How Could Bitcoin Evolve?

[inBitweTrust]

They can be unprofitable, and still sucking value out of Bitcoin, it just means the distribution of profits within the PoW interest group is unbalanced. They are still sucking value out of Bitcoin nonetheless.

Yes , and early PoS/DPoS IPO investors are "sucking value" out of their currency when new users buy into their alt, how is that any different?

The reality is you are distorting the facts when you suggest miners are making large profits and therefore have a bias to support their cash cow. It is much more profitable to invest in Bitcoin directly or any PoS /DPoS alt directly than mine.

BTW.... I don't mine, run a pool, sell ASIC's , or sell electricity.. but still manage to make educated and reasoned decisions when researching the strengths and disadvantages of PoW and DPoS, PoS. Some of us do actually read security and research papers discussing these matters and can make informed decisions.

[martinnew]

IF??

bitcoin is already accepted at the cashiers desk in thousands of retail stores


bitcoin is already accepted for flights and vacations
cheapair.com
airbaltic.com
expedia.com

to name just a few.

as for the big event of bitcoin in the next 10 years.. that would have to be the detachment to the dollar valuation.

imagine a common measure that can be used in all countries.

now here is the idea
imagine cost of living was a measure of minimum wage of whatever counntry yo were in multiplied by 40.

this would give you an estimate of your native cost of living.

now imagine that for instance instead of a dollar reference, we simply had buy and sell orders based against that measure.
thus right now bitcoin is about 1.5 'col'

now whatever country you live in you can work out how much bitcoin is based on your own currency without having to know dollars conversion rate.

also the average cost of bread is 1% of cost of living. thus if bitcoin is 1.5col. you can instantly know you will now get 150 loaves of bread for 1 bitcoin.

if bitcoin doubled in value to 3 col. you know instantly that you can get 300 loaves of bread. anywhere in the world.

Good thing to read your reply here cause I am not aware of these details.

[CoinHoarder]

I see a possible certain strategy with many of these PoS/DPoS advocates. They don't want to completely sell their BTC because they still believe that it has room to grow to at least 10k on momentum alone, but at the same time they made an early IPO investment in their new PoS/DPoS coin as a bet for the future and want to promote that over Bitcoin. I think they genuinely do believe PoS and DPoS is superior and thus are eating up most of the marketing from these new alts. Part of the reason they so rabidly believe PoW has no redeeming qualities is they are heavily invested in the idea that they could become the next large stakeholder like Satoshi because they have the opportunity to get in at the ground floor from an IPO. Of course this goes both ways and the same thing can be said for BTC investors, miners, and developers having a bias towards PoW.

The important thing to recognize, as a new user, is to understand that you shouldn't rely on either groups statements and weigh the facts being presented as rationally as possible.

The cost and "waste" of PoW is just one factor amongst many when analyzing the value and future potential of a currency. Think about how much momentum it has, the network effect, merchant adoption, the amount of developers, the amount of users, the amount of separate implementations, the amount of  apps/apis/programs, companies , venture capital, ect... all of these other variables are extremely important as well.

Perhaps in the future Bitcoin will make that waste a valuable product, or perhaps it will adjust its algorithm being an open source project and all, we will see with time.

A lot of assumption in your post. 

I thought "Cyberpunks" write code?

[jonald_fyookball]

pretty sure the core devs all agree, pow is the only proven secure method to achieve distributed consensus.

How could they not? since they are entrenched in the PoW mindset, and is confrontational when even someone mentions PoS. But the reality has PROVEN, that PoS is more secure and more community friendly (due to not having to transfer value out of the eco-system).

what proof do you speak of?

1. Many PoW altcoin has been 51% attacked, to the point the Dev just given up fighting back. Zero PoS altcoin has been successfully attacked so far.

2. In the altcoin competition, the PoS eco-systems has naturally risen to the top, on coinmarketcap right now, #4,#6,#7 are PoS, and #10 is a subsidiary of #4.

#1 Bitcoin, #3 Litecoin has early mover advantage, #2 Ripple is a scam that is non-PoW and non-PoS. I expect Litecoin will soon lose to a PoS eco-system in less than a year.

