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

[SlipperySlope]

spin off?  is that a fork?

Yes, it is a hard-fork of the blockchain. Not a from-scratch genesis block as used by altcoins. The Proof-of-Stake version of bitcoind would be made to reject as invalid new blocks created by the then-existing Proof-of-Work version.

This scenario is worst case. In the best case, public opinion sways the majority of Bitcoin Core developers to embrace Proof-of-Stake and the migration from Proof-of-Stake to Proof-of-Work is handled via long advance notice and simply a new version of Bitcoin Core for download by everyone.

[raskul]

what you are suggesting is a very dangerous game, i don't like the idea whatsoever, and i'm sorry but you will find a multitude of ugly little me's if this ever gets approval.

[jonald_fyookball]

you want to fork bitcoin and call it bitcoin?

Then, if i want to send some coins, which protocol is being used?
Do I have to tell someone , i want to send you bitcoin v1 or v2 ?
how is that going to work?

[toast]

This thread makes me so happy... OP do you follow Invictus and Bitshares? Most up to date POS models and many more insights

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. 

This is already a thing! bitshares.org

[SlipperySlope]

what you are suggesting is a very dangerous game, i don't like the idea whatsoever, and i'm sorry but you will find a multitude of ugly little me's if this ever gets approval.

Could you please elaborate on the nature to your objections. The public consensus cannot be moved towards Proof-of-Stake unless all objections are reasonably addressed.

[BldSwtTrs]

SlipperySlope what you say is what Dan Larimer from Invictus started saying months ago.

Bitcoin is an autonomous company which have a negative bottom line. Bitshares, thanks to a variante of PoS, will be a range of several autonomous companies which will make profits and therefore pay dividends to shareholders/owners of the company token. Bitcoin will need to adapt (ie. eliminates PoW) in order to survive.

[azwccc]

POW will be eliminated sooner or later, but blockchain will survive forever. bitshares go!

[Peter R]

spin off?  is that a fork?

Yes, it is a hard-fork of the blockchain. Not a from-scratch genesis block as used by altcoins. The Proof-of-Stake version of bitcoind would be made to reject as invalid new blocks created by the then-existing Proof-of-Work version.

This scenario is worst case. In the best case, public opinion sways the majority of Bitcoin Core developers to embrace Proof-of-Stake and the migration from Proof-of-Stake to Proof-of-Work is handled via long advance notice and simply a new version of Bitcoin Core for download by everyone.

This is not quite correct.  There is no difference between your "worst case" and your "best case."  They are the same thing in both cases.  

If you attempt to do this SlipperySlope, and win-over some developers to your cause, you could create a PoS spin-off and try to legitimize it.  After you launch it, both bitcoin-PoW and bitcoin-PoS would be running side by side; users would control the same % of coins in each system.

And then the market would decide which system is legitimate.  

I expect to see the first spin-offs launched within 6 months.  It will be very interesting to watch the experiment unfold.  

[liondani]

That's the real revolution guys...
Worth reading!

Delegated Proof of Stake
by Daniel Larimer on April 3, 2014

This paper introduces a new implementation of proof of stake that can validate transactions in seconds while providing greater security in a shorter period of time than all existing proof of stake systems. In the time it takes Bitcoin to produce a single block a DPOS system can have your transaction verified by 20% of the shareholders and by the time Bitcoin claims the transaction is almost irreversible (6 blocks, 1 hour) your transaction under DPOS has been verified by 100% of the shareholders through their representatives.

read more here
http://bitshares.org/security/delegated-proof-of-stake.php

[SlipperySlope]

SlipperySlope what you say is what Dan Larimer from Invictus started saying months ago.

Bitcoin is an autonomous company which have a negative bottom line. Bitshares, thanks to a variante of PoS, will be a range of several autonomous companies which will make profits and therefore pay dividends to shareholders/owners of the company token. Bitcoin will need to adapt (ie. eliminates PoW) in order to survive.

