$5000 per coin will never happen if PoW mining is allowed to continue

[bitcool]

Again, you are confused if you think PoW distribution is fair, and PoS must be unfair. I admit PoW distribution is "easy", but it might not be fair. PoS distribution requires more thought and design, but a properly designed distribution can be made more "fair" than a PoW distribution.

Please show me a PoS distribution model that you consider more "fair" than Bitcoin/Litecoin/Dogecoin...

I could think of a number of distribution models better than Bitcoin. For example, distribution by donation to development effort and bounties. So instead of paying $500 million to miners/pools/hardware/electricty company. These money can be used to:
1. fund Bitcoin development and propel it fast forward
2. pay for people to build more Bitcoin infrastructure to benefit the Bitcoin eco-system.
3. pay the PoS miners for running a full node and processing transactions (ok I realize they are still miners, but they are by definition stakeholders of the eco-system)

I'm sure there are much more talented people who can think of new ideas better than these.

Sounds like you are describing Bitshares DPOS ... nice experiment but unfortunately any newcomers will feel the system setup is wildly unfair against them.

[kokojie]

Don't kid yourself, Bitcoin development is very much centralized, the users will accept whatever client distributed by Gavin Andressen, just like they will accept the upcoming block size hard fork, without realizing there are better solutions available to solve the problem.

That is not how the discussions work within Github and you are conveniently ignoring the other implementations.

I agree with some of your statements of the weaknesses and limitations of PoW and the inherent costs. What you fail to disclose are all the benefits.

Take for example another solution. Bitshares using DPoS. I was told by several active proponents that it is more secure and decentralized than Bitcoin and PoW and BTSX was a "True" deflationary currency because it would never grow beyond 1,999,883,512 coins. One month latter a one developer is able to leverage his time between a competing DAC to influence most of the delegates into a merger to create a capital infusion to help pay for development costs or his salary. So it looks like 2.5 billion will be the new number. I wonder how long that will remain true?

Good luck, raising the 21 million cap within bitcoin sir.

The bitshares merger is overwhelmingly approved by users and delegates. When was the last time Bitcoin development direction were put up for a vote by all users? was the blocksize hardfork put up for a vote by all Bitcoin users?

do you think the Bitcoin cap can't be raised if there's a need for it and users overwhelmingly approve? How is this even related to PoW vs PoS at all? in both system, the cap CAN be raised period

[Keyser Soze]

It sounds like you are just saying that the $500 million figure is roughly the current value of coins mined in one year and that miners will spend an amount slightly less then that on mining. However, there is no explanation on why you keep saying this money is "leaving the Bitcoin eco-system". Are you trying to say that if Bitcoin used POS, then this $500 million would instead be used to purchase coins?

Just tell me, if not the Bitcoin eco-system, who is paying for miner profit, pool fee, asic hardware cost/profit, electricity? are these money not leaving the eco-system? I'm pretty sure they are sitting in the bank accounts of the above, and not benefiting the eco-system.

and Yes, I am saying these money that are used to pay the above, will be instead used for the benefit of the Bitcoin eco-system.

Miners are obviously paying for the costs you mention, but we do not know if they would spend the same amount on buying coins (or whatever else may benefit the eco-system) if Bitcoin was POS. Surely this number is not 100%, correct? I would imagine that not all miners care about Bitcoin, but some are solely interested in dollar profit.

[kokojie]

It sounds like you are just saying that the $500 million figure is roughly the current value of coins mined in one year and that miners will spend an amount slightly less then that on mining. However, there is no explanation on why you keep saying this money is "leaving the Bitcoin eco-system". Are you trying to say that if Bitcoin used POS, then this $500 million would instead be used to purchase coins?

Just tell me, if not the Bitcoin eco-system, who is paying for miner profit, pool fee, asic hardware cost/profit, electricity? are these money not leaving the eco-system? I'm pretty sure they are sitting in the bank accounts of the above, and not benefiting the eco-system.

and Yes, I am saying these money that are used to pay the above, will be instead used for the benefit of the Bitcoin eco-system.

