It's about time to turn off PoW mining

[cbeast]

There is a fundamental difference between PoS and PoW. PoS is aristocratic in nature. PoW is proletariat. It comes down to which side of humanity you choose to identify.

This seems poorly thought out - proles can't afford "high end ASIC" can they?

Yes. Anyone can own part of a miner.

[CliveK]

To be fair, I don't know much about PoS.

It's not a problem, distribution can be clearly checked and verified. An unfair distribution will not succeed, and will be instantly mocked by the community, and usually tagged as scams.

Much like newly elected government officials are mocked when they come into power, yet still serve their entire term in office.

That is an interesting idea though, "term in office". Have the delegates serve terms of no longer than X period, with candidates requiring a certain amount of time being a shareholder (other than the stake requirement). Just an idea, and solves some of the concern of initial distribution as it will eventually change, no matter what.  Use it, don't, just an idea.

[redsn0w]

There is a fundamental difference between PoS and PoW. PoS is aristocratic in nature. PoW is proletariat. It comes down to which side of humanity you choose to identify.

This seems poorly thought out - proles can't afford "high end ASIC" can they?

Yes. Anyone can own part of a miner.

Yes , we can   but not with 2-3 TH/s of power . This is the real problem : the power of hash .

[kittycatbtc]

All other system that aren't PoW are failed thus far  

[CIYAM]

Yes. Anyone can own part of a miner.

And make money from that?

Anyway - a "share in an ASIC" farm is *not real ownership* as far as "control of what it does".

[kokojie]

We're talking theoretical here. Bitcoin's pool problem is temporary and being dealt with currently no PoS system is safe at all, that's why they have not much value. No guarantee with PoS because you have to trust people. Bitcoin only trusts math, If a 51% secret cabal took over any PoS, then it could take permanent control. Even if someone temporarily took 51% control of Bitcoin, then someone else could simply add mining power and take it away. With PoW, the permanent ability to 51% attack isn't even a possibility. With PoS it is inevitable.

There's so much wrong in your statement, I don't know where to start, let me give it a try:

* "currently no PoS system is safe at all"
Actually, just the opposite. Currently no PoS altcoin has been successfully 51% attacked, ZERO! While plenty of PoW altcoin has been attacked to death.

Well altcoins don't really have much work behind them yet, do they? That's a poor argument.

* "If a 51% secret cabal took over any PoS, then it could take permanent control"
That's true, except you don't even need 51% of the eco-system in PoW, you need 0% of the coin, and at most 10% of the value of the eco-system, also you don't push up the coin price while you acquiring hardware, unlike in PoS, you will push the price up astronomically even acquiring 10% of outstanding coins. So attacking a PoW system is MUCH easier. Also, if someone manages to somehow owns 51% of the PoS eco-system (probably after spending an astronomical amount of money), they have zero reason to attack it, since they are basically attacking themselves, as they are the biggest stake holder in the eco-system, the only result would be destroying their own wealth.

You can try to double spend at any percent. If you try you will fail and probably be prosecuted for fraud. Even if you have a successful 51% attack, it is likely to be detected and you will lose your mining investment.

* "Even if someone temporarily took 51% control of Bitcoin, then someone else could simply add mining power and take it away"
Like who? non of the 51% attacked to death altcoins has shown this phenomenon, please give me some examples.

Altcoins can be interesting experiments. Many of them make unfounded claims and deserve their fate. Namecoin was spared this fate by merge mining because it serve a purpose other than competing with Bitcoin.

* "With PoW, the permanent ability to 51% attack isn't even a possibility. With PoS it is inevitable."
Except, again, ZERO PoS altcoin has been 51% attacked, so I'm not sure where this "inevitability" come from. Though I could say a PoW system being attacked IS inevitable, once the coin supply run out, and it become extremely cheap to attack. The Bitcoin PoW network is basically currently being secured by the coin supply, once it runs out, it's laughably cheap to 51% attack Bitcoin(unless transaction fees somehow become extremely expensive, and people would still accept that).

Wealth has a funny way of aggregating into a few families. With PoS, it can be quietly and secretly secured over time until only one person controls the majority stake. With PoW, people have to actually work to maintain wealth. It's not so easy to own human spirits.

There is a fundamental difference between PoS and PoW. PoS is aristocratic in nature. PoW is proletariat. It comes down to which side of humanity you choose to identify.

Wow, lots of claims made here. Are you sure 51% attack is illegal in all countries? (or in any country at all? lol) otherwise the attacker could just concentrate the effort in one country, not sure how they will "lose their mining investment" if their only intention was to attack. Many PoW altcoin has been 51% attacked to death, I haven't heard anyone got prosecuted for it, or "lost their mining investment"?

Not sure what "altcoins don't really have much work behind them yet" means. In altcoins, it has been clearly shown that it's much easier to attack a PoW system, as no PoS system has been successfully 51% attacked, even though many of them exists, and some of them very tiny too.

