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

[Bit_Happy]

Solar powered mining farms can help provide low cost electricity for BTC.

[jonald_fyookball]

it's become an economics uber-nonsense as soon as there is an more efficient way to achieve the same security level

Good point, and at the heart of the matter but that is a big If.

[BldSwtTrs]

PoS rewards rent-seeking; PoW rewards efficient work.

Paying hundreds millions/billion of dollars to achieve something you can achieve for free is a lot of things, but it's not efficient.

[Peter R]

PoS rewards rent-seeking; PoW rewards efficient work.

Paying hundreds millions/billion of dollars to achieve something you can achieve for free is a lot of things, but it's not efficient.

You don't create the same thing: you have either bitcoins or bitshares.  Entropy is the difference.  Here's what I said when Jonald asked what the purpose of the work was a couple posts back:

You are working to remove enough entropy to create a coin.  You express your opinion that the coin is worth looking for by risking your time and resources in trying to find it.  Once the entropy is removed, it is removed forever and you have a bitcoin--similar to how gold ore is dug up, processed, and then turned to gold coins.  It is this physical relationship between energy and entropy that make it difficult for coins to be created. 

PoS is predicated on the idea that mining is wasteful.  In other words, PoS says that it takes too much work to create a bitcoin and that we should create bitshares instead.  But isn't that another way of saying that it should be easier to create shares than coins?  And if it becomes very easy to create more shares, won't more shares be created?  PoS supporters will tell you that this won't happen, but really if consensus if based on stake and shares can be created out of thin air (there's no entropy requirements) how is this really any different than our fiat system?

[clout]

no shares can't be created out of thin air, at least not with the bitshares DAC concept. The blockchain does not create more shares, it instead destroys transaction fees which in turn acts a stock buy back or dividend if you will for all shareholders. You would never complain about a dividend or a stock buy back, because we understand what gives a stock value and that is the profitability of the company. bitcoin is operating at a loss and as such its equity will reflect that in the future.

if your problem with the pos system is because you do not like that ppl earn capital based on the capital that they already have, what do you think about issuing new forms of capital for which there are varying returns. ppl can exchange these new forms of capital at the market rate given their perceived returns. those that are most informed as is true with any market will earn the most capital in this system. this system rewards accurate information, and the work associated with this system is the accumulation of information not the pointless hashing of alpha-numeric strings.

does this system sound similiar to systems we already have? it is capitalism, it is the free markets.

bitshares bank and exchange leverages the free market consensus to create assets that are market pegged to any real world asset and those that provide the most accurate information to the blockchain through the process of voluntary exchange accumulate the most capital.

is this not the pos implementation you are looking for?

[jonald_fyookball]

what a complex topic 

PoS rewards rent-seeking; PoW rewards efficient work.

Paying hundreds millions/billion of dollars to achieve something you can achieve for free is a lot of things, but it's not efficient.

Question:  How does PoS system utilize the "easy to prove, hard to solve" edict of cryptocurrency security?

[clout]

what a complex topic  

PoS rewards rent-seeking; PoW rewards efficient work.

Paying hundreds millions/billion of dollars to achieve something you can achieve for free is a lot of things, but it's not efficient.

Question:  How does PoS system utilize the "easy to prove, hard to solve" edict of cryptocurrency security?

mining affords consensus, it is not necessarily a matter of security. proof of whatever is necessary for consensus. the mechanism for consensus will most likely be voting. in pow miners have all the votes. their votes are weighted by their share of hashing power. individual miners will delegate their votes (hashing power) to mining pools, which act as representatives for their constituents (the miners) best interests. this is why if you have 51% of the hashing power you effectively control the network.

[Peter R]

Hmm... Seems to be related to the "pos scheme still needs a pow issuance mechanism" argument

Coin distribution is a problem for PoS, since the distribution mechanism that mining provides is absent.  But PoS communities can partly deal with this by merging with other like-minded PoS communities.  For example, Blackcoin could merge with NXT, which could later merge with MintCoin.  This is more efficient that trading out of one PoS ledger and into another.  

I actually think this is inevitable because it seems there is demand to empirically test the merits of PoS at a larger market cap.  It will be very interesting to watch.    

[BldSwtTrs]

PoS is predicated on the idea that mining is wasteful.  In other words, PoS says that it takes too much work to create a bitcoin and that we should create bitshares instead.  But isn't that another way of saying that it should be easier to create shares than coins?  And if it becomes very easy to create more shares, won't more shares be created?  PoS supporters will tell you that this won't happen, but really if consensus if based on stake and shares can be created out of thin air (there's no entropy requirements) how is this really any different than our fiat system?

Bitcoin is already a share (in a autonomous company which is really good at storing and transfering value). You don't need PoS to view it as a share, PoS would only make the company more profitable by cutting it expenses.

The same incentitive structure exist wether you call it a coin or a share: shareholders of a PoS blockchain don't want to be dilute more than shareholders of a PoW blockhain want to be dilute .
PoS shareholders have voting rights whereas PoW shareholders have no voting rights (only miners do). And in fiat, well, nobody have voting rights except the Central Bank.

