Proof of stake mining of bicoin

[inBitweTrust]

History has shown that B tends increase when inflation drops with Bitcoin.

Let me to disagree with your interpretation of the historical facts. More likely that you overlooked other factors that contributed their [much higher] weights.

I am aware of those variables. Are you aware that neither of us have enough data to give an accurate reflection and projection of the weight of each of these variables?

[Come-from-Beyond]

One good point.
I believe there are multiple weaknesses within PoW.
Do you believe there is any security advantages intrinsic within PoW, which PoS lacks? (whether or not PoS is superior to PoW overall is another question)

No, I believe that PoW is equal to PoS if we measure all pros and cons. PoW or PoS is just a matter of trade-offs.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Are you aware that neither of us have enough data to give an accurate reflection and projection of the weight of each of these variables?

Yes, I think the same.

[jonald_fyookball]

Proof of stake seeks security without cost,
but the laws of economics say that security
costs will always rise to meet the rewards...

Laws of Economics are not universal, they are environment dependent. Change environment (this is what cryptos do) and you will change the laws.

Right now we observe that there are some PoS systems that consume almost no electricity but have not been successfully attacked yet (and the reward is very appealing). Your statement contradicts to observations and this makes me suspect that you are wrong...

...And if you don't want rewards to secure the
system, then you'd be taking away one of
the most important aspects of Bitcoin's security model,
which is incentivizing people to honestly participate
in the network instead of attacking it.

Noone proved that Bitcoin's security model is the only viable one.

not sure if you mean reward as in block reward or just the fact that alts have a market value.
eventually Bitcoin will run only on transaction fees, similar to how nxt does it now, in that the
security cost will become equal to the transaction fees in both cases (unless you don't believe
people will try to game the system to compete for maximum profits).  

So, then the question becomes: what is the security cost during the issuance phase?
While it may be true that a major PoS alt hasn't been successfully attacked,
we don't know if this approach can scale or that people want it.  

As others have said, these alt coins already exist, so all we need do
is wait and see what unfolds.  if the PoS system is indeed viable and superior
as some claim, we should see it start to gobble up market share...right?

[inBitweTrust]

No, I believe that PoW is equal to PoS if we measure all pros and cons. PoW or PoS is just a matter of trade-offs.

Yes, I agree that DPoS, TPoS , PoS all have unique security benefits that PoW lacks as well.
PoW has some security aspects that PoS lacks too. Unfortunately(from a perspective of curiosity), since Bitcoin has such a large lead and a much better network effect we are unlikely to see an fair battle between the two as history has shown that technologies must have a significant competitive
advantage to be able topple the established incumbent with such a sizable lead.

I.E.. dvorak keyboard is superior to qwerty but not significant enough to change peoples behaviors.

I am not suggesting PoS is slightly superior either but merely the fact that any alt has to be shown to be significantly superior to Bitcoin in order to catchup.

[johnyj]

So you really think majority of hash power having full control of the protocol is better then stake holders leading the coin development? Are you serious?

To control the majority of hash power, you must put real resources and might still fail due to slow in movement, it is much more difficult than controlling a few stake holders. Imagine that once bitcoin is becoming POS, then top 10 stake holders will immediately enter the watch list of CIA

Yes i agree with you, it is ACTUALLY more difficult to control majority of bitcoin hash power then a few major stake holders of a 1 year old POS coin.
However it will not always stay the same, as POW mining reward decreases and POS coins get more distributed the former becomes weaker and the latter becomes stronger.
If you try to attack two coins with the same market cap, one is POS and the other one is POW, you will probably end up wasting a lot more resources attacking the POS.
POW ages like milk, POS ages like wine.