"PoS is aristocratic in nature. PoW is proletariat"... wtf does this even mean, if we look at Bitcoin PoW mining power is extremely concentrated. discus fish and ghash.io controls at least 40% of the network, and several other large mining companies control the rest. While PoS distribution is usually much better, and this is demanded by the community. For example Peercoin, the largest PoS stakeholder address that is mining with his stake, has about 1% of the coin. Also one of the funny thing I observed in a PoS system, is that many of the stake holders decides to not to mine. Usually only about 10-20% of the coin actively engage in mining PoS.

[bornil267645]

I stopped mining a long time ago

[kokojie]

All other system that aren't PoW are failed thus far  

Thanks for posting a blatantly false claim. Currently, half of the top 10 altcoin by marketcap are not PoW.

[CliveK]

There is a fundamental difference between PoS and PoW. PoS is aristocratic in nature. PoW is proletariat. It comes down to which side of humanity you choose to identify.

It's nice how anyone with just a CPU can compete fairly equally right now.

Fast forward to 2014

Its nice how anyone with just a Mining Farm can compete fairly equally right now.

[CIYAM]

Usually only about 10-20% of the coin actively engage in mining PoS.

That in itself is "worrisome" as presumably it means that forks could appear more often.

The other problem with PoS is that those not mining could be in fact colluding to present a new better chain (the cost of doing so being very little as the "Nothing At Stake" point made).

Again it comes down to "distribution" with PoS that basically *cannot be anonymous* in order to be trusted.

[kokojie]

Usually only about 10-20% of the coin actively engage in mining PoS.

That in itself is "worrisome" as presumably it means that forks could appear more often.

The other problem with PoS is that those not mining could be in fact colluding to present a new better chain (the cost of doing so being very little as the "Nothing At Stake" point made).

Again it comes down to "distribution" with PoS that basically *cannot be anonymous* in order to be trusted.

I'm not sure where this PoS "collude" concern come from. Who would collude to destroy their own wealth? I hold some peercoin, if you tell me to collude with you to attack Peercoin, I would tell you to gfys. Do you think it's easy to collude with 10,000 peercoin holders? or is it easier for discus fish and ghash.io to collude and gain 51%? I think the answer is obvious.

The fact is forks has NOT appeared more often in PoS, in fact PoW system has had much more forks, including Bitcoin.

[cbeast]

"PoS is aristocratic in nature. PoW is proletariat"... wtf does this even mean, if we look at Bitcoin PoW mining power is extremely concentrated. discus fish and ghash.io controls at least 40% of the network, and several other large mining companies control the rest. While PoS distribution is usually much better, and this is demanded by the community. For example Peercoin, the largest PoS stakeholder address that is mining with his stake, has about 1% of the coin. Also one of the funny thing I observed in a PoS system, is that many of the stake holders decides to not to mine. Usually only about 10-20% of the coin actively engage in mining PoS.

Bitcoin is completely decentralized mining. The pools are made up of independent miners that choose which pools they use at any particular moment. If there are any large mining businesses, they fluctuate at any given time.

How can you possibly know anything about who owns what stake in a PoS? Do you think they will advertise the fact that they are going to attack the network? I am all for a PoS system if it is backed by a strong central government and I would trust it as much as I did that government.

[CIYAM]

I'm not sure where this PoS "collude" concern come from. Who would collude to destroy their own wealth? I hold some peercoin, if you tell me to collude with you to attack Peercoin, I would tell you to gfys. Do you think it's easy to collude with 10,000 peercoin holders? or is it easier for discus fish and ghash.io to collude? I think the answer is obvious.

You seem to have missed the IPO idea of creating a PoS with say 21 BTC and a bunch of anonymous bitcointalk accounts (do I need to name the coin?).

It is perfectly easy to collude to gain 100% of the initial distribution if the cost is so low (but maybe very expensive for anyone else to *take that away from you* once the coin *gains value* via an exchange especially if the "initial stakeholders refuse to sell").

[kokojie]

I'm not sure where this PoS "collude" concern come from. Who would collude to destroy their own wealth? I hold some peercoin, if you tell me to collude with you to attack Peercoin, I would tell you to gfys. Do you think it's easy to collude with 10,000 peercoin holders? or is it easier for discus fish and ghash.io to collude? I think the answer is obvious.

You seem to have missed the IPO idea of creating a PoS with say 21 BTC and a bunch of anonymous bitcointalk accounts (do I need to name the coin?).

It is perfectly easy to collude to gain 100% of the initial distribution if the cost is so low.

That's why I call NxT distribution a scam and is not participating in it, it should fail. See my post here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=325261.msg8559235#msg8559235

An unfair distribution is simply a failed execution, it does not invalidate the advantage of PoS.

[CIYAM]

That's why I call NxT distribution a scam and is not participating in it, it should fail. See my post here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=325261.msg8559235#msg8559235

Glad to see that your eyes are open.

