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

[Indemnified]

Another way of saying it is that PoW distributes coins to those who invest in mining equipment. PoS distributes coins to those invest in coins. It really doesn't seem that much different - invest in X, get coins. If PoW and PoS can both support the functioning and security of a cryptocurrency equally well, then PoS seems superior because it does not waste energy and would have a wider distribution than PoW.

The only way to get PoS shares is to buy them from an adopter.  There are two ways to get PoW coins: buy them or find them yourself.  This is key.  

Based on the results of SlipperySlope's poll, it looks like there is a slight preference for PoW.  But I seem to be the only one here arguing for it.  Probably because we've had this debate many times and if you actually want to create a PoS spin-off go right ahead.  No one is stopping you.  In fact, I would like to see what happens. 

The market will decide whether or not it has merit.

That's it for me guys.  Off to sushi...

I don't understand why needing to buy from an adopter is bad thing. Isn't mining essentially buying coins from ASIC manufacturers and energy companies?

You're right logically. However, human psychology isn't always logical.  Having the "option" to mine your own coins makes one feel that it is more of an open system and seeing that "work was done" gives it more perceived value.

Sounds to me like you have touched upon the true heart of the matter. Emotional attachments prevail.

[1715398117]

1715398117

[1715398117]

1715398117

[1715398117]

1715398117

[1715398117]

1715398117

[Siegfried]

Another way of saying it is that PoW distributes coins to those who invest in mining equipment. PoS distributes coins to those invest in coins. It really doesn't seem that much different - invest in X, get coins. If PoW and PoS can both support the functioning and security of a cryptocurrency equally well, then PoS seems superior because it does not waste energy and would have a wider distribution than PoW.

The only way to get PoS shares is to buy them from an adopter.  There are two ways to get PoW coins: buy them or find them yourself.  This is key.  

Based on the results of SlipperySlope's poll, it looks like there is a slight preference for PoW.  But I seem to be the only one here arguing for it.  Probably because we've had this debate many times and if you actually want to create a PoS spin-off go right ahead.  No one is stopping you.  In fact, I would like to see what happens. 

The market will decide whether or not it has merit.

That's it for me guys.  Off to sushi...

I don't understand why needing to buy from an adopter is bad thing. Isn't mining essentially buying coins from ASIC manufacturers and energy companies?

You're right logically. However, human psychology isn't always logical.  Having the "option" to mine your own coins makes one feel that it is more of an open system and seeing that "work was done" gives it more perceived value.

I would say that psychological preference for the perceived fairer and open PoW system may have been important in the early days of Bitcoin, but at the current stage of its evolution, I think future adoption of Bitcoin depends on practical things like price and usability. I have tried explaining the virtues of Bitcoin to many people, and none of them have cared about how new coins are distributed. The fact that the supply of coins is limited and it is a bank-less, decentralized system is good enough. If PoS is indeed superior and a shift to PoS is possible, then I do not know any rational reason why it should not be done.

[jonald_fyookball]

Another way of saying it is that PoW distributes coins to those who invest in mining equipment. PoS distributes coins to those invest in coins. It really doesn't seem that much different - invest in X, get coins. If PoW and PoS can both support the functioning and security of a cryptocurrency equally well, then PoS seems superior because it does not waste energy and would have a wider distribution than PoW.

The only way to get PoS shares is to buy them from an adopter.  There are two ways to get PoW coins: buy them or find them yourself.  This is key.  

Based on the results of SlipperySlope's poll, it looks like there is a slight preference for PoW.  But I seem to be the only one here arguing for it.  Probably because we've had this debate many times and if you actually want to create a PoS spin-off go right ahead.  No one is stopping you.  In fact, I would like to see what happens. 

The market will decide whether or not it has merit.

That's it for me guys.  Off to sushi...

I don't understand why needing to buy from an adopter is bad thing. Isn't mining essentially buying coins from ASIC manufacturers and energy companies?

You're right logically. However, human psychology isn't always logical.  Having the "option" to mine your own coins makes one feel that it is more of an open system and seeing that "work was done" gives it more perceived value.

Sounds to me like you have touched upon the true heart of the matter. Emotional attachments prevail.

It actually makes sense given the context.  

