Proof of Work Vs Proof of Stake

[Oran]

It seems the majority of coins released nowadays are PoS and most have an incredibly short PoW phase. I'm kind of confused why PoS is so popular and have a few questions to ask.  


1) What are the advantages of having such a short mining period? In most cases it seems a disproportionately high number of the total coins are issued in a few days/weeks.

2) What happens when PoW phase ends i.e. if blocks aren't being generated by miners, does staking from wallets keep the network generating blocks quickly enough?

3) Is a PoS network secure without having a big hashrate because there's no point in mining as there is no benefit to mining?

4) Why don't coin devs use PoW and set the initial mining subsidy to high rates instead if they want to get early adopters?


I'm wary of mining PoS coins and would appreciate your honest thoughts on the above.

[darkota]

PoW>PoS

Nuff said.

The ultimate answer is a slow transition from pure PoW to PoS, so it doesnt happen at once like all these stupid coins have it do.

[lemfuture]

pos > proof of asic

[darkota]

Not to mention with PoS, if you own/have ever owned 51% of the coins, you will always be able to do a 51% attempt on the chain through the nothing at stake attack. It's just stupid, PoS. I'm sure satoshi thought of it, cause there's way too many flaws with PoS, just go google it.

[cbeast]

pos > proof of asic

Says the guy using ASIC technology in the computer he trolls with.

[Propulsion]

Not to mention with PoS, if you own/have ever owned 51% of the coins, you will always be able to do a 51% attempt on the chain through the nothing at stake attack. It's just stupid, PoS. I'm sure satoshi thought of it, cause there's way too many flaws with PoS, just go google it.

So theoretically, does that mean if the dev mined the first block alone, would that mean the dev can now always take over the network at any given time?

[cbeast]

Not to mention with PoS, if you own/have ever owned 51% of the coins, you will always be able to do a 51% attempt on the chain through the nothing at stake attack. It's just stupid, PoS. I'm sure satoshi thought of it, cause there's way too many flaws with PoS, just go google it.

So theoretically, does that mean if the dev mined the first block alone, would that mean the dev can now always take over the network at any given time?

The first block usually cannot be used for anything, nor even spent. But any after that, then yeah.

[darkota]

Not to mention with PoS, if you own/have ever owned 51% of the coins, you will always be able to do a 51% attempt on the chain through the nothing at stake attack. It's just stupid, PoS. I'm sure satoshi thought of it, cause there's way too many flaws with PoS, just go google it.

So theoretically, does that mean if the dev mined the first block alone, would that mean the dev can now always take over the network at any given time?

The first block usually cannot be used for anything, nor even spent. But any after that, then yeah.

I'm sure Satoshi thought of PoS or something similar and the risks with it made him do PoW instead. It may not be as economically friendly, but it still doesnt have as many risks as PoS. Also, the energy used to mine for those coins is what gives them value, PoS has nothing backing it...And let's not even go down the path of distribution lmao..

A PoW version of NXT, would Blow the PoS version out of the cryptowater.

[Propulsion]

Not to mention with PoS, if you own/have ever owned 51% of the coins, you will always be able to do a 51% attempt on the chain through the nothing at stake attack. It's just stupid, PoS. I'm sure satoshi thought of it, cause there's way too many flaws with PoS, just go google it.

So theoretically, does that mean if the dev mined the first block alone, would that mean the dev can now always take over the network at any given time?

The first block usually cannot be used for anything, nor even spent. But any after that, then yeah.

Wow. So the implication is, the currency could never be trusted fully as being secure especially if it becomes valuable enough to implement such an attack.

Would it be possible to create such an attack under the radar without affecting the network or raising suspicion that something was up?

[darkota]

Not to mention with PoS, if you own/have ever owned 51% of the coins, you will always be able to do a 51% attempt on the chain through the nothing at stake attack. It's just stupid, PoS. I'm sure satoshi thought of it, cause there's way too many flaws with PoS, just go google it.

So theoretically, does that mean if the dev mined the first block alone, would that mean the dev can now always take over the network at any given time?

The first block usually cannot be used for anything, nor even spent. But any after that, then yeah.

Wow. So the implication is, the currency could never be trusted fully as being secure especially if it becomes valuable enough to implement such an attack.

Would it be possible to create such an attack under the radar without affecting the network or raising suspicion that something was up?

