It's about time to turn off PoW mining

[cbeast]

ps.. that photo.. you should be ashamed trying to use that as "ammo" against PoS.. its completely unrelated and god damn hypocritical. if anything that picture could be used in an anti-PoW campaign. as mentioned above, the amount of money spent on electricity and mining equipment would go a long way to helping those people and you try to use it as a weapon against proof of stake which doesnt waste valuable resources? not even to mention the rare minerals/metals/whatever that are required to build most electronics INCLUDING MINING EQUIPMENT that get mined in places like africa destroying their land and the workers getting payed so little they are basically slaves. fucking disgrace that you post a photo like that to try to further your anti-PoS campaign.. as bad as the god damn catholic church if you ask me.

god damn vested interests... thats all this is..

Like I said. Look at the photo. If it doesn't make you feel something horrible inside, then you lack mirror-neuron functionality and should go back to reading Ayn Rand books about how your selfishness will save the world. It has nothing to do with electricity or money. It has to do with fairness, equality, and justice. If you don't get that then we'll just disagree and I won't waste any more time on this thread. The reason I support PoS for states is because they have political processes to address these issue within that state. As a global currency there is nothing fair about PoS, so there is no equality or justice for egalitarian prosperity. PoW is meritocracy incarnate. Any lowly slumdog physicist (BBT ref) could design a new technology that improves PoW scientifically. It could even revolutionize technology and improve everyone's life. PoS offers no such incentive.

Corporations have not even tried to create a PoW and promote it because they know it is futile to muddy the waters. The VCs do promote and develop PoS coins because they are the new fad. They don't want to spend real money trying to compete directly with Bitcoin, because they know they would be throwing money away. So instead they hire shills to spread FUD about PoW hoping to break people's faith in it. Fortunately, they started too late because Bitcoin has now survived far worse disasters than anything they can dish out without being caught.

The only thing PoS does is cause people to go out of their way to pump their propaganda for their own personal blockchain. These threads have been escalating to the point of spam and they are getting worse. Whether they are paid shills or not, there is no reason to be here on a bitcoin forum making ridiculous claims. I will wait for a Fortune 100 company to develop and spend tens of billions promoting a PoS currency for my nation-state that will promise to make it legal tender before I will even consider allowing a closed group of people make decisions about my money and the money of my loved ones.

[logictense]

The most significant flaw of any proof-of-stake system and any system that reduces coin rewards, is it can't distribute currency from the holders to the users of the currency, thus it will cease with the shareholders which are accumulating all the currency supply. This is because the wealth spend a much lower % of their net worth than the masses do.

[CoinHoarder]

Oh come on, what does this photo have to do with anything? How many Bitcoins have you personally donated to starving children in Africa? Don't make it sound like Bitcoiners are concerned about anything but enriching themselves, just like any other normal people.

Imagine the amount of food that could be bought for the starving children in Africa with the amount Bitcoin miners spend in electricity on its security every year if it used a PoS variant.

In December of 2013 it was estimated at $15 million USD a day, and look at how much the difficulty has grown since then.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/12/03/fascinating-number-bitcoin-mining-uses-15-millions-worth-of-electricity-every-day/

I'm sure Bitcoiners would spend it all on a good cause if they switched over.

Good thought. But why not are the PoS coins adopted and used?

My post was sarcasm.

I hate that cbeast even brought that up, as starving children in Africa have nothing to do with the PoW vs PoS debate.

[Oscilson]

The most significant flaw of any proof-of-stake system and any system that reduces coin rewards, is it can't distribute currency from the holders to the users of the currency, thus it will cease with the shareholders which are accumulating all the currency supply. This is because the wealth spend a much lower % of their net worth than the masses do.

You have to buy to get PoS coins.

[CoinHoarder]

What is annoying is when certain individuals are paid to promote an alt or have a sizable investment where they are trying to pump their alt on different forums. This thread is borderline in its appropriateness for not being in the alt section, but others I have seen are just spam.