[clout]

Hmm... Seems to be related to the "pos scheme still needs a pow issuance mechanism" argument

Coin distribution is a problem for PoS, since the distribution mechanism that mining provides is absent.  But PoS communities can partly deal with this by merging with other like-minded PoS communities.  For example, Blackcoin could merge with NXT, which could later merge with MintCoin.  This is more efficient that trading out of one PoS ledger and into another.  

I actually think this is inevitable because it seems there is demand to empirically test the merits of PoS at a larger market cap.  It will be very interesting to watch.    

that doesnt make logical sense. more ppl have bought into bitcoin than have mined it. issuance isnt a problem unless you are continually issuing new coins that devalue previously issued coins.

[jonald_fyookball]

distribution...is that the main argument against POS?

OP seems to be implying everyone gets a 10% dividend. 
Wouldn't that be the distribution?

[Peter R]

no shares can't be created out of thin air

Nonsense.  PoS is predicated on the notion that bitcoins require too much work to create, so you create a bunch of bitshares instead because they are easy to make. 

This is the number 1 argument in favour of PoS: since bitshares are easier to create, PoS enthusiasts claim that we will waste less energy and make the world a better place (which I believe is also untrue). 

[Peter R]

distribution...is that the main argument against POS?

OP seems to be implying everyone gets a 10% dividend. 
Wouldn't that be the distribution?

It's not really distribution if it only goes to those already holding stake.

[wachtwoord]

Proof of stake was my main reason to hold Peercoin before I sold it after the run up during Bitcoins last growth spurt because I considered it a true differentiator. However, I tried using it and never received any. Let's just say I'm sufficiently proficient in computer science to follow simple instructions so I was probably going to get "interest" on my coins at some point but there was no way to verify this. If this ever gets implemented for Bitcoin please keep this in mind.

[Peter R]

Bitcoin is already a share

PoW coins are coins because energy (work) is required to remove entropy in order to create them.  PoS shares are shares because there is no energy (work) required to create them (there is no minimum entropy requirement).  

[BldSwtTrs]

no shares can't be created out of thin air

Nonsense.  PoS is predicated on the notion that bitcoins require too much work to create, so you create a bunch of bitshares instead because they are easy to make.  

This is the number 1 argument in favour of PoS: since bitshares are easier to create, PoS enthusiasts claim that we will waste less energy and make the world a better place (which I believe is also untrue).  

How are they easier to create?

An agreement between 51% of shareholders to dilute their value is by no mean a realistic scenario.
With PoW miners vote proportionaly to their hashing power, with PoS stakeholders vote proportionaly to their stake. The difficulty to create token is not a question of entropy. Both with PoW or PoS, it's fundamentally a question to obtain a voting majority.
And arguably, obtaining 51% of hashing power is a lot easier than obtaining 51% of shares.

[clout]

no shares can't be created out of thin air

Nonsense.  PoS is predicated on the notion that bitcoins require too much work to create, so you create a bunch of bitshares instead because they are easy to make.  

This is the number 1 argument in favour of PoS: since bitshares are easier to create, PoS enthusiasts claim that we will waste less energy and make the world a better place (which I believe is also untrue).  

no its not, you're making assumptions that are not true. pos and pow are not predicated on coin distribution, they are predicated on consensus. you don't even understand the technology, how then can we argue the economics of it?

[jonald_fyookball]

distribution...is that the main argument against POS?

OP seems to be implying everyone gets a 10% dividend. 
Wouldn't that be the distribution?

It's not really distribution if it only goes to those already holding stake.

hows that any different than distribution coins only to those who already hold mining power?

[Peter R]

no shares can't be created out of thin air

Nonsense.  PoS is predicated on the notion that bitcoins require too much work to create, so you create a bunch of bitshares instead because they are easy to make.  

This is the number 1 argument in favour of PoS: since bitshares are easier to create, PoS enthusiasts claim that we will waste less energy and make the world a better place (which I believe is also untrue).  

How are they easier to create?

An agreement between 51% of shareholders to dilute their value is by no mean a realistic scenario.
With PoW miners vote proportionaly to their hashing power, with PoS stakeholders vote proportionaly to their stake. The difficulty to create token is not a question of entropy. Both with PoW or PoS, it's fundamentally a question to obtain a voting majority.
And arguably, obtaining 51% of hashing power is a lot easier than obtaining 51% of shares.

I've explained my point of view here several times already.  It seems you disagree.

I would actually like to see a PoS alt-coin emerge with a larger market cap, BTW.  PoS needs to succeed or fail when the stakes are higher.  To solve the distribution problem and grow its market cap quickly, I think a dominant PoS coin should emerge by combining the blockchains of already-existing PoS communities using a modification of my "spin-off" proposal.   

I think bitshares is a good name because that is what PoS is: shares.

[Peter R]

distribution...is that the main argument against POS?

OP seems to be implying everyone gets a 10% dividend. 
Wouldn't that be the distribution?

It's not really distribution if it only goes to those already holding stake.

hows that any different than distribution coins only to those who already hold mining power?

PoW distributes coins to those who do the work.  It doesn't matter how many bitcoins you hold. 

It is really obvious if you think about the early days of bitcoin: if bitcoin was PoS, Satoshi would of had to give away or sell all the coins.  Instead, he created an incentive system whereby people who didn't have coins could try to find them.