No one will attack PoS coins, it cost nothing to make, it does not have any value, why attack it? Do you ever want to attack bitcoin when it was worth nothing during 2009? Bitcoin's value grows together with the mining cost, however for PoS coins I can not see how its value can grow without its cost growing. And once it has a cost, it will waste energy

[inBitweTrust]

No one will attack PoS coins, it cost nothing to make, it does not have any value, why attack it? Do you ever want to attack bitcoin when it was worth nothing during 2009? Bitcoin's value grows together with the mining cost, however for PoS coins I can not see how its value can grow without its cost growing. And once it has a cost, it will waste energy

This fallacious and the same flawed line of reasoning goldbugs use against bitcoin when they speak of intrinsic value. PoS coins have value because the marketplace dictates so based upon both utility and speculation.

Even if you believe they lack value and hate them they still have value because someone else values it. If someone dumped 100 paycoins2 ponzicoins on me I would gladly take them because it would be worth my time dumping them for fiat or BTC on an exchange.

The reason why PoS tends to be secure is that with most marketplaces a majority of the coins is held by the founders and developers who have a vested financial and emotional stake in the viability of their project and thus are unlikely to attack it. This also leaves PoS/DPoS with some of the same security vulnerabilities as PoW and centralized mining pools where a small group of people can be compromised to attack the network.

[cbeast]

No. The supply was fixed in 2009.

You misplaced plans and their realization.

Who's plans were misplaced and where were they supposed to be?

[cbeast]

PoS coins have value because the marketplace dictates so based upon both utility and speculation.

This is mostly true and why I am a big fan of PoS coins. I think every Central Bank should have one.

[inBitweTrust]

PoS coins have value because the marketplace dictates so based upon both utility and speculation.

This is mostly true and why I am a big fan of PoS coins. I think every Central Bank should have one.

Fiat really is an archaic form of PoS.  Centralization also has advantages over decentralization. Decentralization is very costly and inefficient.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

No. The supply was fixed in 2009.

You misplaced plans and their realization.

Who's plans were misplaced and where were they supposed to be?

The price of BTC reflects the current float not the anticipated max 21 million Bitcoin limit.

PoS coins have value because the marketplace dictates so based upon both utility and speculation.

This is mostly true and why I am a big fan of PoS coins. I think every Central Bank should have one.

They already own Bitcoin.  Why not PoS coins too?

[LeChatNoir]

No, I believe that PoW is equal to PoS if we measure all pros and cons. PoW or PoS is just a matter of trade-offs.

Unfortunately(from a perspective of curiosity), since Bitcoin has such a large lead and a much better network effect we are unlikely to see an fair battle between the two as history has shown that technologies must have a significant competitive
advantage to be able topple the established incumbent with such a sizable lead.

I am not suggesting PoS is slightly superior either but merely the fact that any alt has to be shown to be significantly superior to Bitcoin in order to catchup.

This is wrong i think.
Imagine you have two coins only.
Coin A is POW, it is 10 years old, it has 100 billion market cap, it has 5% inflation, it costs 1 billion to attack it and every merchant on earth accepts it.
Coin B is POS, it is 5 years old, it has 1 billion market cap, it has 0% inflation, it costs 1 billion to attack it and no merchant accepts it.
You can switch from one coin to the other one for free or very very cheaply.
In this scenario every rational investor would chose to have most of his savings in coin B and he would switch to coin A only when he needs to spend.
As time goes by almost everyone moves from coin A to coin B, coin B market cap grows to 100 billion, coin A is slowly abandoned, merchants forget about it and start to accept coin B only.
This is why i thin the coin that will win the crypto race is the coin which provides the strongest network at the lowest cost.
Network effect might not be enough to save bitcoin.

[inBitweTrust]

They already own Bitcoin.  Why not PoS coins too?

Ohh goodness, they really should bring back the rule of sand boxing newbie accounts . You are ignored my friend.

[cbeast]

PoS coins have value because the marketplace dictates so based upon both utility and speculation.

This is mostly true and why I am a big fan of PoS coins. I think every Central Bank should have one.

Fiat really is an archaic form of PoS.  Centralization also has advantages over decentralization. Decentralization is very costly and inefficient.