I stand to gain very little by pumping BTSX here. My main goal here is to convince some of the hardcore PoWers that there is at least one viable form of PoS, and that PoW is a flaw not their "best feature" as some put it. I want to see Bitcoin fixed, as before I was an alt coin supporter I was a Bitcoin supporter. That is until I woke up and smelled the coffee that Bitcoin is severely flawed in more ways than one. I didn't realize that until innovative alt coins started coming out.

[inBitweTrust]

I stand to gain very little by pumping BTSX here. My main goal here is to convince some of the hardcore PoWers that there is at least one viable form of PoS, and that PoW is a flaw not their "best feature" as some put it. I want to see Bitcoin fixed, as before I was an alt coin supporter I was a Bitcoin supporter. That is until I woke up and smelled the coffee that Bitcoin is severely flawed in more ways than one. I didn't realize that until innovative alt coins started coming out.

The concern I have is with some of these threads is that people promoting DPoS/ PoS wont even acknowledge any of the weaknesses and limitations within those consensus systems. I think PoW and Bitcoin has some sever flaws and limitations and am open to honestly discussing them and think that DPoS is an ideal coin either on a bitcoin sidechain or treechain, a company controlled coin(giftcard), or a government backed coin. Despite PoW limitations there are some large benefits over PoS and DPoS when discussing an international trustless consensus system.

DPoS ultimately depends upon trusting representatives that are voted into position and is a source of vulnerability. Bitcoin has its flaws with centralization but some confuse the roles of the miners vs nodes and bitcoin has much more active nodes than any other coin. I understand the nuances with DPoS and how it can scale if needed with more delegates but when it comes to the incentive structure and human psychology the same flaws are manifested as with regular politics and I do not see DPoS scaling with much higher delegate numbers. With PoW we can change the trend of centralization of nodes and miners simply by creating utilities that use the heat and tweaking the incentives for running a full node.

[delulo]

The concern I have is with some of these threads is that people promoting DPoS/ PoS wont even acknowledge any of the weaknesses and limitations within those consensus systems. I think PoW and Bitcoin has some sever flaws and limitations and am open to honestly discussing them

+1
I'd also appreciate an open and rational / neutral discussion!

[CoinHoarder]

The concern I have is with some of these threads is that people promoting DPoS/ PoS wont even acknowledge any of the weaknesses and limitations within those consensus systems. I think PoW and Bitcoin has some sever flaws and limitations and am open to honestly discussing them

+1
I'd also appreciate an open and rational / neutral discussion!

I think the problem is that a lot of people bring up invalid arguments and don't realize there are multiple incarnations of PoS. So, I have been quick to brush off a lot of criticism as uninformed opinions. I do think there are a few valid points that have been brought up against DPoS though, and I need to address them or admit those are flaws. It is hard to dig through all the anti-PoS arguments because most of them fall under the former, and I am basically one guy debating a lot of people.

Again, I do hope to address or agree with all valid criticisms eventually when it comes to DPoS as I agree it does have flaws. The main thing I think is although DPoS has some flaws, so does PoW, and the lesser of the two evils needs to be decided upon. I guess it is one of those things where some people will agree to disagree, but I want to make sure misconceptions are cleared up at the very least.

[delulo]

The concern I have is with some of these threads is that people promoting DPoS/ PoS wont even acknowledge any of the weaknesses and limitations within those consensus systems. I think PoW and Bitcoin has some sever flaws and limitations and am open to honestly discussing them

+1
I'd also appreciate an open and rational / neutral discussion!

I think the problem is that a lot of people bring up invalid arguments and don't realize there are multiple incarnations of PoS. So, I have been quick to brush off a lot of criticism as uninformed opinions. I do think there are a few valid points that have been brought up against DPoS though, and I need to address them or admit those are flaws. It is hard to dig through all the anti-PoS arguments because most of them fall under the former, and I am basically one guy debating a lot of people.

The main thing I think is although DPoS has some flaws, so does PoW,and the lesser of the two evils needs to be decided upon. I guess it is one of those things where people will agree to disagree, but I want to make sure misconceptions are cleared up at the very least.