I get the notion that existing and planned Proof-of-Stake altcoins are a short-term bet that Bitcoin continues its 3.2x annual economic growth, and lifts the value of all altcoins as the public adopts crytocurrencies. Those same altcoins are a long-term bet that Bitcoin keeps Proof-of-Work and thus gets banned in some countries as wasteful allowing those altcoins the opportunity to replace Bitcoin.

My mission is with Bitcoin.

[SlipperySlope]

spin off?  is that a fork?

Yes, it is a hard-fork of the blockchain. Not a from-scratch genesis block as used by altcoins. The Proof-of-Stake version of bitcoind would be made to reject as invalid new blocks created by the then-existing Proof-of-Work version.

This scenario is worst case. In the best case, public opinion sways the majority of Bitcoin Core developers to embrace Proof-of-Stake and the migration from Proof-of-Stake to Proof-of-Work is handled via long advance notice and simply a new version of Bitcoin Core for download by everyone.

This is not quite correct.  There is no difference between your "worst case" and your "best case."  They are the same thing in both cases.  

If you attempt to do this SlipperySlope, and win-over some developers to your cause, you could create a PoS spin-off and try to legitimize it.  After you launch it, both bitcoin-PoW and bitcoin-PoS would be running side by side; users would control the same % of coins in each system.

And then the market would decide which system is legitimate.  

I expect to see the first spin-offs launched within 6 months.  It will be very interesting to watch the experiment unfold.  

Let me be more clear. In the best case, I would like Proof-of-Stake to be owned by Bitcoin Core developers before it gets turned on. I would help develop, document and test Proof-of-Stake on a Bitcoin sandbox testnet that receives new transactions from the Bitcoin network but does not otherwise interfere with it.

[SlipperySlope]

you want to fork bitcoin and call it bitcoin?

Then, if i want to send some coins, which protocol is being used?
Do I have to tell someone , i want to send you bitcoin v1 or v2 ?
how is that going to work?

As Satoshi Nakamoto foresaw, and as last year's blockchain hard fork demonstrated, you carry on as normal. The majority of v2 full nodes will build the longest valid blockchain, and v1 nodes will only create orphans.

[Peter R]

spin off?  is that a fork?

Yes, it is a hard-fork of the blockchain. Not a from-scratch genesis block as used by altcoins. The Proof-of-Stake version of bitcoind would be made to reject as invalid new blocks created by the then-existing Proof-of-Work version.

This scenario is worst case. In the best case, public opinion sways the majority of Bitcoin Core developers to embrace Proof-of-Stake and the migration from Proof-of-Stake to Proof-of-Work is handled via long advance notice and simply a new version of Bitcoin Core for download by everyone.

This is not quite correct.  There is no difference between your "worst case" and your "best case."  They are the same thing in both cases.  

If you attempt to do this SlipperySlope, and win-over some developers to your cause, you could create a PoS spin-off and try to legitimize it.  After you launch it, both bitcoin-PoW and bitcoin-PoS would be running side by side; users would control the same % of coins in each system.

And then the market would decide which system is legitimate.  

I expect to see the first spin-offs launched within 6 months.  It will be very interesting to watch the experiment unfold.  

Let me be more clear. In the best case, I would like Proof-of-Stake to be owned by Bitcoin Core developers before it gets turned on. I would help develop, document and test Proof-of-Stake on a Bitcoin sandbox testnet that receives new transactions from the Bitcoin network but does not otherwise interfere with it.

Yes, that is how I understood it.  But remember that in the very unlikely event that every current bitcoin core developer got on board with your proposal, a new set of bitcoin core developers would step up to maintain bitcoin PoW.  There is no way to "force" a change from PoW to PoS.  The only way is to create your spin off and then use your influence and economic power to attempt to legitimize it.  In the end, the market will decide.

[BldSwtTrs]

SlipperySlope what you say is what Dan Larimer from Invictus started saying months ago.

Bitcoin is an autonomous company which have a negative bottom line. Bitshares, thanks to a variante of PoS, will be a range of several autonomous companies which will make profits and therefore pay dividends to shareholders/owners of the company token. Bitcoin will need to adapt (ie. eliminates PoW) in order to survive.