Decentralization is a form of chaos. The Bitcoin ecosystem is complex. Order emerges from complex chaos. It's called fractal.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

PoS coins have value because the marketplace dictates so based upon both utility and speculation.

This is mostly true and why I am a big fan of PoS coins. I think every Central Bank should have one.

Fiat really is an archaic form of PoS.  Centralization also has advantages over decentralization. Decentralization is very costly and inefficient.

How is PoS a form of fiat?  The government tells me that I have to use NXT and assigns a value to it?

Decentralization is only "costly and inefficient" in the constructs of PoW.

They already own Bitcoin.  Why not PoS coins too?

Ohh goodness, they really should bring back the rule of sand boxing newbie accounts . You are ignored my friend.

Uh Oh... I spoke the unspeakable truth.

[inBitweTrust]

This is wrong i think.
Imagine you have two coins only.
Coin A is POW, it is 10 years old, it has 100 billion market cap, it has 5% inflation, it costs 1 billion to attack it and every merchant on earth accepts it.
Coin B is POS, it is 5 years old, it has 1 billion market cap, it has 0% inflation, it costs 1 billion to attack it and no merchant accepts it.
You can switch from one coin to the other one for free or very very cheaply.
In this scenario every rational investor would chose to have most of his savings in coin B and he would switch to coin A only when he needs to spend.
As time goes by almost everyone moves from coin A to coin B, coin B market cap grows to 1 billion, coin A is abandoned and merchants forget about coin A and start to accept coin B only.
Network effect might not be enough to save bitcoin.

Bitcoin will have 6 % inflation in 2016, 5% inflation in 2017, 3% inflation in 2019, and 0.5% inflation in 2026




Well there certainly is a race a foot and we will see if other alts can play catchup when Bitcoin is slowly switching from mining hashes to secure the network to mining transactions to secure the network.

[cbeast]

They already own Bitcoin.  Why not PoS coins too?

Ohh goodness, they really should bring back the rule of sand boxing newbie accounts . You are ignored my friend.

The barbarians are at the gate. I guess it's up to honeybadger now, because the blue tail flies are here and Jimmy crack corn.

[LeChatNoir]

This is wrong i think.
Imagine you have two coins only.
Coin A is POW, it is 10 years old, it has 100 billion market cap, it has 5% inflation, it costs 1 billion to attack it and every merchant on earth accepts it.
Coin B is POS, it is 5 years old, it has 1 billion market cap, it has 0% inflation, it costs 1 billion to attack it and no merchant accepts it.
You can switch from one coin to the other one for free or very very cheaply.
In this scenario every rational investor would chose to have most of his savings in coin B and he would switch to coin A only when he needs to spend.
As time goes by almost everyone moves from coin A to coin B, coin B market cap grows to 1 billion, coin A is abandoned and merchants forget about coin A and start to accept coin B only.
Network effect might not be enough to save bitcoin.

Bitcoin will have 6 % inflation in 2016, 5% inflation in 2017, 3% inflation in 2019, and 0.5% inflation in 2026

Well there certainly is a race a foot and we will see if other alts can play catchup when Bitcoin is slowly switching from mining hashes to secure the network to mining transactions to secure the network.

You clearly didn't understand what i was trying to say.
POW is not stable with low or 0% inflation and the entire cost of network security pushed on those who make transactions, it simply cannot work properly.
For a POW coin to be stable and reliable cost to attack must be proportional to market cap and it must be paid by stakeholders via a constant inflation.

[inBitweTrust]

You clearly didn't understand what i was trying to say.
POW is not stable with low or 0% inflation and the entire cost of network security pushed on those who make transactions,it simply cannot work properly.

I understand you, just think you are making up facts and speculating.

Where is your evidence that Bitcoin cannot pay for security with low inflation and high transaction volume?

[J. J. Phillips]

I'm proposing to really fork bitcoin to create a bitcoinPOS.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=906176

The reason? Annoyance.

I look forward to next week's thread on POS vs. POW in which most of the same people write most of the same things.