If Bitcoin keeps PoW, it'll be next, in 3-4 years time probably. This is because PoS re-invest in the community and eco-system, PoW transfers value out of the community and eco-system, into the pockets of hardware vendor/electric company.

Proof of Stakes rely on central checkpointing, (and therefore aren't
distributed. )  And they are vulnerable to nothing at stake
attacks. 

Perhaps PoS haven't been successfully attacked but
I don't believe it is scalable. 

[CoinHoarder]

pretty sure the core devs all agree, pow is the only proven secure method to achieve distributed consensus.

How could they not? since they are entrenched in the PoW mindset, and is confrontational when even someone mentions PoS. But the reality has PROVEN, that PoS is more secure and more community friendly (due to not having to transfer value out of the eco-system).

what proof do you speak of?

1. Many PoW altcoin has been 51% attacked, to the point the Dev just given up fighting back. Zero PoS altcoin has been successfully attacked so far.

2. In the altcoin competition, the PoS eco-systems has naturally risen to the top, on coinmarketcap right now, #4,#6,#7 are PoS, and #10 is a subsidiary of #4.

#1 Bitcoin, #3 Litecoin has early mover advantage, #2 Ripple is a scam that is non-PoW and non-PoS. I expect Litecoin will soon lose to a PoS eco-system in less than a year.

If Bitcoin keeps PoW, it'll be next, in 3-4 years time probably. This is because PoS re-invest in the community and eco-system, PoW transfers value out of the community and eco-system, into the pockets of hardware vendor/electric company.

Proof of Stakes rely on central checkpointing, (and therefore aren't
distributed. )  And they are vulnerable to nothing at stake
attacks.  

Perhaps PoS haven't been successfully attacked but
I don't believe it is scalable.  

DPoS is more scalable than Bitcoin by a large margin, also is not vulnerable to the NaS attack.

[Waramp22]

I think that once laws and regulations are in place for bitcoin in the USA, it will be adopted by banks. The fractional reserve system will be adopted and we will have money 2.0. Unfortunately it will be come inflationary, but it will be nice to have 1 currency for the whole world and be able to send across borders quickly without fees.

The reason i think banks will take over is because the average citizen doesn't have the technical know how to be responsible with his money. Bitcoin will be for day to day purchases, and sending money over borders. Saving money will be up to the banks again as saving bitcoin is far to risky for the average joe. Too many viruses, loopholes, scams etc.

[kokojie]

pretty sure the core devs all agree, pow is the only proven secure method to achieve distributed consensus.

How could they not? since they are entrenched in the PoW mindset, and is confrontational when even someone mentions PoS. But the reality has PROVEN, that PoS is more secure and more community friendly (due to not having to transfer value out of the eco-system).

what proof do you speak of?

1. Many PoW altcoin has been 51% attacked, to the point the Dev just given up fighting back. Zero PoS altcoin has been successfully attacked so far.

2. In the altcoin competition, the PoS eco-systems has naturally risen to the top, on coinmarketcap right now, #4,#6,#7 are PoS, and #10 is a subsidiary of #4.

#1 Bitcoin, #3 Litecoin has early mover advantage, #2 Ripple is a scam that is non-PoW and non-PoS. I expect Litecoin will soon lose to a PoS eco-system in less than a year.

If Bitcoin keeps PoW, it'll be next, in 3-4 years time probably. This is because PoS re-invest in the community and eco-system, PoW transfers value out of the community and eco-system, into the pockets of hardware vendor/electric company.

Proof of Stakes rely on central checkpointing, (and therefore aren't
distributed. )  And they are vulnerable to nothing at stake
attacks.  

Perhaps PoS haven't been successfully attacked but
I don't believe it is scalable.  

Nope, just the contrary, PoW relies on centralized checkpointing, Bitcoin has checkpointing. PoS does not need centralized checkpointing because it's so hard to attack it, Peercoin is now fading out the checkpointing, because PoS has taken over the network, and PoW is fading out. BitsharesX, a pure PoS system, has no checkpointing.

NAS attack against a PoS system is pretty much fictional. When I asked why it haven't happened yet in reality, Gavin's reply was basically "people might not have figured out a good way to attack or built the tools to attack it yet". Well I'll believe it when I see it, so far I haven't seen it happen in reality, though you are welcome to change my mind, go initiate a NAS attack on a PoS system, see how far you could get.