Fiat money finds it's utility simply from its universally acceptance that has already been established.

Bitcoin is new, and in order to achieve adoption, people want something that seems fair and just.  Proof of work accomplishes this.  Perhaps in the future, when Bitcoin has wide acceptance, we will converge onto a point where proof of work is no longer needed, but I don't think we are there just yet.

[SlipperySlope]

You can always create and altcoin with the same addresses as Bitcoin and with the same distribution of existing Bitcoins over those addresses. Than everyone can choose which Bitcoin to use (or both). I would personally feel safer using both concurrently than to change the existing social contract of the original Bitcoin. When the first change is made, the discussion for the 21M limit will surely start as well ....

I believe that is the spin-out proposed by Peter_R. While there is any chance of retaining the Bitcoin brand and its connected customers, I will work entirely in the framework proposed by Satoshi who allowed for changes via a consensus of full node miners. There are about 8300 of those today, and a million wallets at Blockchain.info.

In a possible world a couple of years from now, there is a peer-reviewed and invulnerable Proof-of-Stake version of Bitcoin Core - not yet deployed but running great on a large scale Bitcoin testnet. The sales pitch to Blockchain.info is simple. Blockchain.info arranges to lease m3.large instances from Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud that support Bitcoin Proof-of-Stake Bitcoin Core full node instances for an online wallet. Blockchain.info makes an offer to its million customers to pay a minimum of annual 10% bitcoin dividends to each online wallet that chooses Proof-of-Stake on the condition that at least 50,000 enroll. Blockchain.info keeps a fee of 2% of the earned rewards.

50,000 low-latency, well-connected full nodes on the new Proof-of-Stake version easily outvote 8,300 full nodes on the old Proof-of-Work version and on the pre-announced day, the blockchain forks. Ordinary bitcoin users are unaffected. Suppose at that time bitcoin is valued at $10,000. The daily mining reward is 3,600 bitcoin divided among the 50,000 Blockchain.info enrolled wallets. Blockchain.info's daily commission is $720,000 from which they pay for the Amazon instances at $72,000 daily, a gross profit margin of 90%. The deal is great for the 50,000 enrollees who get daily dividends each of bitcoin worth on average $705. Of course these numbers are for the early adopters. Once the remainder of the million online wallets enroll, the average daily dividends drop by a factor of 20 yielding a daily average dividend of $35 dollars.

From a simplified, possible world business case such as this example, it is clear to me that a very large opportunity exists to disrupt the disrupter. The challenge is to create an invulnerable and broadly acceptable Bitcoin Core Proof-of-Stake.

[jonald_fyookball]

Another way of saying it is that PoW distributes coins to those who invest in mining equipment. PoS distributes coins to those invest in coins. It really doesn't seem that much different - invest in X, get coins. If PoW and PoS can both support the functioning and security of a cryptocurrency equally well, then PoS seems superior because it does not waste energy and would have a wider distribution than PoW.

The only way to get PoS shares is to buy them from an adopter.  There are two ways to get PoW coins: buy them or find them yourself.  This is key.  

Based on the results of SlipperySlope's poll, it looks like there is a slight preference for PoW.  But I seem to be the only one here arguing for it.  Probably because we've had this debate many times and if you actually want to create a PoS spin-off go right ahead.  No one is stopping you.  In fact, I would like to see what happens. 

The market will decide whether or not it has merit.

That's it for me guys.  Off to sushi...

I don't understand why needing to buy from an adopter is bad thing. Isn't mining essentially buying coins from ASIC manufacturers and energy companies?

You're right logically. However, human psychology isn't always logical.  Having the "option" to mine your own coins makes one feel that it is more of an open system and seeing that "work was done" gives it more perceived value.

I would say that psychological preference for the perceived fairer and open PoW system may have been important in the early days of Bitcoin, but at the current stage of its evolution, I think future adoption of Bitcoin depends on practical things like price and usability. I have tried explaining the virtues of Bitcoin to many people, and none of them have cared about how new coins are distributed. The fact that the supply of coins is limited and it is a bank-less, decentralized system is good enough. If PoS is indeed superior and a shift to PoS is possible, then I do not know any rational reason why it should not be done.

You make some good points and it could be argued either way.

Perhaps we have indeed hit upon the heart of the matter.