Well, for ex: The first 50 addresses on NXT's Richlist own over 48% of all coins there is. I would say an attack like that happening is very likely if someone wished to do it, but as you know many people avoid NXT,there aren't many buyers, so buying up the coins and doing an attack like that would just be a waste.

[cbeast]

Not to mention with PoS, if you own/have ever owned 51% of the coins, you will always be able to do a 51% attempt on the chain through the nothing at stake attack. It's just stupid, PoS. I'm sure satoshi thought of it, cause there's way too many flaws with PoS, just go google it.

So theoretically, does that mean if the dev mined the first block alone, would that mean the dev can now always take over the network at any given time?

The first block usually cannot be used for anything, nor even spent. But any after that, then yeah.

Wow. So the implication is, the currency could never be trusted fully as being secure especially if it becomes valuable enough to implement such an attack.

Would it be possible to create such an attack under the radar without affecting the network or raising suspicion that something was up?

Well, for ex: The first 50 addresses on NXT's Richlist own over 48% of all coins there is. I would say an attack like that happening is very likely if someone wished to do it, but as you know many people avoid NXT,there aren't many buyers, so buying up the coins and doing an attack like that would just be a waste.

PoS is not proof at all. It is really Faith in Stake. There are numerous attack vectors. That's because it is not technology driven, it is sociologically driven. There is much room for human error and malfeasance. There are also ways to mitigate some of them. Just because a network can be attacked, doesn't mean it will. It makes a good fiat currency for just that reason.

[cbeast]

PoW

PoS

One uses a lot less energy. Which would you rather drive?

[instacalm]

PoW:

PoS:

fixed it for you.

[darkota]

PoW

PoS

One uses a lot less energy. Which would you rather drive?

I like the first one, since that car gains its value from the brand, resources made to produce it, and the demand. All of which PoW is about. Demand, resources/energy made to produce coins, and the "brand"(Bitcoin etc) make a PoW coin valuable.


I still have yet to figure out what makes a PoS coin valuable though...

[cbeast]

PoW:

PoS:

fixed it for you.

I like that. PoS creates no jobs and is owned by only the rich.

[cbeast]

People that worship POW are people with loads of expensive ascis in their basement.

Nah, we have Unholy Altars of Satoshi where we sacrifice CPUs.

[Brilliantrocket]

PoS cannot remain decentralized because they rely on various reputation systems. This will invariably lead to centralization.

[quarkfx]

PoS cannot remain decentralized because they rely on various reputation systems. This will invariably lead to centralization.

I am agnostic when it comes down to the question PoW or PoS but it seems to me that in both cases there are incentives to centralization. In case of PoW people start minung on pools where the biggest is usually the most efficient.

I also must say that the whole discussion looks pretty childish to me. Bashing from both sides and everybody knows better than the rest. This are the moments when I see why crypto isn't attracting more people. It's a real shame.

[cbeast]

And don't forget the main problem about POW and this is the most important one.... every investor or long term buyer has to pay to the miner for securing the blockchain. POS coins investor don't they them self are doing their part to secure it and get even PAID!

I can put bitcoins in cold storage, like a paper wallet, brain wallet, or USB drive, and it costs me nothing to secure it. Nobody can steal my bitcoins. Even if everyone stops mining, I will have those bitcoins secure. Mining only allows me to spend them. If and when I want to spend them, I'll pay a small fee. A month's worth of transactions is less than just the postage to pay my credit card bill every month. I want PoW to protect my transactions so they are not double spent or reversed.

[cbeast]

PoS cannot remain decentralized because they rely on various reputation systems. This will invariably lead to centralization.

I am agnostic when it comes down to the question PoW or PoS but it seems to me that in both cases there are incentives to centralization. In case of PoW people start minung on pools where the biggest is usually the most efficient.

I also must say that the whole discussion looks pretty childish to me. Bashing from both sides and everybody knows better than the rest. This are the moments when I see why crypto isn't attracting more people. It's a real shame.

There is a fundamental philosophical difference. PoW is an open Universe. PoS is a closed Universe. That is to say, that PoW is open to outside competition at any time. Even if the mining becomes monopolized, a balancing power can always save the day. With PoS, once monopoly is attained, it can surreptitiously and discretely claim control to reverse transactions and double spend at will.