I could attack any smaller PoW altcoin right now, with just a handful of ASIC machines. The weakness of PoW security is PROVEN, and exists in reality. All the PoS attack theories are UNPROVEN, and doesn't exist in reality.

So I'm not sure why Bitcoin is sticking to a proven insecure system, with $500 million current annual expense. But not adopt a system that have no security issue in reality, and has nearly no expense.

[bit1]

I think that price BTC is dropping because a lot of coins are being launched all days....  If someone saw Matrix Film is look to "Smith Program" it is out of control.........Investors are selling because are panic, so look that nobody want stop of make new coins,I was alerting to peoples about it, but a common anwser  is : you want stop  progress or things so, but it isn´t so,Everybody know that miner equipment is very expensive and it only help a few days because diff rise very soon,so crypto world some peoples are interested on launch coins all days for any reason, they don´t matter if price on btc goes to 0 because they are winning $$$.

what happened if any like goverment decided buy all BTC to? or industry?   Maybe it was a reason to release source of BTC by his creator,it was descentralized,but now community must give a step more to understand how many coins are necessary besides of BTC for can survive and keep being descentralized.........

[cbeast]

pretty sure the core devs all agree, pow is the only proven secure method to achieve distributed consensus.

How could they not? since they are entrenched in the PoW mindset, and is confrontational when even someone mentions PoS. But the reality has PROVEN, that PoS is more secure and more community friendly (due to not having to transfer value out of the eco-system).

what proof do you speak of?

1. Many PoW altcoin has been 51% attacked, to the point the Dev just given up fighting back. Zero PoS altcoin has been successfully attacked so far.

2. In the altcoin competition, the PoS eco-systems has naturally risen to the top, on coinmarketcap right now, #4,#6,#7 are PoS, and #10 is a subsidiary of #4.

#1 Bitcoin, #3 Litecoin has early mover advantage, #2 Ripple is a scam that is non-PoW and non-PoS. I expect Litecoin will soon lose to a PoS eco-system in less than a year.

If Bitcoin keeps PoW, it'll be next, in 3-4 years time probably. This is because PoS re-invest in the community and eco-system, PoW transfers value out of the community and eco-system, into the pockets of hardware vendor/electric company.

Proof of Stakes rely on central checkpointing, (and therefore aren't
distributed. )  And they are vulnerable to nothing at stake
attacks.  

Perhaps PoS haven't been successfully attacked but
I don't believe it is scalable.  

Nope, just the contrary, PoW relies on centralized checkpointing, Bitcoin has checkpointing. PoS does not need centralized checkpointing because it's so hard to attack it, Peercoin is now fading out the checkpointing, because PoS has taken over the network, and PoW is fading out. BitsharesX, a pure PoS system, has no checkpointing.

NAS attack against a PoS system is pretty much fictional. When I asked why it haven't happened yet in reality, Gavin's reply was basically "people might not have figured out a good way to attack or built the tools to attack it yet". Well I'll believe it when I see it, so far I haven't seen it happen in reality, though you are welcome to change my mind, go initiate a NAS attack on a PoS system, see how far you could get.

I could attack any smaller PoW altcoin right now, with just a handful of ASIC machines. The weakness of PoW security is PROVEN, and exists in reality. All the PoS attack theories are UNPROVEN, and doesn't exist in reality.

So I'm not sure why Bitcoin is sticking to a proven insecure system, with $500 million current annual expense. But not adopt a system that have no security issue in reality, and has nearly no expense.

Bitcoin rarely checkpoints.  PoS checkpoints every block. Bitcoin is phasing out checkpoints  completely in next upgrade.

[kokojie]

Bitcoin rarely checkpoints.  PoS checkpoints every block. Bitcoin is phasing out checkpoints  completely in next upgrade.

Thanks for reminding me why you are on my ignore list, you like to blatantly lie about PoS facts to suit your own argument. Even when I already told you, a pure PoS system, like Bitshares, has no checkpoints, you still lie about PoS needing checkpoints.