[johnyj]

People have been cheated by costless fiat for so long time that they already forget that a currency without cost actually worth nothing, legally counterfeiting is still counterfeiting

[Siegfried]

You can always create and altcoin with the same addresses as Bitcoin and with the same distribution of existing Bitcoins over those addresses. Than everyone can choose which Bitcoin to use (or both). I would personally feel safer using both concurrently than to change the existing social contract of the original Bitcoin. When the first change is made, the discussion for the 21M limit will surely start as well ....

I believe that is the spin-out proposed by Peter_R. While there is any chance of retaining the Bitcoin brand, I will work entirely in the framework proposed by Satoshi who allowed for changes via a consensus of full node miners. There are about 8300 of those today, and a million wallets at Blockchain.info.

In a possible world a couple of years from now, there is a peer-reviewed and invulnerable Proof-of-Stake version of Bitcoin Core - not yet deployed but running great on a large scale Bitcoin testnet. The sales pitch to Blockchain.info is simple. Blockchain.info arranges to lease m3.large instances from Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud that support Bitcoin Proof-of-Stake Bitcoin Core full node instances for an online wallet. Blockchain.info makes an offer to its million customers to pay a minimum of annual 10% bitcoin dividends to each online wallet that chooses Proof-of-Stake on the condition that at least 50,000 enroll. Blockchain.info keeps a fee of 2% of the earned rewards.

50,000 low-latency, well-connected full nodes on the PoS version easily outvote 8,300 full nodes on the new version and on the pre-announced day, the blockchain forks. Ordinary bitcoin users are unaffected. Suppose at that time bitcoin is valued at $10,000. The daily mining reward is 3,600 bitcoin divided among the 50,000 Blockchain.info enrolled wallets. Blockchain.info's daily commission is $720,000 from which they pay for the Amazon instances at $72,000 daily, a gross profit margin of 90%. The deal is great for the 50,000 enrollees who get daily dividends each of bitcoin worth $705. Of course these numbers are for the early adopters. Once the remainder of the million online wallets enroll, the average daily dividends drop by a factor of 20 yielding a daily dividend of $35 dollars.

From a simplified, possible world, business case such as this example, it is clear to me that a very large opportunity exists to disrupt the disrupter. The challenge is to create an invulnerable Bitcoin Core Proof-of-Stake.

I agree with you completely. With all due respect to the PoS innovators like Peercoin and Nxt, seamlessly converting the Bitcoin brand and blockchain to PoS would be far superior to adopting an altcoin. I find it ironic that Peter is arguing so strongly in favor of the seemingly inferior PoW system, when he is the one who recently proposed the perfect solution for shifting from one blockchain to another.

[Siegfried]

People have been cheated by costless fiat for so long time that they already forget that a currency without cost actually worth nothing, legally counterfeiting is still counterfeiting

The problem with fiat is not costlessness, but possibility of arbitrary, limitless creation. PoS costs much less than PoW, but coin creation is still constrained by the parameters of the code.

[SlipperySlope]

I find it ironic that Peter is arguing so strongly in favor of the seemingly inferior PoW system, when he is the one who recently proposed the perfect solution for shifting from one blockchain to another.

The adoption of Bitcoin is apparently mathematically chaotic in the sense that certain small changes to the present situation lead to large and unexpected consequences. There is simply no precedent for Bitcoin, and therefore we depend upon argued imagination.

[frankenmint]

I find it ironic that Peter is arguing so strongly in favor of the seemingly inferior PoW system, when he is the one who recently proposed the perfect solution for shifting from one blockchain to another.

The adoption of Bitcoin is apparently mathematically chaotic in the sense that certain small changes to the present situation lead to large and unexpected consequences. There is simply no precedent for Bitcoin, and therefore we depend upon argued imagination.

Sorry - I read the 1st post and then skipped the last 9 pages.

Shouldn't PPC have been the one end-all to be all had proof of stake had been successfull wouldn't the mass majority of miners simply convert to PPC and hold a portion of it to roll over with POS?

"makes me dream of folks out there who have 10,000,000 PPC and recieve a cool million PPC each year to live off of "

[raskul]

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.