Agree, no system is perfect!

And there are some abstruse arguments made against POS/DPOS, as well as a few good arguments for POW (in particular the argument that mining pool centralization should not be confused with mining centralization) made here. 

[inBitweTrust]

Again, I do hope to address or agree with all valid criticisms eventually when it comes to DPoS as I agree it does have flaws.

Great, I look forward to hearing about the list of DPoS flaws.

The main thing I think is although DPoS has some flaws, so does PoW, and the lesser of the two evils needs to be decided upon.

That is what the market is for. If you think DPoS is superior, buy that coin, we will follow you later if Bitcoin falls behind. In the meantime I am open to debates about DPoS vs PoW, but want a genuine discussion.

[CoinHoarder]

Will do.. I am headed out for Barbeque and football today though, so Ima take a break from this thread.

Catch you guys later!

[ubuntuLover]

A fork would not work, all it would do is weaken bitcoin. The best choice at this point would be to just switch to an alt.

[johnyj]

Actually the mining cost of the whole network is what backs bitcoin's value.  Since digital currency is not backed by any government or physical assets, the only thing that can baseline its value is the cost, no cost = no value. I can not think of anything that has value without a cost

Of course the cost means the lowest possible cost, which is already very energy efficient today. If you do those hashes using CPU you will cost millions of times more electricity

water... water has value and is free.. depending on where you live of course.. are you charged to breath the air you breath? what value would you put on the air you breath? if suddenly there was a 10k dollar valuation put on the air you breath and you knew you wouldnt get the air if you didnt pay would you pay it if you had the money? what if it was 100k.. would you pay if you had the money? 1 million if you had the money? but it cost nothing to produce of course you wouldnt right? you would rather die than pay money for something that cost nothing to produce right?

does the air we breath have a cost to produce? no.. obviously if we keep using up natural resources it could incur a cost to produce in the future.. but as it stands it costs nothing to produce, yet is probably the most valuable thing on the planet. bare in mind value and price are not the same. if governments thought they had half a chance of charging for the air we breath dont you think they would.. havnt most govs privatised water and started charging everyone for that?

if something has a lot of value.. people will pay for it.. UNLESS.. there is an "unlimited"(enough to go around for a very long time) supply.

proof of stake currencies are a perfect example staring you straight in the face. currently how many proof of stake coins in the top twenty cost ZERO in resources to produce and run(excluding living expenses of the dev)? and do these coins that cost nothing to produce and run have value? yes because they have value, there is NOT an unlimited supply and therefore people are willing to pay for them. saying currencies need a cost to produce in order to have value is completely false.

in short.. " no cost = no value" is totally incorrect.

Water or air, if you can get for free, then it has no value, you mixed utility with value. Value is only decided by supply and demand. Of course you can artificially limit the supply and lift its price for a while, but that will never last long, since the competitors with low cost supply will quickly bring down the price

This is the same for POS coin, if a low-cost-coin can command a high value, there will be many people creating such low-cost-coins to join the competition, thus the value will be quickly brought down later. However, if high-cost-coin have high value, no one will join the competition without carefully calculate their risk first

[zorke]

Actually the mining cost of the whole network is what backs bitcoin's value.  Since digital currency is not backed by any government or physical assets, the only thing that can baseline its value is the cost, no cost = no value. I can not think of anything that has value without a cost

Of course the cost means the lowest possible cost, which is already very energy efficient today. If you do those hashes using CPU you will cost millions of times more electricity

water... water has value and is free.. depending on where you live of course.. are you charged to breath the air you breath? what value would you put on the air you breath? if suddenly there was a 10k dollar valuation put on the air you breath and you knew you wouldnt get the air if you didnt pay would you pay it if you had the money? what if it was 100k.. would you pay if you had the money? 1 million if you had the money? but it cost nothing to produce of course you wouldnt right? you would rather die than pay money for something that cost nothing to produce right?

