It's about time to turn off PoW mining

[CIYAM]

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?

And how exactly do you *know* that their initial distribution wasn't concentrated such that *one owner* (under various aliases) actually already has > 50% of the stake?

[1714688366]

1714688366

[1714688366]

1714688366

[1714688366]

1714688366

[kokojie]

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).

You can take a look at Bitshare's distribution for a relatively fair distribution model.

[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.

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?

Well, please tell me 1 BTC = ? Peercoin. Sorry, I'm not into any Alt except Stellar.

[kokojie]

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?

And how exactly do you *know* that their initial distribution wasn't concentrated such that *one owner* (under various aliases) actually already has > 50% of the stake?

Distribution can be done transparently, a mixture of PoW for the distribution phase, and also direct currency buy in would work.

[inBitweTrust]

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.

Please clarify exactly what alt coin are you supporting.

Besides the initial distribution problem, you aren't addressing the "nothing at stake" flaw in POS. With POW , not only do you have to purchase or collude with a large mining company but spend the electricity to create the attacks. Bitcoins weakness("wasted" electricity) is also its strength in that it adds real costs to attacking the system.

[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?

Well, please tell me 1 BTC = ? Peercoin. Sorry, I'm not into any Alt except Stellar.

You don't need the exchange rate, you just need to know under the same marketcap condition, getting 5% or 51%, which one is easier? actually 51% is much harder than it appears, nearly impossible unless you spend astronomical amount of money.

[kokojie]

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.

Please clarify exactly what alt coin are you supporting.

Besides the initial distribution problem, you aren't addressing the "nothing at stake" flaw in POS. With POW , not only do you have to purchase or collude with a large mining company but spend the electricity to create the attacks. Bitcoins weakness("wasted" electricity) is also its strength in that it adds real costs to attacking the system.

I'm not supporting any alt coin, I'm supporting fading out PoW for Bitcoin.

There's a variety of choices in terms of solving "nothing at stake". Bitshare's DPoS system being one of them.

The initial cost to attack a PoS system is actually pretty much astronomical, it's so high, that it hasn't even happened yet, and unlikely to ever happen. There has been zero 51% attack on PoS altcoin. While many PoW altcoin has been attacked to death. So apparently "wasted" electricity hasn't really deterred PoW attackers that much.

[CIYAM]

There's a variety of choices in terms of solving "nothing at stake". Bitshare's DPoS system being one of them.

If Bitshares are going to give a fair % (> 50%) for all holders of BTC from a given snapshot then I'd support it but I somehow doubt they are going to do that.

[kokojie]

There's a variety of choices in terms of solving "nothing at stake". Bitshare's DPoS system being one of them.

If Bitshares are going to give a fair % (> 50%) for all holders of BTC from a given snapshot then I'd support it but I somehow doubt they are going to do that.

Why would they do that? how is that even fair?

Why are we discussing distribution at all here, since I'm trying to gain support for fading out PoW in Bitcoin, and Bitcoin does not need re-distribution.

[inBitweTrust]

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

I agree we should resist cloud mining as that ownership is illusory and can be easily corrupted and manipulated by the farm.

Since ASICS are inexpensive to make once the initial investment is done and nearly 100% efficient at converting electricity to heat they will make ideal heating elements. In the future an average person could own a heating utility like a dehydrator, heater, hot water heater, ect... that would pay for itself with mining rewards and transaction fees.

[Brangdon]

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).

Bitcoin's distribution is far worse than, say, Nxt's. It makes no sense to adopt it for a new coin.

The advantage of an IPO is that the investors have a vested interest in using their initial stakes to develop the coin. It reduces bystander apathy. People don't value what they get for free. It's not the only viable way, but it works. There have been Nxt clones that had "better initial distribution" as their USP and main selling point. They sank without trace. Nxt is still going strong. Time has shown its founders are not scammers or in it for a quick profit.

Besides the initial distribution problem, you aren't addressing the "nothing at stake" flaw in POS.

It's been addressed loads of times. It's a chimera. It doesn't exist in real life. PoS has been running long enough, with high enough market cap, so demonstrate it 's secure.

[CIYAM]

Bitcoin's distribution is far worse than, say, Nxt's. It makes no sense to adopt it for a new coin.

This is very wrong as > 50% of NXT is owned by anonymous accounts all created at the time of the IPO (so most likely either one individual or a small group). And in PoS it is not *hash power* but ownership % that *controls*.

You can't *overlook the importance of the initial distribution* if you are seriously going to suggest PoS and why would anyone who has bought, mined or earned BTC want to be "left out" because they didn't jump into some IPO (the reason why I think Peter R's idea is better than any other so far suggested).