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?

you completely misunderstand me. My objections are not political, nor are they to do with risk. I am not adverse to change.
We have Bitcoin, which has been designed from the ground up before any other additives or preservatives were realised. Sure it has it's minor flaws but that is all part of it. It is not broken, in actual fact, it is surviving pretty damned well; from it's humble beginnings.

By introducing PoS into the workings, all you are doing is making those who have massive farms, even richer - and those who have 3 or 4 coins in a wallet, poorer.

your idea stinks of idiosyncrasies and I feel, if you want a coin which produces PoS, then you should go mine some shitcoin or other.

This is not for Bitcoin. Bitcoin is exciting - difficulty level trends are tremendously interesting, as is - for a small miner like myself, watching who is top of the pile. If you introduce PoS into Bitcoin, then you will see value plummet, Bitcoin accumulation lifespan shortened and interest lost.

It's not a good idea, whatsoever.

[Siegfried]

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.

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?

you completely misunderstand me. My objections are not political, nor are they to do with risk. I am not adverse to change.
We have Bitcoin, which has been designed from the ground up before any other additives or preservatives were realised. Sure it has it's minor flaws but that is all part of it. It is not broken, in actual fact, it is surviving pretty damned well; from it's humble beginnings.

By introducing PoS into the workings, all you are doing is making those who have massive farms, even richer - and those who have 3 or 4 coins in a wallet, poorer.

your idea stinks of idiosyncrasies and I feel, if you want a coin which produces PoS, then you should go mine some shitcoin or other.

This is not for Bitcoin. Bitcoin is exciting - difficulty level trends are tremendously interesting, as is - for a small miner like myself, watching who is top of the pile. If you introduce PoS into Bitcoin, then you will see value plummet, Bitcoin accumulation lifespan shortened and interest lost.

It's not a good idea, whatsoever.

How do you figure? In the PoS system proposed, a holder of 3 or 4 coins would receive a yearly dividend of approximately 10 percent. A year later he would have 3.3 or 4.4 coins. In the current system a holder who does not mine does not receive any dividend. In fact, it the opposite of what you say; small holders actually get poorer in the current system because their share of the total coin supply decreases as new coins are mined (they get richer relative to fiat holders, of course). Sorry, but the idea that PoW is good because difficulty level trends are interesting is not a strong argument.

I do not believe Bitcoin will fail if it does not shift to PoS, but if it can be improved with little risk, it should be done.

[raskul]

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.

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?

you completely misunderstand me. My objections are not political, nor are they to do with risk. I am not adverse to change.
We have Bitcoin, which has been designed from the ground up before any other additives or preservatives were realised. Sure it has it's minor flaws but that is all part of it. It is not broken, in actual fact, it is surviving pretty damned well; from it's humble beginnings.

By introducing PoS into the workings, all you are doing is making those who have massive farms, even richer - and those who have 3 or 4 coins in a wallet, poorer.

your idea stinks of idiosyncrasies and I feel, if you want a coin which produces PoS, then you should go mine some shitcoin or other.

This is not for Bitcoin. Bitcoin is exciting - difficulty level trends are tremendously interesting, as is - for a small miner like myself, watching who is top of the pile. If you introduce PoS into Bitcoin, then you will see value plummet, Bitcoin accumulation lifespan shortened and interest lost.

It's not a good idea, whatsoever.

How do you figure? In the PoS system proposed, a holder of 3 or 4 coins would receive a yearly dividend of approximately 10 percent. A year later he would have 3.3 or 4.4 coins. In the current system a holder who does not mine does not receive any dividend. In fact, it the opposite of what you say; small holders actually get poorer in the current system because their share of the total coin supply decreases as new coins are mined (they get richer relative to fiat holders, of course). Sorry, but the idea that PoW is good because difficulty level trends are interesting is not a strong argument.

I do not believe Bitcoin will fail if it does not shift to PoS, but if it can be improved with little risk, it should be done.

so if I mine a fiat value of $500,000 per day, how much stake does my wallet accrue... my 3 btc will accrue 0.3 in one year - are you taking the piss?
I think i'd rather keep mining thanks.

[Siegfried]

I find it ironic that Peter is arguing so strongly in favor of the seemingly inferior PoW system, when he is the one who recently proposed the perfect solution for shifting from one blockchain to another.