does the air we breath have a cost to produce? no.. obviously if we keep using up natural resources it could incur a cost to produce in the future.. but as it stands it costs nothing to produce, yet is probably the most valuable thing on the planet. bare in mind value and price are not the same. if governments thought they had half a chance of charging for the air we breath dont you think they would.. havnt most govs privatised water and started charging everyone for that?

if something has a lot of value.. people will pay for it.. UNLESS.. there is an "unlimited"(enough to go around for a very long time) supply.

proof of stake currencies are a perfect example staring you straight in the face. currently how many proof of stake coins in the top twenty cost ZERO in resources to produce and run(excluding living expenses of the dev)? and do these coins that cost nothing to produce and run have value? yes because they have value, there is NOT an unlimited supply and therefore people are willing to pay for them. saying currencies need a cost to produce in order to have value is completely false.

in short.. " no cost = no value" is totally incorrect.

Water or air, if you can get for free, then it has no value, you mixed utility with value. Value is only decided by supply and demand. Of course you can artificially limit the supply and lift its price for a while, but that will never last long, since the competitors with low cost supply will quickly bring down the price

This is the same for POS coin, if a low-cost-coin can command a high value, there will be many people creating such low-cost-coins to join the competition, thus the value will be quickly brought down later. However, if high-cost-coin have high value, no one will join the competition without carefully calculate their risk first

I think there will be competition for "high cost" coins, just not as much. If a high cost coin were to be made the the creators can still earn some amount off of it (you are correct in saying there are risks in doing this). I also think you hit it dead on regarding "no cost" coins aka PoS as if it costs nothing to create then there is no reason why people would not create more of them until the total value is diluted to near zero.

[kodtycoon]

Actually the mining cost of the whole network is what backs bitcoin's value.  Since digital currency is not backed by any government or physical assets, the only thing that can baseline its value is the cost, no cost = no value. I can not think of anything that has value without a cost

Of course the cost means the lowest possible cost, which is already very energy efficient today. If you do those hashes using CPU you will cost millions of times more electricity

water... water has value and is free.. depending on where you live of course.. are you charged to breath the air you breath? what value would you put on the air you breath? if suddenly there was a 10k dollar valuation put on the air you breath and you knew you wouldnt get the air if you didnt pay would you pay it if you had the money? what if it was 100k.. would you pay if you had the money? 1 million if you had the money? but it cost nothing to produce of course you wouldnt right? you would rather die than pay money for something that cost nothing to produce right?

does the air we breath have a cost to produce? no.. obviously if we keep using up natural resources it could incur a cost to produce in the future.. but as it stands it costs nothing to produce, yet is probably the most valuable thing on the planet. bare in mind value and price are not the same. if governments thought they had half a chance of charging for the air we breath dont you think they would.. havnt most govs privatised water and started charging everyone for that?

if something has a lot of value.. people will pay for it.. UNLESS.. there is an "unlimited"(enough to go around for a very long time) supply.

proof of stake currencies are a perfect example staring you straight in the face. currently how many proof of stake coins in the top twenty cost ZERO in resources to produce and run(excluding living expenses of the dev)? and do these coins that cost nothing to produce and run have value? yes because they have value, there is NOT an unlimited supply and therefore people are willing to pay for them. saying currencies need a cost to produce in order to have value is completely false.

in short.. " no cost = no value" is totally incorrect.

Water or air, if you can get for free, then it has no value, you mixed utility with value. Value is only decided by supply and demand. Of course you can artificially limit the supply and lift its price for a while, but that will never last long, since the competitors with low cost supply will quickly bring down the price

