer these questions empirically, rather than through hand-waving debates that this thread is evidence of. 

I think it would be proper to call this PoS alt bitshares instead, for it is no longer a coin.  Dividends are awarded to share holders for holding stake, rather than to miners for doing work.  Arguments are settled based on how many shares one holds, rather than by how much work one performs.  

[SlipperySlope]

You can write a wall of text and that will not make your statement less false: "named slices" are not some entities which are hard to control, they are simple pools run on a few servers. Those servers serve thousands of real miners, people that invested hundreds of millions of dollars in their equipment, people that spend electricity, people that are real flash and blood of bitcoin network. "Named slices" can go up or down in their network percentage at the whim of the miners, and that already happened several times through the life of the bitcoin. And it will happen again, those names that we see on that chart will probably not be there in a year or two. Those handful of servers each pool consists of provide healthy competition for their services to the miners, if that was not a case we would not have 0-fee-pools we have today, and if any of them ever starts to misbehave it will go down in hours. There's no reason we should worry about "named slices" as you call them, they are by far most easily controllable part of the bitcoin community.

Ok. Less text and more pictures. Here is MegaBigPower, located in Washington State. He is a single miner in the Unknown pie slice chart whose ambition is to control 10% of total Bitcoin hashing power.



Here is infamous mining equipment manufacturer kncminer. This is a single miner in the Unknown pie slice chart whose ambition is to compete with customers still waiting for paid-for equipment. Proof-of-Work manifestly encourages bad behavior.

[mgburks77]

The question is which mechanism will the market prefer?

The one that performs the essential task of achieving consensus, in a decentralized manner by private individuals without the need for expensive specialized equipment and outrageous power and cooling requirements.

Bitcoin has been betamaxxed, at least in my humble opinion. There may be a few kinks left to be worked out with PoS but it is the way crypto currency will go in the end. It's the most reasonable scheme.

They are two different mechanisms that can be used for achieving consensus in peer-to-peer networks. With PoS, consensus is formed by those holding stake; with PoW, consensus is formed by those doing work.

Again,

The idea that labor somehow infuses a product with value is a totally mistaken assumption with a basis in obsolete neo-classical economic theory. Value is is purely subjective so whether consensus is arrived upon via proof of work or proof of stake is completely irrelevant. The only essential requirement is only that a consensus be arrived at somehow. The easiest and cheapest manner of doing so is clearly the best choice.

[Peter R]

Ok. Less text and more pictures….

It is pretty amazing how our infrastructure has grown.  I hadn't seen either of these before, and they make me confident in the security of bitcoin and proud of what we've accomplished.    

These are just two examples of ambitious groups who want to earn income by mining bitcoin.  They have large amounts of capital at risk and a vested interest in securing our network.  They are rewarded objectively based on how much work they accomplish.  

[cbeast]

Here is infamous mining equipment manufacturer kncminer. This is a single miner in the Unknown pie slice chart whose ambition is to compete with customers still waiting for paid-for equipment. Proof-of-Work manifestly encourages bad behavior.

It also encourages competition. This sort of bad behavior only exists in a monopoly and may be actionable. Certainly such bad behavior will not be forgotten, excused, nor forgiven.

[mgburks77]

That's centralized databank that individuals have to trust in order for it to operate

Mt Gox was a centralized bank that people had to trust in order for it to operate.

That model sux, it shouldn't inspire confidence in any one that is paying attention or is not blinded by their own vested interests.  

[Peter R]

They are two different mechanisms that can be used for achieving consensus in peer-to-peer networks. With PoS, consensus is formed by those holding stake; with PoW, consensus is formed by those doing work.

The only essential requirement is only that a consensus be arrived at somehow.

It sounds like you agree with this statement then:

PoS = proof of stake and PoW = proof of work.  They are two different mechanisms that can be used for achieving consensus in peer-to-peer networks. With PoS, consensus is formed by those holding stake; with PoW, consensus is formed by those doing work.

[SlipperySlope]

Here is infamous mining equipment manufacturer kncminer. This is a single miner in the Unknown pie slice chart whose ambition is to compete with customers still waiting for paid-for equipment. Proof-of-Work manifestly encourages bad behavior.