Miners are obviously paying for the costs you mention, but we do not know if they would spend the same amount on buying coins (or whatever else may benefit the eco-system) if Bitcoin was POS. Surely this number is not 100%, correct? I would imagine that not all miners care about Bitcoin, but some are solely interested in dollar profit.

You are just avoiding the question, the miner pays for all these expense, yes, but the miner gets the money from WHERE? certainly not their person savings I assume? lol

Why would the buyer care if the coin is produced by PoW mining or PoS mining? I can't understand your logic.

[inBitweTrust]

The bitshares merger is overwhelmingly approved by users and delegates. When was the last time Bitcoin development direction were put up for a vote by all users?

Yes, you are proving my point on how one person can quickly influence all the delegates within DPoS.

Your suggestions seem to be well intentioned but clearly show you are unfamiliar with developing open source software. If you try and mandate developers with majority voting you will simply scare them away and they will just work on other projects. Developers either are being paid to develop features by companies or donate their time because they enjoy supporting the ecosystem. Open source software is mainly based upon meritocracy not by majority opinion. If you feel strongly about implementing a certain feature than contribute code yourself , request a pull on github, or pay a developer to do so for you. Their are multiple stacks or implementations of bitcoin that interacts with the blockchain as well. You are encouraged to contribute to those if you don't agree with the direction the Bitcoin core developers are taking bitcoin. In fact, many of the Bitcoin core developers would welcome more development in various other implementations or stacks.

Open source development isn't about democracy, but more closely related to a form of anarchistic meritocracy.

[kokojie]

Again, you are confused if you think PoW distribution is fair, and PoS must be unfair. I admit PoW distribution is "easy", but it might not be fair. PoS distribution requires more thought and design, but a properly designed distribution can be made more "fair" than a PoW distribution.

Please show me a PoS distribution model that you consider more "fair" than Bitcoin/Litecoin/Dogecoin...

I could think of a number of distribution models better than Bitcoin. For example, distribution by donation to development effort and bounties. So instead of paying $500 million to miners/pools/hardware/electricty company. These money can be used to:
1. fund Bitcoin development and propel it fast forward
2. pay for people to build more Bitcoin infrastructure to benefit the Bitcoin eco-system.
3. pay the PoS miners for running a full node and processing transactions (ok I realize they are still miners, but they are by definition stakeholders of the eco-system)

I'm sure there are much more talented people who can think of new ideas better than these.

Sounds like you are describing Bitshares DPOS ... nice experiment but unfortunately any newcomers will feel the system setup is wildly unfair against them.

I don't see how Bitshares is unfair against newcomers, if anything, Bitcoin is currently wildly unfair against newcomers, there's a gigantic difference in buy price between early adopters and new comers. There goes your "fair" PoW distribution.

[kokojie]

The bitshares merger is overwhelmingly approved by users and delegates. When was the last time Bitcoin development direction were put up for a vote by all users?

Yes, you are proving my point on how one person can quickly influence all the delegates within DPoS.

Your suggestions seem to be well intentioned but clearly show you are unfamiliar with developing open source software. If you try and mandate developers with majority voting you will simply scare them away and they will just work on other projects. Developers either are being paid to develop features by companies or donate their time because they enjoy supporting the ecosystem. Open source software is mainly based upon meritocracy not by majority opinion. If you feel strongly about implementing a certain feature than contribute code yourself , request a pull on github, or pay a developer to do so for you. Their are multiple stacks or implementations of bitcoin that interacts with the blockchain as well. You are encouraged to contribute to those if you don't agree with the direction the Bitcoin core developers are taking bitcoin. In fact, many of the Bitcoin core developers would welcome more development in various other implementations or stacks.

Open source development isn't about democracy, but more closely related to a form of anarchistic meritocracy.

I don't get it, how is this different from Gaving Andressen influencing other developers into agreeing to a block size hardfork in Bitcoin? (without Bitcoin user approval voting btw). If the change is not beneficial to the eco-system, then users and delegates will vote against it, I don't see how one person can influence hundreds of others to do something against their interest.