Now yes Peercoin has checkpoints, but they are fading out checkpoints now too, just as they are fading out PoW and having PoS taking over the network, coincidence? why don't they need checkpoints for PoS? oh yes, because ONLY PoW network needs checkpoints.

Checkpoints are basically insurance policies, no PoS network really need it, but some PoS altcoin implemented it just to be safe. Unlike smaller PoW networks, that basically requires checkpointing to even have a chance surviving against the rampant 51% attacks.

[cbeast]

Bitcoin rarely checkpoints.  PoS checkpoints every block. Bitcoin is phasing out checkpoints  completely in next upgrade.

Thanks for reminding me why you are on my ignore list, you like to blatantly lie about PoS facts to suit your own argument. Even when I already told you, a pure PoS system, like Bitshares, has no checkpoints, you still lie about PoS needing checkpoints.

Did Bitshares change from DPoS to PoS?

[kokojie]

Bitcoin rarely checkpoints.  PoS checkpoints every block. Bitcoin is phasing out checkpoints  completely in next upgrade.

Thanks for reminding me why you are on my ignore list, you like to blatantly lie about PoS facts to suit your own argument. Even when I already told you, a pure PoS system, like Bitshares, has no checkpoints, you still lie about PoS needing checkpoints.

Did Bitshares change from DPoS to PoS?

DPoS is a subset of PoS

[Window2Wall]

That is fine, I can see very well in this thread, how angry the PoW miner shills get when I try to expose their leeching scheme.

This is absurd, miners aren't making much if any profits. Most miners are taking losses. You would be more honest to suggest that ASIC manufacturers and the clouds they sell, and both green power and dirty power sources are profiting.

Who knows what interest the PoW miner shills represent, it might be pools, or ASIC hardware vendors or even electric companies.

They are a interest group, representing PoW interests. Miners are definitely part of that group, whether they are making a profit or not is irrelevant. They can be unprofitable, and still sucking value out of Bitcoin, it just means the distribution of profits within the PoW interest group is unbalanced. They are still sucking value out of Bitcoin nonetheless.

You don't need to be in an "interest group" to think that PoW is the superior solution. I don't mine, or run a pool, or sell electricity, or ASIC devices, or anything of the sort. I just think the alternatives to PoW (namely PoS) are shit and not real solutions.

PoS is certainly not a solution to changing the mining algo. From what I can see regarding the potential choices for ways to mine, PoW is the best. In theory there is a better way to mine bitcoin, however it would need to involve the miner having to spend some level of resources to mine so they have "skin in the game" when they mine.

[kokojie]

That is fine, I can see very well in this thread, how angry the PoW miner shills get when I try to expose their leeching scheme.

This is absurd, miners aren't making much if any profits. Most miners are taking losses. You would be more honest to suggest that ASIC manufacturers and the clouds they sell, and both green power and dirty power sources are profiting.

Who knows what interest the PoW miner shills represent, it might be pools, or ASIC hardware vendors or even electric companies.

They are a interest group, representing PoW interests. Miners are definitely part of that group, whether they are making a profit or not is irrelevant. They can be unprofitable, and still sucking value out of Bitcoin, it just means the distribution of profits within the PoW interest group is unbalanced. They are still sucking value out of Bitcoin nonetheless.

You don't need to be in an "interest group" to think that PoW is the superior solution. I don't mine, or run a pool, or sell electricity, or ASIC devices, or anything of the sort. I just think the alternatives to PoW (namely PoS) are shit and not real solutions.

PoS is certainly not a solution to changing the mining algo. From what I can see regarding the potential choices for ways to mine, PoW is the best. In theory there is a better way to mine bitcoin, however it would need to involve the miner having to spend some level of resources to mine so they have "skin in the game" when they mine.

Actually just the contrary, PoW miners has ZERO skin in the game, they don't need to own any Bitcoin to mine the Bitcoin PoW network, they are not stakeholders of the Bitcoin eco-system. They could easily switch their ASIC machines to mine something more profitable, if the opportunity exists. All they are interested in is sucking value out of the most profitable eco-system, to enrich themselves (miners/pools/hardware vendor/electric companies)

PoS miner are by definition, stake holders in the eco-system. The bigger the miner, the bigger his stake in the system, and therefore the bigger the interest to protect the system. This is why naturally, PoS eco-system has never been attacked, even the tiniest PoS altcoin has not been successfully attacked. Because no one is stupid enough to destroy their own stake and wealth.

