PoS is far inferior to PoW - why are so many people advocating switching to PoS

[Ix]

This is not accurate. All decentralized consensus algos are vulnerable to 51% attacks whether it be PoS or PoW. Someone with enough hash power to 51% a PoW network can do so forever, or until the PoW network forks and changes PoW algos. Someone with 51% stake of a PoS coin can 51% the coin forever, or until the PoS network forks and burns the attacker's stake.

I disagree, the whitepaper showing otherwise is in my signature. Although it depends on what you mean by "51% attack". Reversing a secured transaction - 0% probability as long as one stake is honest. Delaying transactions - can be delayed 2x the average while controlling 50% of the stake, hardly impressive.

[1714734968]

1714734968

[1714734968]

1714734968

[1714734968]

1714734968

[Fernandez]

Even though on the surface two schemes might seem somewhat similar, they are fundamentally different:
PoW - neutrality, freedom of innovation, hacker mentality, equality of opportunity, game of skills
PoS - entrenched interests, corruptible humans, oppression, inheritance of wealth, game of luck

Shining example of how financial interest messes up judgment. Keep sticking to it and you will remain wondering how the PoS coins are getting more and more marketcaps.

[newuser01]

http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-and-mining/

[devphp]

http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-and-mining/

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2miytv/long_live_proofofwork_long_live_mining/

and be sure to read Vitalik Buterin's comment.

[Fernandez]

http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-and-mining/

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2miytv/long_live_proofofwork_long_live_mining/

and be sure to read Vitalik Buterin's comment.

Yet he is putting Ethereum on some form of PoW. Or maybe he is now stung by XCP and wants to try something new to get the attention.

[LiQio]

PoS means the rich get richer automatically. Sounds great... if you're rich.

Sounds better than never breaking even with your mining equipment if your poor, as well.

We can conclude that PoS is better for the rich and the poor 

[Daedelus]

PoS means the rich get richer automatically. Sounds great... if you're rich.

In NXT power belongs to stake holder and it yields + 0.5%.
In BTC power belongs to third parties and it yields -10.0%.

[Cheesus]

Answering the question in the title: it's easy - no one wants to spend their money on mining equipment that is constantly getting cheaper.

Another reason is - few people already have A LOT of hashing power and they get an advantage compared to a regular folk. And regular folk is not happy with this fact at all

[EyesWideOpen]

This is not accurate. All decentralized consensus algos are vulnerable to 51% attacks whether it be PoS or PoW. Someone with enough hash power to 51% a PoW network can do so forever, or until the PoW network forks and changes PoW algos. Someone with 51% stake of a PoS coin can 51% the coin forever, or until the PoS network forks and burns the attacker's stake.

I disagree, the whitepaper showing otherwise is in my signature. Although it depends on what you mean by "51% attack". Reversing a secured transaction - 0% probability as long as one stake is honest. Delaying transactions - can be delayed 2x the average while controlling 50% of the stake, hardly impressive.

Your whitepaper is three-years-old behind current thinking. Using terms like 'voices' just to look different makes it look shallow.
Is IGotSpots your brother?

[EyesWideOpen]

Answering the question in the title: it's easy - no one wants to spend their money on mining equipment that is constantly getting cheaper.

Another reason is - few people already have A LOT of hashing power and they get an advantage compared to a regular folk. And regular folk is not happy with this fact at all

It is a complex question, but the main thing is this.

In POS, wealth becomes more concentrated at the top over time and there is no way to break your way into the economy without the 'permission' of existing stakeholders.

In POW, although mining costs can and usually become prohibitive, there is always an entry into the economy.

[LiQio]

... there is always an entry into the economy.

It doesn't really matter if you cannot enter at all or if you can enter and receive only a marginally low share (close to zero) at extremely high costs.

There's better options for both cases and in the long run both cases will be solved by the market.

Let's call it a draw.

[phillipsjk]

... there is always an entry into the economy.

It doesn't really matter if you cannot enter at all or if you can enter and receive only a marginally low share (close to zero) at extremely high costs.

There's better options for both cases and in the long run both cases will be solved by the market.

Let's call it a draw.

In the orchestrated bank take-over scenario I outline up-thread, it makes a huge difference.

If Bitcoin is converted to PoS, the banks can take control by printing unlimited money. If Bitcoin remains PoW, they can still buy that vast majority of coins, but everybody will have a trump card. If the price gets too high, you can simply start mining instead of buying on the open market.

It may be that mining becomes so expensive that only nation-states can do it. That would still be an improvement over what we have now.

Edit: added link to the "The American Dream" animated short film about the history of Central Banks in the USA. They briefly mention Great Britain as well.

[LiQio]

^
Could you elaborate: What would be the final goal of the banks?

[devphp]

If Bitcoin remains PoW, they can still buy that vast majority of coins, but everybody will have a trump card.

You know perfectly well, that the overwhelming majority of people will never mine any bitcoins and will never be able to compete with professional miners, just like majority of people don't compete with professional miners of natural resources. What matters for the majority of people is unique use cases. How the crypto currency came into existence doesn't matter for them if they have to buy it anyway, as long as it's a decentralized blockchain, distributed consensus and secure network - that's all that matters.

[markm]

SCammers advocate PoS because they cannot secure their blockchains.

With Proof of Work is is blatantly obvious they will never be able to secure their blockchain, so instead they obfuscate about Proof of Stake, pretending that somehow Proof of Stake will let their garbage scamcoin be secure even though it of course will not be secure.