[bitcool]

The bitshares merger is overwhelmingly approved by users and delegates. When was the last time Bitcoin development direction were put up for a vote by all users? was the blocksize hardfork put up for a vote by all Bitcoin users?

do you think the Bitcoin cap can't be raised if there's a need for it and users overwhelmingly approve? How is this even related to PoW vs PoS at all? in both system, the cap CAN be raised period

One man's trash is another man's treasure, I sold my stake of Bitshares every time there's a rule change (PoW to PoS, invention of PTS/AGS, proposed merge /dilution), which reflect the trust and confidence I have in the system.

I am not predicting the failure of Bitshares, I just don't feel like playing a game that rules constantly change.  

Edit: Selling stake in Bitshares included its predecessor PTS. 3i created AGS (and subsequent BTSX) because they lost the competition in PTS mining.  

[DumbFruit]

I don't know if you're trolling, or ignorant, but Proof of Stake cannot be used for distributed consensus. If you are not interested in distributed consensus, then there is absolutely no reason to use Proof of Stake as there are many centralized solutions that are otherwise superior.

https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/asic-faq.pdf

[inBitweTrust]

I don't see how Bitshares is unfair against newcomers, if anything, Bitcoin is currently wildly unfair against newcomers, there's a gigantic difference in buy price between early adopters and new comers. There goes your "fair" PoW distribution.

Ohh, come one. It is well known that PoW provides a good mechanism for distribution. Even Daniel created protoshares to take advantage of this fact. Lets be a bit more honest here. You are right to correct some misstatements made by Bitcoin PoW proponents but you don't need to stretch the truth in the opposite direction to get your point across.

[kokojie]

The bitshares merger is overwhelmingly approved by users and delegates. When was the last time Bitcoin development direction were put up for a vote by all users? was the blocksize hardfork put up for a vote by all Bitcoin users?

do you think the Bitcoin cap can't be raised if there's a need for it and users overwhelmingly approve? How is this even related to PoW vs PoS at all? in both system, the cap CAN be raised period

One man's trash is another man's treasure, I sold my stake of Bitshares every time there's a rule change (PoW to PoS, invention of PTS/AGS, proposed merge /dilution), which reflect the trust and confidence I have in the system.

I am not predicting the failure of Bitshares, I just don't feel like playing a game that rules constantly change.  

1. There was never a change from PoW, since there was never PoW in Bitshares.
2. PTS/AGS were distribution methods, and existed way before Bitshares, so not sure how you could sell Bitshares when it doesn't exist.

[fryarminer]

Let me wrap my head around this. So, what you're saying is if $500 million worth of BTC is dumped into circulation within the Eco-system, this will RAISE??? the value of Bitcoin, as opposed to trading that for cash?


Oh, and you just got owned by a noob. No offense Willow!

pools/miners/asic hardware vendor are not outside the bitcoin ecosystem in my eyes, they are part of it.

<snip> SHA512 <snip> SHA512 <snip> SHA512 ....

It's SHA256D.

[kokojie]

I don't see how Bitshares is unfair against newcomers, if anything, Bitcoin is currently wildly unfair against newcomers, there's a gigantic difference in buy price between early adopters and new comers. There goes your "fair" PoW distribution.

Ohh, come one. It is well known that PoW provides a good mechanism for distribution. Even Daniel created protoshares to take advantage of this fact. Lets be a bit more honest here. You are right to correct some misstatements made by Bitcoin PoW proponents but you don't need to stretch the truth in the opposite direction to get your point across.

No, as I explained, it's well known that PoW provides an "easy" mechanism for distribution, or I might even call it "lazy" mechanism. Because it's inflexible and transfers value out of the eco-system.

PoS distribution, with careful design and thought, can be made better than PoW distribution, but the Developers need to do more work, that's all.

[inBitweTrust]

do you think the Bitcoin cap can't be raised if there's a need for it and users overwhelmingly approve? How is this even related to PoW vs PoS at all? in both system, the cap CAN be raised period

Within DPoS the delegates are also in control of the protocol itself. Within Bitcoin PoW the power dynamics are split between the miners, asic manufactures, users and nodes, and developers. Additionally, Bitcoin has a very large network effect where a critical mass has been created to introduce many competing interests and involvement unlike with many alts.