The adoption of Bitcoin is apparently mathematically chaotic in the sense that certain small changes to the present situation lead to large and unexpected consequences. There is simply no precedent for Bitcoin, and therefore we depend upon argued imagination.

Sorry - I read the 1st post and then skipped the last 9 pages.

Shouldn't PPC have been the one end-all to be all had proof of stake had been successfull wouldn't the mass majority of miners simply convert to PPC and hold a portion of it to roll over with POS?

"makes me dream of folks out there who have 10,000,000 PPC and recieve a cool million PPC each year to live off of "

No, because Bitcoin was and is miles ahead in terms of infrastructure, adoption, and market cap. The people with so much invested in Bitcoin had every incentive not to allow a competitor to succeed. But now thanks in part to Peter's idea (not sure if he was the first to conceive it, but I learned it from him first) of shifting the exact distribution and ownership of Bitcoin to a new blockchain, it is possible implement a PoS system that will have the support of the entire Bitcoin community because they do not have to give anything up to have a stake in the new system and they automatically have the same investment in it as in the original blockchain.

[jonald_fyookball]

 Bitcoin accumulation lifespan shortened and interest lost.
 

This is basically back to the psychological dillema.

Accumulation doesn't happen to anyone without capital investment one way or another.
Its just a question of:  is Bitcoin big enough, mature enough, established enough
IN PEOPLE'S MINDS that we don't need to rely on PoW.

Anyway, people don't forget: the 2 implementations in the Wiki are hybrid PoW/PoS.  

[raskul]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=320404.0;topicseen

please move over to a PoS coin, if you want a PoS coin and leave Bitcoin as it is.

[Siegfried]

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.

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?

you completely misunderstand me. My objections are not political, nor are they to do with risk. I am not adverse to change.
We have Bitcoin, which has been designed from the ground up before any other additives or preservatives were realised. Sure it has it's minor flaws but that is all part of it. It is not broken, in actual fact, it is surviving pretty damned well; from it's humble beginnings.

By introducing PoS into the workings, all you are doing is making those who have massive farms, even richer - and those who have 3 or 4 coins in a wallet, poorer.

your idea stinks of idiosyncrasies and I feel, if you want a coin which produces PoS, then you should go mine some shitcoin or other.

This is not for Bitcoin. Bitcoin is exciting - difficulty level trends are tremendously interesting, as is - for a small miner like myself, watching who is top of the pile. If you introduce PoS into Bitcoin, then you will see value plummet, Bitcoin accumulation lifespan shortened and interest lost.

It's not a good idea, whatsoever.

How do you figure? In the PoS system proposed, a holder of 3 or 4 coins would receive a yearly dividend of approximately 10 percent. A year later he would have 3.3 or 4.4 coins. In the current system a holder who does not mine does not receive any dividend. In fact, it the opposite of what you say; small holders actually get poorer in the current system because their share of the total coin supply decreases as new coins are mined (they get richer relative to fiat holders, of course). Sorry, but the idea that PoW is good because difficulty level trends are interesting is not a strong argument.

I do not believe Bitcoin will fail if it does not shift to PoS, but if it can be improved with little risk, it should be done.

so if I mine a fiat value of $500,000 per day, how much stake does my wallet accrue... my 3 btc will accrue 0.3 in one year - are you taking the piss?
I think i'd rather keep mining thanks.

The point of PoS is that mining is unnecessary. You seem to making a Luddite argument. Instead of investing hundreds of thousands or millions into a massive mining operation, you could just buy a lot more coins and spend your time relaxing on the beach sipping your favorite beverage while you collect 10 percent each year rather than spending time and effort every day maintaining your mining operation.

[raskul]

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.

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?

you completely misunderstand me. My objections are not political, nor are they to do with risk. I am not adverse to change.
We have Bitcoin, which has been designed from the ground up before any other additives or preservatives were realised. Sure it has it's minor flaws but that is all part of it. It is not broken, in actual fact, it is surviving pretty damned well; from it's humble beginnings.

By introducing PoS into the workings, all you are doing is making those who have massive farms, even richer - and those who have 3 or 4 coins in a wallet, poorer.

your idea stinks of idiosyncrasies and I feel, if you want a coin which produces PoS, then you should go mine some shitcoin or other.