It also encourages competition. This sort of bad behavior only exists in a monopoly and may be actionable. Certainly such bad behavior will not be forgotten, excused, nor forgiven.

Here is some competition - the 5GH/s bitcoin miner from Butterfly Labs.



According to the mining profitability calculator at https://tradeblock.com/mining/ and assuming you get electric power at only $0.03 per KwH, then every month you mine with this ASIC you lose money. They are still for sale. ASICs are designed for obsolescence. And the established industry business model is pre-order which invites fraud.

[mgburks77]

They are two different mechanisms that can be used for achieving consensus in peer-to-peer networks. With PoS, consensus is formed by those holding stake; with PoW, consensus is formed by those doing work.

The only essential requirement is only that a consensus be arrived at somehow.

It sounds like you agree with this statement then:

PoS = proof of stake and PoW = proof of work.  They are two different mechanisms that can be used for achieving consensus in peer-to-peer networks. With PoS, consensus is formed by those holding stake; with PoW, consensus is formed by those doing work.

You can't evade my point like that.

Consensus is consensus. All you need is an accurate way to assess each individual's choice. You could do it by hand with a pencil and paper if you had to. No reason to go through that though. Proof of Stake and it's distributed P2P network can show where the true consensus lie cheaply and easily.

There are no centralized banks of miners or financial institutions involved in skewing the consensus toward their preferred form of infrastructure.

And in the question of mass adoption PoS wins hands down. ASIC miners will never be widely adopted. It's become a planned obsolesce scheme, at its basis. Those chips are junk and can't be used for anything else once they pass the end of their shelf life. Being able to stake on your tablet or mobile device is going to be the most important factor in destroying the grip mining cartels have on the crypto economy.

Once the staking Android wallet is developed mining is finished. That is the writing on the wall, as I see it.

[Peter R]

They are two different mechanisms that can be used for achieving consensus in peer-to-peer networks. With PoS, consensus is formed by those holding stake; with PoW, consensus is formed by those doing work.

The only essential requirement is only that a consensus be arrived at somehow.

It sounds like you agree with this statement then:

PoS = proof of stake and PoW = proof of work.  They are two different mechanisms that can be used for achieving consensus in peer-to-peer networks. With PoS, consensus is formed by those holding stake; with PoW, consensus is formed by those doing work.

You can't evade my point like that.

You have no point.  You are evading answering a simple question because by talking about proof-of-stake in plain words the problem (at least to me) is obvious: consensus is formed by those holding stake; rewards flow to those holding the largest stakes.

I engaged you in debate because I thought you were a bitcoin user genuinely interested in whether PoS had merit or not.  After reviewing your post history, I see you are a MintCoin pumper.

You do realize that in the extremely unlikely event that you were successful in convincing the community that PoS is preferable, that a bitcoin blockchain-based PoS system would be "spun off"?  It's not like people would panic trade out of bitcoin and into some PoS coin.  

With the advent of sidechains and spinoffs, alt-coins will only be successful moving forward to the extent that they can merge blockchains with like-minded communities.  If you want MintCoin to have a fighting chance, I think you need to increase your users base and the legitimacy of you blockchain.  You can do this by merging with other PoS coins such as NxT or Blackcoin.  Alt-coin mergers are coming and only those that form alliances will survive…

[mgburks77]

ha ha you are being totally disingenuous

consensus is formed by those holding stake; rewards flow to those holding the largest stakes.  

In PoW consensus is formed by those who own the most computing power instead of from individual devices. The most rewards flow to those who hold collective hashing power or bitcoin with the infrastructure they have designed to create an entry barrier.

They used their capital stake to purchase this infrastructure so that's not a valid point at all. It's better for a decentralized trustless network to produce coins than to have trusted authorities controlling the network and doling out low rewards to their subjects.

You can do this by merging with other PoS coins such as NxT or Blackcoin.

I think both are flawed

Alt-coin mergers are coming and only those that form alliances will survive…

The arrival of the staking android wallet is going to to be the catalyst for change.

It's going to revolutionize crypto and put it back in the hands of individuals. No one is going to need banks anymore because they will own their own bank and it will be on their mobile device.

Not really here to pitch any particular alt coin, but only one has this sort of staking wallet in development and it is supposedly almost ready.