So far only Peter R's idea for initial distribution based upon a *snapshot* of the Bitcoin blockchain makes sense to me (no IPO coin will ever be more than a scam in my eyes).

[BitCoinDream]

Usually only about 10-20% of the coin actively engage in mining PoS.

That in itself is "worrisome" as presumably it means that forks could appear more often.

The other problem with PoS is that those not mining could be in fact colluding to present a new better chain (the cost of doing so being very little as the "Nothing At Stake" point made).

Again it comes down to "distribution" with PoS that basically *cannot be anonymous* in order to be trusted.

I'm not sure where this PoS "collude" concern come from. Who would collude to destroy their own wealth? I hold some peercoin, if you tell me to collude with you to attack Peercoin, I would tell you to gfys. Do you think it's easy to collude with 10,000 peercoin holders? or is it easier for discus fish and ghash.io to collude and gain 51%? I think the answer is obvious.

The fact is forks has NOT appeared more often in PoS, in fact PoW system has had much more forks, including Bitcoin.

Sorry to speak the truth. It is easy to collude with a 10k Peercoin holder than colluding discus fish or ghash.io to gain 51%. Investment made by discus fish or ghash.io is far more than the investment made by 10k Peercoin holder.

[kokojie]

"PoS is aristocratic in nature. PoW is proletariat"... wtf does this even mean, if we look at Bitcoin PoW mining power is extremely concentrated. discus fish and ghash.io controls at least 40% of the network, and several other large mining companies control the rest. While PoS distribution is usually much better, and this is demanded by the community. For example Peercoin, the largest PoS stakeholder address that is mining with his stake, has about 1% of the coin. Also one of the funny thing I observed in a PoS system, is that many of the stake holders decides to not to mine. Usually only about 10-20% of the coin actively engage in mining PoS.

Bitcoin is completely decentralized mining. The pools are made up of independent miners that choose which pools they use at any particular moment. If there are any large mining businesses, they fluctuate at any given time.

How can you possibly know anything about who owns what stake in a PoS? Do you think they will advertise the fact that they are going to attack the network? I am all for a PoS system if it is backed by a strong central government and I would trust it as much as I did that government.

Except discus fish and ghash.io controls at least 40% of the Bitcoin network, and some times over 51%, and they mostly own the machines they are mining with. How is that decentralized?

Why do you need to know about who owns what stake in PoS? do you know every miner in a PoW system? does a PoW miner advertise they are going to attack the network?

[BitCoinDream]

That's why I call NxT distribution a scam and is not participating in it, it should fail. See my post here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=325261.msg8559235#msg8559235

Glad to see that your eyes are open.

So far only Peter R's idea for initial distribution based upon a *snapshot* of the Bitcoin blockchain makes sense to me (no IPO coin will ever be more than a scam in my eyes).

That does not make any sense to me either. Why current bitcoin holders will get any advantage in PoS distribution ? Moreover, a lot of non-tech people keep coins in exchange/wallet for which they dont hold the pvt key. PoS, in any form, is nothing but a pure BS.

[CIYAM]

That does not make any sense to me either. Why current bitcoin holders will get any advantage in PoS distribution ? Moreover, a lot of non-tech people keep coins in exchange/wallet for which they dont hold the pvt key. PoS, in any form, is nothing but a pure BS.

As you see the "initial distribution problem" is not something trivially solved (it is the Achilles heel of PoS IMO).

[kokojie]

Usually only about 10-20% of the coin actively engage in mining PoS.

That in itself is "worrisome" as presumably it means that forks could appear more often.

The other problem with PoS is that those not mining could be in fact colluding to present a new better chain (the cost of doing so being very little as the "Nothing At Stake" point made).

Again it comes down to "distribution" with PoS that basically *cannot be anonymous* in order to be trusted.

I'm not sure where this PoS "collude" concern come from. Who would collude to destroy their own wealth? I hold some peercoin, if you tell me to collude with you to attack Peercoin, I would tell you to gfys. Do you think it's easy to collude with 10,000 peercoin holders? or is it easier for discus fish and ghash.io to collude and gain 51%? I think the answer is obvious.

The fact is forks has NOT appeared more often in PoS, in fact PoW system has had much more forks, including Bitcoin.

Sorry to speak the truth. It is easy to collude with a 10k Peercoin holder than colluding discus fish or ghash.io to gain 51%. Investment made by discus fish or ghash.io is far more than the investment made by 10k Peercoin holder.

Since discus fish and ghash.io's only stake is in their mining equipment, the attacker just has to spend a bit more than that amount of money to buy their loyalty, or if they don't agree, the attacker could just start their own mining operation, yes? that amount is not even 5% of Bitcoin's marketcap.

Now with Peercoin, if you want 51%, you have to buy them, you can't just "collude", since no one will listen you. Now if Peercoin's marketcap is same as Bitcoin, tell me which way is easier?