[cbeast]

Bitcoin rarely checkpoints.  PoS checkpoints every block. Bitcoin is phasing out checkpoints  completely in next upgrade.

Thanks for reminding me why you are on my ignore list, you like to blatantly lie about PoS facts to suit your own argument. Even when I already told you, a pure PoS system, like Bitshares, has no checkpoints, you still lie about PoS needing checkpoints.

Did Bitshares change from DPoS to PoS?

DPoS is a subset of PoS

The way you keep changing around your terms it's impossible to have a coherent discussion with you. You just keep spreading your lies about PoS. Back to ignore.

[kokojie]

Bitcoin rarely checkpoints.  PoS checkpoints every block. Bitcoin is phasing out checkpoints  completely in next upgrade.

Thanks for reminding me why you are on my ignore list, you like to blatantly lie about PoS facts to suit your own argument. Even when I already told you, a pure PoS system, like Bitshares, has no checkpoints, you still lie about PoS needing checkpoints.

Did Bitshares change from DPoS to PoS?

DPoS is a subset of PoS

The way you keep changing around your terms it's impossible to have a coherent discussion with you. You just keep spreading your lies about PoS. Back to ignore.

How hard is it to understand DPoS is an implementation of the PoS concept? come on, even someone like you should be able to understand DPoS is a subset of PoS?

You don't even have to listen to me, since Daniel Larimer says so himself:
http://bitshares.org/delegated-proof-of-stake/
read: "This paper introduces a new implementation of proof of stake"

Therefore, you are just confused, and your question "Did Bitshares change from DPoS to PoS?" doesn't make any sense, since Bitshares is a PoS system, and more specifically a DPoS system. Just like Bitcoin is a currency, and more specifically a crypto-currency. Do you understand now?

[jonald_fyookball]

pretty sure the core devs all agree, pow is the only proven secure method to achieve distributed consensus.

How could they not? since they are entrenched in the PoW mindset, and is confrontational when even someone mentions PoS. But the reality has PROVEN, that PoS is more secure and more community friendly (due to not having to transfer value out of the eco-system).

what proof do you speak of?

1. Many PoW altcoin has been 51% attacked, to the point the Dev just given up fighting back. Zero PoS altcoin has been successfully attacked so far.

2. In the altcoin competition, the PoS eco-systems has naturally risen to the top, on coinmarketcap right now, #4,#6,#7 are PoS, and #10 is a subsidiary of #4.

#1 Bitcoin, #3 Litecoin has early mover advantage, #2 Ripple is a scam that is non-PoW and non-PoS. I expect Litecoin will soon lose to a PoS eco-system in less than a year.

If Bitcoin keeps PoW, it'll be next, in 3-4 years time probably. This is because PoS re-invest in the community and eco-system, PoW transfers value out of the community and eco-system, into the pockets of hardware vendor/electric company.

Proof of Stakes rely on central checkpointing, (and therefore aren't
distributed. )  And they are vulnerable to nothing at stake
attacks.  

Perhaps PoS haven't been successfully attacked but
I don't believe it is scalable.  

Nope, just the contrary, PoW relies on centralized checkpointing, Bitcoin has checkpointing. PoS does not need centralized checkpointing because it's so hard to attack it, Peercoin is now fading out the checkpointing, because PoS has taken over the network, and PoW is fading out. BitsharesX, a pure PoS system, has no checkpointing.

NAS attack against a PoS system is pretty much fictional. When I asked why it haven't happened yet in reality, Gavin's reply was basically "people might not have figured out a good way to attack or built the tools to attack it yet". Well I'll believe it when I see it, so far I haven't seen it happen in reality, though you are welcome to change my mind, go initiate a NAS attack on a PoS system, see how far you could get.

I could attack any smaller PoW altcoin right now, with just a handful of ASIC machines. The weakness of PoW security is PROVEN, and exists in reality. All the PoS attack theories are UNPROVEN, and doesn't exist in reality.