[kokojie]

Bitcoin's distribution is far worse than, say, Nxt's. It makes no sense to adopt it for a new coin.

This is very wrong as > 50% of NXT is owned by anonymous accounts all created at the time of the IPO (so most likely either one individual or a small group). And in PoS it is not *hash power* but ownership % that *controls*.

You can't *overlook the importance of the initial distribution* if you are seriously going to suggest PoS and why would anyone who has bought, mined or earned BTC want to be "left out" because they didn't jump into some IPO (the reason why I think Peter R's idea is better than any other so far suggested).

But initial distribution is irrelevant to the topic at hand, I'm discussing fading out PoW for Bitcoin, it does not need initial distribution or re-distribution.

[CIYAM]

But initial distribution is irrelevant to the topic at hand, I'm discussing fading out PoW for Bitcoin, it does not need initial distribution or re-distribution.

Wrong - if you are advocating PoS to replace PoW then *you can't omit the issue of initial distribution*.

(unless you are agreeing to the Peter R initial distribution idea)

[kokojie]

But initial distribution is irrelevant to the topic at hand, I'm discussing fading out PoW for Bitcoin, it does not need initial distribution or re-distribution.

Wrong - if you are advocating PoS to replace PoW then *you can't omit the issue of initial distribution*.

What issue? Bitcoin has already been distributed. Also PoW is a valid initial distribution method for a PoS system. You CAN use PoW to distribute for all I care. You are trying to create a non-existent issue here and going off topic.

[CIYAM]

What issue? Bitcoin has already been distributed. Also PoW is a valid distribution method for a PoS system. You CAN use PoW to distribute for all I care.

Okay - so you agree with the Peter R model then (distribute according to a snapshot of the Bitcoin blockchain)?

[kokojie]

What issue? Bitcoin has already been distributed. Also PoW is a valid distribution method for a PoS system. You CAN use PoW to distribute for all I care.

Okay - so you agree with the Peter R model then (distribute according to a snapshot of the Bitcoin blockchain)?

Um no, for other coins, that makes no sense. Using PoW is not equal to snapshotting Bitcoin blockchain.

[inBitweTrust]

There's a variety of choices in terms of solving "nothing at stake". Bitshare's DPoS system being one of them.

http://bitshares.org/delegated-proof-of-stake/

Delegating voting to  representatives does not address the "Nothing at stake" weakness. It simply makes it easier to collude with fewer delegates than gaining a consensus of miners. There is no electrical cost and/or equipment cost with an attack in a POS or DPOS framework.

Your fears with PoW and its current pool centralization, limited ASIC manufactures, and limited miners is valid, but what we should be addressing are these problems directly and not codifying centralization through delegates into the framework as that represents one step forward and two steps backward in time.

What we should focus on to improve bitcoin is
1) Encourage the use of decentralized p2p mining pools
2) crowdfund a company to create ASIC appliances. Would be better if the ownership of this ASIC manufacturer was controlled and owned by a large pool of bitcoin users.

[CIYAM]

Um no, for other coins, that makes no sense. Using PoW is not equal to snapshotting Bitcoin blockchain.

It seems we are arguing in circles now - so how do we get the "fair distribution" for your PoS without using the Bitcoin blockchain nor an IPO nor anything anonymous?

[kokojie]

There's a variety of choices in terms of solving "nothing at stake". Bitshare's DPoS system being one of them.

http://bitshares.org/delegated-proof-of-stake/

Delegating voting to  representatives does not address the "Nothing at stake" weakness. It simply makes it easier to collude with fewer delegates than gaining a consensus of miners. There is no electrical cost and/or equipment cost with an attack in a POS or DPOS framework.

Your fears with PoW and its current pool centralization, limited ASIC manufactures, and limited miners is valid, but what we should be addressing are these problems directly and not codifying centralization through delegates into the framework as that represents one step forward and two steps backward in time.

What we should focus on to improve bitcoin is
1) Encourage the use of decentralized p2p mining pools
2) crowdfund a company to create ASIC appliances. Would be better if the ownership of this ASIC manufacturer was controlled and owned by a large pool of bitcoin users.

2 miner (discus fish and ghash.io) controls 40%-60% of the Bitcoin network, how is it easier to collude with 51 delegates?

Delegates are usually highly reputable members of the community, they also earn a small amount of fees for being a delegate, and at the first sign of dishonesty, they will be voted out. If they can't be trusted, why would you ever trust an anonymous miner who possibly have 0 stake in the eco-system?