This is not for Bitcoin. Bitcoin is exciting - difficulty level trends are tremendously interesting, as is - for a small miner like myself, watching who is top of the pile. If you introduce PoS into Bitcoin, then you will see value plummet, Bitcoin accumulation lifespan shortened and interest lost.

It's not a good idea, whatsoever.

How do you figure? In the PoS system proposed, a holder of 3 or 4 coins would receive a yearly dividend of approximately 10 percent. A year later he would have 3.3 or 4.4 coins. In the current system a holder who does not mine does not receive any dividend. In fact, it the opposite of what you say; small holders actually get poorer in the current system because their share of the total coin supply decreases as new coins are mined (they get richer relative to fiat holders, of course). Sorry, but the idea that PoW is good because difficulty level trends are interesting is not a strong argument.

I do not believe Bitcoin will fail if it does not shift to PoS, but if it can be improved with little risk, it should be done.

so if I mine a fiat value of $500,000 per day, how much stake does my wallet accrue... my 3 btc will accrue 0.3 in one year - are you taking the piss?
I think i'd rather keep mining thanks.

The point of PoS is that mining is unnecessary. You seem to making a Luddite argument. Instead of investing hundreds of thousands or millions into a massive mining operation, you could just buy a lot more coins and spend your time relaxing on the beach sipping your favorite beverage while you collect 10 percent each year rather than spending time and effort every day maintaining your mining operation.

or I could go buy an ISA from my bank; but that's NO FUN, is it?

[jonald_fyookball]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=320404.0;topicseen

please move over to a PoS coin, if you want a PoS coin and leave Bitcoin as it is.

Sorry, but that isn't adding any value to the conversation.

I'm not saying I "want a PoS" necessarily.  Some are saying that.  
At the very least, there are real reasons why PoS merits discussion for Bitcoin.

Even Peter, who is pro PoW, is interested in the conversation and seeing
what would happen with PoS.

I value your opinion too, but I would like to hear the arguments against PoS,
not just "move to an alt coin".

[Siegfried]

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.

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?

you completely misunderstand me. My objections are not political, nor are they to do with risk. I am not adverse to change.
We have Bitcoin, which has been designed from the ground up before any other additives or preservatives were realised. Sure it has it's minor flaws but that is all part of it. It is not broken, in actual fact, it is surviving pretty damned well; from it's humble beginnings.

By introducing PoS into the workings, all you are doing is making those who have massive farms, even richer - and those who have 3 or 4 coins in a wallet, poorer.

your idea stinks of idiosyncrasies and I feel, if you want a coin which produces PoS, then you should go mine some shitcoin or other.

This is not for Bitcoin. Bitcoin is exciting - difficulty level trends are tremendously interesting, as is - for a small miner like myself, watching who is top of the pile. If you introduce PoS into Bitcoin, then you will see value plummet, Bitcoin accumulation lifespan shortened and interest lost.

It's not a good idea, whatsoever.

How do you figure? In the PoS system proposed, a holder of 3 or 4 coins would receive a yearly dividend of approximately 10 percent. A year later he would have 3.3 or 4.4 coins. In the current system a holder who does not mine does not receive any dividend. In fact, it the opposite of what you say; small holders actually get poorer in the current system because their share of the total coin supply decreases as new coins are mined (they get richer relative to fiat holders, of course). Sorry, but the idea that PoW is good because difficulty level trends are interesting is not a strong argument.

I do not believe Bitcoin will fail if it does not shift to PoS, but if it can be improved with little risk, it should be done.

so if I mine a fiat value of $500,000 per day, how much stake does my wallet accrue... my 3 btc will accrue 0.3 in one year - are you taking the piss?
I think i'd rather keep mining thanks.

The point of PoS is that mining is unnecessary. You seem to making a Luddite argument. Instead of investing hundreds of thousands or millions into a massive mining operation, you could just buy a lot more coins and spend your time relaxing on the beach sipping your favorite beverage while you collect 10 percent each year rather than spending time and effort every day maintaining your mining operation.

or I could go buy an ISA from my bank; but that's NO FUN, is it?

The difference is that you would be getting 10 percent more coins, not 10 more fiat. I don't think fun has anything to do with this.