This is the same for POS coin, if a low-cost-coin can command a high value, there will be many people creating such low-cost-coins to join the competition, thus the value will be quickly brought down later. However, if high-cost-coin have high value, no one will join the competition without carefully calculate their risk first

so you are saying water and air are not valuable because they are free? they are probably the most valuable resources on the planet.. why else would ex pres.bush and his daughter go and buy up thousands of hectares of land that sits over some of the largest water aquifers in the world? because the water below the land is valuable. the water is free to all those people who live off of the water that flows from the aquifer but still someone pays millions to acquire this water that required zero input to produce and apparently doesnt have any value according to your argument. why is this so? because water is a VALUABLE resource. something doesnt have to have a price to be valuable.. if you collect rain water to cut down on mains usage then(if you pay water bills) that rain is VALUABLE to you.. it is as valuable as the amount of money it saves you + the value of lowering demand on mains produced water.

you need to understand that something does not need to have a price to be valuable. do you value your life? if you do then it has value. i would guess that your family value your life too. you dont value your life based on how much it has cost you and your parents to raise you do you? so your life has value regardless of how much your life has cost you or your family, or in other words, the cost of production of you up until now does not even remotely come in to the equation of how much your life is worth.. you wouldnt even think about that. so yes something can have value regardless whether it is free or whether it has a cost to produce.

now.. the same can be applied to proof of stake coins.. say for instance bitcoin never existed.. say a PoS coin was the first coin and only coin ever to be created, first to market, the big dog and only dog of crypto.. imagine all the services that are in place for bitcoin are in place for this imaginary coin. joe with his big well payed job now has the ability to send his poor old mother sally home thousands every month to pay medical bills for his sick old pa joe senior. joe sends the money home using coin "x"(imaginary pos coin) because coin x does not charge even close to the same fees as western union and it gets there in a fraction of the time. now imagine it is also used for every other purpose that bitcoin is used for now and then include other services like an asset exchange.

does coin x have a value in this situation? i would say most certainly it does.. regardless of how much it costs to produce or run.

now.. imagine that 1000 new coins pop up that do the exact same thing essentially with a handful of changes.. a couple people use it, but nothing in comparison.. these other coins will have value, but nothing close to coin x. and most likely they wont ever have a value high enough to challenge coin x. (thats what we see with all the shitty bitcoin clones and the ones with minor changes.)

then a new coin y pops up(also a PoS coin).. and its the god damn swiss knife of crypto.. companies ipo on its asset exchange and a few years down the line wall street are trading on it doing billions of dollars in trade on its asset exchange per day. not just that but it has allowed people to anonymously invest in companies no matter what country the company is in and no matter what country the trader is in. its faster cheaper more economically friendly and just better so every joe sending money home decides to use coin y because its cheaper and faster and better for the environment.

does coin y have value in this situation? would you say it has more value than coin x because of its added advantages? i would say yes. it most certainly does. does the cost of production play any part in the value of the coin? its quite obvious that it doesnt. if coin x cost 10 times more to produce than coin y.. but yet every one wanted to use coin y... would coin x be worth 10 times more? no.. it would probably be worth 10 times less by the time everyone has swapped over to coin y. why is this some might ask? its because coins get their value(and therefore price once it corrects to near the true value) from the utility they provide.

saying that something needs a cost to produce to have any value is ridiculous.

"if a low-cost-coin can command a high value, there will be many people creating such low-cost-coins to join the competition, thus the value will be quickly brought down later, no one will join the competition without carefully calculate their risk first"

the only people that think about the cost of production before switching to another coin are miners.. iv used cryptos for a long time and i have never given two flying f%$ks how much it cost to produce the coins. and i dont think many other do ether.

[kodtycoon]

Actually the mining cost of the whole network is what backs bitcoin's value.  Since digital currency is not backed by any government or physical assets, the only thing that can baseline its value is the cost, no cost = no value. I can not think of anything that has value without a cost

Of course the cost means the lowest possible cost, which is already very energy efficient today. If you do those hashes using CPU you will cost millions of times more electricity

water... water has value and is free.. depending on where you live of course.. are you charged to breath the air you breath? what value would you put on the air you breath? if suddenly there was a 10k dollar valuation put on the air you breath and you knew you wouldnt get the air if you didnt pay would you pay it if you had the money? what if it was 100k.. would you pay if you had the money? 1 million if you had the money? but it cost nothing to produce of course you wouldnt right? you would rather die than pay money for something that cost nothing to produce right?