It is all about the scam, selling people insecure garbage. The more people become aware that Proof of Stake is not secure, the more newfangled scammy "secure the blockchain" methods get made up, all in the attampt to sell yet another insecure pile of crap by obfuscating the fact it is insecure crap.

TL;DR it is easier to fool idiots into thinking your garbage-coin is secure if you use Proof of Stake so scammers prefer Proof of Stake when creating new scamcoins.

-MarkM-

[devphp]

SCammers advocate PoS because they cannot secure their blockchains.

With Proof of Work is is blatantly obvious they will never be able to secure their blockchain, so instead they obfuscate about Proof of Stake, pretending that somehow Proof of Stake will let their garbage scamcoin be secure even though it of course will not be secure.

It is all about the scam, selling people insecure garbage. The more people become aware that Proof of Stake is not secure, the more newfangled scammy "secure the blockchain" methods get made up, all in the attampt to sell yet another insecure pile of crap by obfuscating the fact it is insecure crap.

TL;DR it is easier to fool idiots into thinking your garbage-coin is secure if you use Proof of Stake so scammers prefer Proof of Stake when creating new scamcoins.

-MarkM-

Next time you should double the number of words 'scam', 'insecure', 'crap' and so on, it will sound even more dramatic

[cryptogeeknext]

Even though on the surface two schemes might seem somewhat similar, they are fundamentally different:
PoW - neutrality, freedom of innovation, hacker mentality, equality of opportunity, game of skills
PoS - entrenched interests, corruptible humans, oppression, inheritance of wealth, game of luck

Shining example of how financial interest messes up judgment. Keep sticking to it and you will remain wondering how the PoS coins are getting more and more marketcaps.

I prefer to diversify enough to not let any personal bias get in the way of my judgement.
But it's not about me and it's not about you either, it's about what we are going to tell future generations.

This is a junction point in history again, when you can become a stakeholder overlord if you want to, but little do those wannabe overlords know that winning in a rigged game ain't fun.

PoS means the rich get richer automatically. Sounds great... if you're rich.

On a certain level it's no longer about wealth, it's about control.
PoS allows to maintain control over money flow at no cost without letting any competition get in the way.
In PoW neutral algorithm judges the competition.

I do think that PoS has merit and a niche in the future. People will find it useful for sub-groups in society and companies will use it for managing their assets and shares. But organisizng an entire universal money system as PoS with select major stakeholders established in the beginning is simply asking for trouble. In that sense PoS is not much different than today's fiat.

[yourstruly]

PoS means the rich get richer automatically. Sounds great... if you're rich.

That is how the current system is too, only rich people were able to afford massive server farms to mine Bitcoin and those with greater access to manufacturing are now having more control of the network by running it.

In proof of stake, the clients that people use are the things powering the network again, it better captures Satoshi's original vision of crypto currencies being run by a distributed network of users. Also on Blackcoin the amount you gain per year is 1%, almost makes it like a savings account which is nice considering you must use electricity to run your computer with the client. I originally thought exactly the same thought when I first heard the idea but when I read more about it I discovered that had been considered in the specifications of Blackcoin.

[phillipsjk]

^
Could you elaborate: What would be the final goal of the banks?

In short: power.
They can print all the money they want.

If that mischievous financial policy which had its origin in the North American Republic [debt-free money] should become indurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without a debt to the International Bankers. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe!

We have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks. They are not government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers. This evil institution has impoverished the people of the United States and has practically bankrupted our government, and it has done this through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.

The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government, all under their control. Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent.

For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.

We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.

Quotes pulled from here.

[cryptogeeknext]

Answering the question in the title: it's easy - no one wants to spend their money on mining equipment that is constantly getting cheaper.

Another reason is - few people already have A LOT of hashing power and they get an advantage compared to a regular folk. And regular folk is not happy with this fact at all

It is a complex question, but the main thing is this.

In POS, wealth becomes more concentrated at the top over time and there is no way to break your way into the economy without the 'permission' of existing stakeholders.

In POW, although mining costs can and usually become prohibitive, there is always an entry into the economy.

... there is always an entry into the economy.

It doesn't really matter if you cannot enter at all or if you can enter and receive only a marginally low share (close to zero) at extremely high costs.

There's better options for both cases and in the long run both cases will be solved by the market.

Let's call it a draw.

In the orchestrated bank take-over scenario I outline up-thread, it makes a huge difference.

If Bitcoin is converted to PoS, the banks can take control by printing unlimited money. If Bitcoin remains PoW, they can still buy that vast majority of coins, but everybody will have a trump card. If the price gets too high, you can simply start mining instead of buying on the open market.

It may be that mining becomes so expensive that only nation-states can do it. That would still be an improvement over what we have now.

Edit: added link to the "The American Dream" animated short film about the history of Central Banks in the USA. They briefly mention Great Britain as well.

Bingo!
I'm glad there are still people who get the point!

If Bitcoin remains PoW, they can still buy that vast majority of coins, but everybody will have a trump card.

You know perfectly well, that the overwhelming majority of people will never mine any bitcoins and will never be able to compete with professional miners, just like majority of people don't compete with professional miners of natural resources. What matters for the majority of people is unique use cases. How the crypto currency came into existence doesn't matter for them if they have to buy it anyway, as long as it's a decentralized blockchain, distributed consensus and secure network - that's all that matters.

The overwhelming majority might never feel the need to mine, but knowing that they can if they want to without permission, makes all the difference between PoW and PoS.