That is the future.

[Bit_Happy]

If it's not broke/broken, don't fix it.
Unless there is a major problem, there is no accepted precedent for such a huge change to the Bitcoin code.

[SlipperySlope]

And in the question of mass adoption PoS wins hands down. ASIC miners will never be widely adopted. It's become a planned obsolesce scheme, at its basis. Those chips are junk and can't be used for anything else once they pass the end of their shelf life. Being able to stake on your tablet or mobile device is going to be the most important factor in destroying the grip mining cartels have on the crypto economy.

Once the staking Android wallet is developed mining is finished. That is the writing on the wall, as I see it.

Ha. I am presently researching whether anyone has a full node bitcoind running on a Linux smartphone.

CPU capacity on a multi-core smartphone already exceeds what Proof-of-Stake requires. Likewise for RAM regarding the flagship Android phones now, and ordinary phones in a couple of years. The blockchain is about 20 GB today and could fit on flagship Android phones now. Furthermore, Bitcoin Core developers have plans to prune or otherwise compress the blockchain for the purposes of validation.

From my own experience running a full node, network bandwidth is the most precious resource. Propagation of new blocks, and of the entire blockchain for new mobiles entering the network requires much symmetric bandwidth, depending upon the number of permitted peer connections.

In a possible world, every smartphone is a Proof-of-Stake full node. There would be billions of them in the Bitcoin Network rather than the less than 10 thousand full nodes nowadays. It is fair that only block-validating, and blockchain-maintaining wallets receive their annual 10% bitcoin dividends. These dividends, given the higher prices for bitcoin that I expect with Proof-of-Stake, would be sufficient to pay for the cellular data bandwidth consumed. Or consider that the full node smartphone client could connect to the network only when WiFi is the connection - and receive a diminished bitcoin dividend in proportion to the time spent securing and maintaining the network, effectively receive annual 5% bitcoin dividends for coins held in the smartphone's full node wallet connected 12 hours each night to the owner's WiFi.

[cbeast]

In PoW consensus is formed by those who own the most computing power instead of from individual devices.

This make no sense. There are plenty of independent miners.

The most rewards flow to those who hold collective hashing power or bitcoin with the infrastructure they have designed to create an entry barrier.

Yeah. It's competitive. There are no laws preventing you from being a top miner. The only barrier is you.

[SlipperySlope]

If it's not broke/broken, don't fix it.
Unless there is a major problem, there is no accepted precedent for such a huge change to the Bitcoin code.

The major problem is that the Energy Charter Treaty encourages our respective governments not to permit waste of energy. In perhaps four more years the cost of electric power to operate and cool ASIC mining equipment will exceed $100 billion annually. The precedent is the incandescent light bulb ban. Do we want a bitcoin ban when it can be avoided?

The lesser problem is fairness. Why should Proof-of-Work ASIC-operators waste their bitcoin rewards on equipment and power, when those very same rewards can be given to us, the bitcoin holders as annual 10% bitcoin dividends using ordinary computers.

I liken the current Proof-of-Work system to a bank protected from robbers by a moat filled with burning paper currency.

[SlipperySlope]

With the advent of sidechains and spinoffs, alt-coins will only be successful moving forward to the extent that they can merge blockchains with like-minded communities.  If you want MintCoin to have a fighting chance, I think you need to increase your users base and the legitimacy of you blockchain.  You can do this by merging with other PoS coins such as NxT or Blackcoin.  Alt-coin mergers are coming and only those that form alliances will survive…

I agree with Peter_R regarding altcoins and sidechains, yet hope to allay his concerns about Proof-of-Stake.

My notion of a Proof-of-Stake spin-off is to spin-off the Proof-of-Work miners from Bitcoin, which means that we need approximately 24,000 Proof-of-Stake full nodes participating in the Bitcoin Network as non-generating stealth nodes until everyone on our side is at the table - so to speak. I choose 24K because that is three times the number of bitcoind Proof-of-Stake full nodes in the network now.

To make the spin-off work, we need the Bitcoin brand and for it to want us. As US President Abraham Lincoln said "In this age, in this country, public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed."

[jonald_fyookball]

spin off?  is that a fork?