So I'm not sure why Bitcoin is sticking to a proven insecure system, with $500 million current annual expense. But not adopt a system that have no security issue in reality, and has nearly no expense.

Believe whatever you want to believe.  NaS makes sense to me.  I can see how its a problem.
"I'll believe it when I see it" applies to me too.  When a PoS coin overtakes Bitcoin, let me know.

Later.

[cbeast]

pretty sure the core devs all agree, pow is the only proven secure method to achieve distributed consensus.

How could they not? since they are entrenched in the PoW mindset, and is confrontational when even someone mentions PoS. But the reality has PROVEN, that PoS is more secure and more community friendly (due to not having to transfer value out of the eco-system).

what proof do you speak of?

1. Many PoW altcoin has been 51% attacked, to the point the Dev just given up fighting back. Zero PoS altcoin has been successfully attacked so far.

2. In the altcoin competition, the PoS eco-systems has naturally risen to the top, on coinmarketcap right now, #4,#6,#7 are PoS, and #10 is a subsidiary of #4.

#1 Bitcoin, #3 Litecoin has early mover advantage, #2 Ripple is a scam that is non-PoW and non-PoS. I expect Litecoin will soon lose to a PoS eco-system in less than a year.

If Bitcoin keeps PoW, it'll be next, in 3-4 years time probably. This is because PoS re-invest in the community and eco-system, PoW transfers value out of the community and eco-system, into the pockets of hardware vendor/electric company.

Proof of Stakes rely on central checkpointing, (and therefore aren't
distributed. )  And they are vulnerable to nothing at stake
attacks.  

Perhaps PoS haven't been successfully attacked but
I don't believe it is scalable.  

Nope, just the contrary, PoW relies on centralized checkpointing, Bitcoin has checkpointing. PoS does not need centralized checkpointing because it's so hard to attack it, Peercoin is now fading out the checkpointing, because PoS has taken over the network, and PoW is fading out. BitsharesX, a pure PoS system, has no checkpointing.

NAS attack against a PoS system is pretty much fictional. When I asked why it haven't happened yet in reality, Gavin's reply was basically "people might not have figured out a good way to attack or built the tools to attack it yet". Well I'll believe it when I see it, so far I haven't seen it happen in reality, though you are welcome to change my mind, go initiate a NAS attack on a PoS system, see how far you could get.

I could attack any smaller PoW altcoin right now, with just a handful of ASIC machines. The weakness of PoW security is PROVEN, and exists in reality. All the PoS attack theories are UNPROVEN, and doesn't exist in reality.

So I'm not sure why Bitcoin is sticking to a proven insecure system, with $500 million current annual expense. But not adopt a system that have no security issue in reality, and has nearly no expense.

Believe whatever you want to believe.  NaS makes sense to me.  I can see how its a problem.
"I'll believe it when I see it" applies to me too.  When a PoS coin overtakes Bitcoin, let me know.

Later.

People make a big deal about checkpoint thing. They are a temporary solution and only used for the oldest blocks that had a much lower difficulty. PoW was an ingenious invention, but it isn't finished yet. Bitcoin will soon not even need the checkpoints at all. Bitcoin is evolving while some unqualified programmers are creating mysql apps and their cronies are calling them cryptocurrencies. What a joke.

[Waramp22]

PoS miner are by definition, stake holders in the eco-system. The bigger the miner, the bigger his stake in the system, and therefore the bigger the interest to protect the system. This is why naturally, PoS eco-system has never been attacked, even the tiniest PoS altcoin has not been successfully attacked. Because no one is stupid enough to destroy their own stake and wealth.

Spending millions of dollars on ASICs to attempt a 51% attack on the currency that the ASICs were designed to mine is a terrible investment. It is only profitable if you have tons of cash laying around to short bitcoin.

If they are trying to get rid of bitcoin all together, it would be cheaper to lobby the government to make it illegal.

[cbeast]

The ASIC attack: design a cheaper, faster, more efficient ASIC. Fund it with someone that wants to spend millions to destroy Bitcoin. Create more ASICs and flood the general market because you don't want to go out of business if your market dries up. Bad agent is unable to attack Bitcoin. Bad agent changes strategy to make Bitcoins instead. Everybody wins.