Within DPoS you have a mixture of the users/stakeholders and delegates/developers controlling the power with a very dangerous arrangement of only a few developers controlling most of the direction compared to Bitcoin.

[redsn0w]

#kokojie
So did you think the PoW system ( at the moment) is an error ? Which is the better algorithm for you ?

It is not an error, but just a system that is behind the times. Would you be still using VHS tapes, when netflix streaming is available?

If Bitcoin switch to PoS system, all its rules and function will still be the same, just that it will no longer expend $500 million USD in value every year, to pay miners/pools/hardware vendors/electricity companies. All that money will stay in the Bitcoin eco-system, for the benefit of the eco-system.

Your thinking is correct , but if the bitcoin will lose the PoW part I think it will lose all  its (actual) "price" and ( I don't hope this) its value il drop to $ 100/150.

This will be an hard fork and I think not all the users/miners will accept this fork.

Don't kid yourself, Bitcoin development is very much centralized, the users will accept whatever client distributed by Gavin Andressen, just like they will accept the upcoming block size hard fork, without realizing there are better solutions available to solve the problem.

This is  only my personal opinion , the  actual value/price of bitcoin is correlated to the PoW system That's sure .

[kokojie]

do you think the Bitcoin cap can't be raised if there's a need for it and users overwhelmingly approve? How is this even related to PoW vs PoS at all? in both system, the cap CAN be raised period

Within Bitcoin PoW the delegates are also in control of the protocol itself. the power dynamics are split between the miners, asic manufactures, users and nodes, and developers. Additionally, Bitcoin has a very large network effect where a critical mass has been created to introduce many competing interests and involvement unlike with many alts.

Within DPoS you have a mixture of the users/stakeholders and delegates/developers controlling the power with a very dangerous arrangement of only a few developers controlling most of the direction compared to Bitcoin.

Don't kid yourself, the users, since they are overwhelmingly in favor of the change, will accept the cap raise. The miners will do nothing and also accept the cap raise, because the miners will usually do whatever the users are in favor of. Also, since it's actually beneficial to the miners to raise the cap, why would they oppose it. So there, your Bitcoin cap raise, done!

[DumbFruit]

Would people stop saying that somehow PoW imputes value into the coin because of it's costs? That reflects about 13th century economic thinking and is embarrassing to read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value

Edit: 13th century

[redsn0w]

Would people stop saying that somehow PoW imputes value into the coin because of it's costs? That reflects about 12th century economic thinking and is embarrassing to read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value

I've told PoW = mining , asic , cost of electricity, etc....  And I also told :

This is  only my personal opinion , the  actual value/price of bitcoin is correlated to the PoW system That's sure .

[kokojie]

Would people stop saying that somehow PoW imputes value into the coin because of it's costs? That reflects about 12th century economic thinking and is embarrassing to read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value

Not only that, the miner shills are insulting everyone else, by claiming their useless PoW mining is the sole reason Bitcoin has any value.

So I guess Satoshi Nakamoto's work had no value, all the Bitcoin developer's work had no value, all the people that built infrastructure, ran full nodes etc... had no value. It really infuriates me.

[inBitweTrust]

Don't kid yourself, the users, since they are overwhelmingly in favor of the change, will accept the cap raise. The miners will do nothing and also accept the cap raise, because the miners will usually do whatever the users are in favor of. Also, since it's actually beneficial to the miners to raise the cap, why would they oppose it. So there, your Bitcoin cap raise, done!

So you are suggesting the users are incentivized to lower the value of their savings and damage the credibility of one of the foundational principles of bitcoin that is considered a Prohibited change (Requiring unanimous consent where even 1 user objection will block the switch) ?
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Prohibited_changes#Require_unanimous_consent

Lets lay the cards out on the table.

Why are many of the delegates within Bitshares motivated to merge and inflate the monetary supply but not all the users?

How would this change be much more difficult to accomplish with Bitcoin than Bitshares?