I get the notion that existing and planned Proof-of-Stake altcoins are a short-term bet that Bitcoin continues its 3.2x annual economic growth, and lifts the value of all altcoins as the public adopts crytocurrencies. Those same altcoins are a long-term bet that Bitcoin keeps Proof-of-Work and thus gets banned in some countries as wasteful allowing those altcoins the opportunity to replace Bitcoin.

My mission is with Bitcoin.

Bitcoin doesn't necessarily need to be banned to get overthrow.

In a pure free market perspective, what's best: to have an asset which is debased 10% per year or an asset which pay 5% dividend per year?

The rate of adoption and the absence of credible competition hide the flaw of Bitcoin right now. But when more efficient alternatives will be out there, the flaw of BTC will be glaring. And it's not far-fetched to think the adoption rate will be hinder and the price put in a negative feedback loop. I'd prefer see Bitcoin succeeding too, but market creates efficiency: to survive in the free market, Bitcoin need to become efficient.

[Adrian-x]

The main difference is that PoS doesn't waste a bunch of electricity in doing so.

No, the main difference is that consensus is formed by those holding stake and not those willing to work.  To me it is the difference between rent seekers (PoS) and innovators (PoW).  

The miners' eternal vigilance is the price paid for freedom.  

This
One can’t emphasise this enough, to experiment safely one could spin-off the blockchaine into a NXT clone. The predicted outcome will be the paradox of thrift, as holding capital is reworded, where as in Bitcoin holding capital is a risk that increases or decreases according to the state of the economy.

Understated but important are the myriad of speculators creating a free market force who perform the same function as the FED as they try and control the money supply by selling high and buying low.  In contrast PoS rewords give advantage to those with capital and leave those without vulnerable to rent seeking, (more realistically seeking a PoW alt.) 
 

[raskul]

what you are suggesting is a very dangerous game, i don't like the idea whatsoever, and i'm sorry but you will find a multitude of ugly little me's if this ever gets approval.

Could you please elaborate on the nature to your objections. The public consensus cannot be moved towards Proof-of-Stake unless all objections are reasonably addressed.

simple, i like it just as it is. thanks.

[SlipperySlope]

Hi everyone.

I added an opinion poll to the first page, to quantify how you feel about this issue.

The argument I make for the change has two independent points . . .

(1) The existing Bitcoin system of using Proof-of-Work to prevent double spending is wasteful, and growing so 10x worse each year. In about four more years at that rate, governments will take notice of the $100 billion worth of wasted electricity and perhaps ban bitcoin mining in some jurisdictions, using the incandescent light bulb ban as precedent.

(2) The alternative Proof-of-Stake method to prevent double spending can be performed on an ordinary computer, and probably in a few years on a smartphone. Proof-of-Stake allows each of us to expose bitcoins to the network and receive annual 10% dividends. Everything else about bitcoin, in particular the promises made by Satoshi concerning mining rewards and the fixed limit remain unchanged.

If you care one way or the other, please vote.

[SlipperySlope]

Could you please elaborate on the nature to your objections. The public consensus cannot be moved towards Proof-of-Stake unless all objections are reasonably addressed.
[/quote]

simple, i like it just as it is. thanks.
[/quote]

I agree with the broad principles of conservatism. They have served my household very well over the decades.

Is it that a change has an unknown risk associated with it? And this risk to you is not worth the change I propose despite the assurances of my two arguments?

[johnyj]

No need for POS since we already have fiat money system where bankers have the biggest stake

[mgburks77]

I would take another btc position if it transitioned to PoS, otherwise I'm more interested in assets that explore concepts conducive to mass adoption such a fast transaction times, ease of use, ubiquitous mining, P2P exchange, true decentralization and true anonymity.

Security is always going to be a concern and I don't see that PoW is really any stronger in that respect because it requires a lot of trust in particular gate keepers to navigate the byzantine labyrinth that is the btc economy.

Someone can always rip your wallet file either way, unless YOU make it difficult.