does the air we breath have a cost to produce? no.. obviously if we keep using up natural resources it could incur a cost to produce in the future.. but as it stands it costs nothing to produce, yet is probably the most valuable thing on the planet. bare in mind value and price are not the same. if governments thought they had half a chance of charging for the air we breath dont you think they would.. havnt most govs privatised water and started charging everyone for that?

if something has a lot of value.. people will pay for it.. UNLESS.. there is an "unlimited"(enough to go around for a very long time) supply.

proof of stake currencies are a perfect example staring you straight in the face. currently how many proof of stake coins in the top twenty cost ZERO in resources to produce and run(excluding living expenses of the dev)? and do these coins that cost nothing to produce and run have value? yes because they have value, there is NOT an unlimited supply and therefore people are willing to pay for them. saying currencies need a cost to produce in order to have value is completely false.

in short.. " no cost = no value" is totally incorrect.

Water or air, if you can get for free, then it has no value, you mixed utility with value. Value is only decided by supply and demand. Of course you can artificially limit the supply and lift its price for a while, but that will never last long, since the competitors with low cost supply will quickly bring down the price

This is the same for POS coin, if a low-cost-coin can command a high value, there will be many people creating such low-cost-coins to join the competition, thus the value will be quickly brought down later. However, if high-cost-coin have high value, no one will join the competition without carefully calculate their risk first

I think there will be competition for "high cost" coins, just not as much. If a high cost coin were to be made the the creators can still earn some amount off of it (you are correct in saying there are risks in doing this). I also think you hit it dead on regarding "no cost" coins aka PoS as if it costs nothing to create then there is no reason why people would not create more of them until the total value is diluted to near zero.

how many bitcoin clones are there? has it affected the price of bitcoin what so ever? yet there are thousands of bitcoin clones and alt coins in general.. its a myth that alt coins dilute the value of the mother coin.

[toleng]

The concern I have is with some of these threads is that people promoting DPoS/ PoS wont even acknowledge any of the weaknesses and limitations within those consensus systems. I think PoW and Bitcoin has some sever flaws and limitations and am open to honestly discussing them

+1
I'd also appreciate an open and rational / neutral discussion!

I think the problem is that a lot of people bring up invalid arguments and don't realize there are multiple incarnations of PoS. So, I have been quick to brush off a lot of criticism as uninformed opinions. I do think there are a few valid points that have been brought up against DPoS though, and I need to address them or admit those are flaws. It is hard to dig through all the anti-PoS arguments because most of them fall under the former, and I am basically one guy debating a lot of people.

Again, I do hope to address or agree with all valid criticisms eventually when it comes to DPoS as I agree it does have flaws. The main thing I think is although DPoS has some flaws, so does PoW, and the lesser of the two evils needs to be decided upon. I guess it is one of those things where some people will agree to disagree, but I want to make sure misconceptions are cleared up at the very least.

As mentioned above PoS coins have little risk to the creators since it doesn't cost anything to create coins. Therefore the total value of PoS coins will be spread around many scamcoins/altcoins.

PoW on the other-hand requires people to do something in order to get something. Anytime someone offers you something for nothing, the first thing that should pop into your head is that it is some kind of scam

[johnyj]

how many bitcoin clones are there? has it affected the price of bitcoin what so ever? yet there are thousands of bitcoin clones and alt coins in general.. its a myth that alt coins dilute the value of the mother coin.

The PoW altcoin does not dilute the value of the lead coin, just because it is PoW based: You can easily copy the source code, but there is no way to copy the hash power, people already invested huge amount of real valuable resources to establish an enough large hash power. Since resources are limited, the miners will most possibly assign the resources to the most strong and mature coin

In a PoS system, the lead coin can still have the first mover advantage, but the late comers can create and mine more clones of it without too much resource, but you really can not tell the difference between them and why one of them worth more than the other. For PoW coin it is very easy to tell: The mining cost roughly decide one coin's value

[inBitweTrust]

In a PoS system, the lead coin can still have the first mover advantage, but the late comers can create and mine more clones of it without too much resource, but you really can not tell the difference between them and why one of them worth more than the other. For PoW coin it is very easy to tell: The mining cost roughly decide one coin's value

I partly agree with this as the hashing power does indeed add another layer of security that PoS and DPoS doesn't have, but I think you are overstating your case a bit. PoS and DPoS coins can differentiate themselves from others through other means like community involvement, merchant adoption, brand recognition, a large userbase, a large developer base, and distribution ratio. Bitcoin has all of that and more.

[kodtycoon]

how many bitcoin clones are there? has it affected the price of bitcoin what so ever? yet there are thousands of bitcoin clones and alt coins in general.. its a myth that alt coins dilute the value of the mother coin.

The PoW altcoin does not dilute the value of the lead coin, just because it is PoW based: You can easily copy the source code, but there is no way to copy the hash power, people already invested huge amount of real valuable resources to establish an enough large hash power. Since resources are limited, the miners will most possibly assign the resources to the most strong and mature coin

In a PoS system, the lead coin can still have the first mover advantage, but the late comers can create and mine more clones of it without too much resource, but you really can not tell the difference between them and why one of them worth more than the other. For PoW coin it is very easy to tell: The mining cost roughly decide one coin's value

your argument is made on the idea that all proof of work coins are of the same source code and have the same features.. so you can most certainly tell the difference.. the value of say nxt does not fall because 100 new clones of blackcoin came out..(not that they are of the same source).

the value of these coins is derived from the functions and features they provide and also to a very large extent the network effect they command. perhaps only among the straight clones of coin x you have a fair point.. but coin x would not be included in the equation. coin x actually benefits from the many clones because anyone who finds out about the clone would soon enough discover the mother coin leading to further adoption of the mother coin.. look how many people discovered bitcoin because of doge. you are basing your argument outside of the context of the 2.0 landscape in order for your argument to work.

also, imo the more coins that are created the better.. recently a trend has taken off where straight clones fail.. now it is also going the route that even coins written from scratch are failing very early on.. and the reason isnt that they are not innovating, it is that they are not innovating enough. the heat is rising in the altcoin race.. and there are only 2-3 main competitors that have any worth while odds of winning while the others are just filler.. people are starting to see that for a coin to succeed short, medium and long term it must be able to compete with the most innovative of platforms other wise people make a quick buck off the lesser coin in order to build their holdings in the platform they deem as the most likely to succeed and therefore strengthening the grater platform. those who cannot innovate enough, fall severely behind the pack and struggle to gain ground in any meaningful way. this is what negates your argument that a PoS platforms value can be depleted due to "clones" and the low cost of production.

if facebook released their source code and 1000000000 clones appeared that were exactly the same.. would anyone use anything other than the original? no, because that is what everyone is using and therefore gains value from the network effect it commands. just because 1000000 clones of facebook come out, it doesnt mean people become confused about what one to use or what its worth. but the network effect cannot protect something forever if something far superior comes along.. it will for a while but eventually it will be surpassed by the superior tech. look at bebo. it was the first social media to bring social media into mainstream as far as i know.. atleast it was where i live. it lasted a couple years value shot way up but then facebook, the younger better platform can along. it took a while for it to challenge bebo, but by the time it was seen as a genuine threat it was far too late to do anything about it. it was a better more innovative platform long before bebo fell to its knees. bebo could not innovate enough in a short enough time period and therefore facebook stormed the social network arena in a blaze of fire and bebo collapsed, and only remains today as a legacy of social networks.

the only thing holding bitcoin up as top dog right now and for probably a good while longer is its immense network effect which it has from a very long 4-5 year lead on all alts.. whether you like it not, bitcoin will fall just like bebo. and whether you like it or not, a technically more advanced and far more innovate platform is going to pick up where bitcoin left off and take over the globe in a blaze of glory like no other tech has seen before, and its going to be spectacular.

ps.. vested interests are a BITCH