Proof of stake mining of bicoin

[jonald_fyookball]

One of several great things about 100% PoW is that it isn't ideal as a scam/ponzi/P&D coin because distribution is open to anyone doing the work, is expensive and any weak PoW currencies who don't capture the interest of the public with true innovation quickly get attacked because they don't have the mining hashrate to sustain against an aggressor.

You can easily spot a scammy PoW coin by it having a extremely sharp rather than gradual distribution curve - I.E... Quark.

It seems to me that (unlike PoS) PoW must be a ponzi scheme or ever-inflating, otherwise it will be unsustainable.

Distribution model (rate of issuance) and security model (PoS vs PoW) are two different things.  And "Ponzi scheme"
is something else entirely.

[Argwai96]

One of several great things about 100% PoW is that it isn't ideal as a scam/ponzi/P&D coin because distribution is open to anyone doing the work, is expensive and any weak PoW currencies who don't capture the interest of the public with true innovation quickly get attacked because they don't have the mining hashrate to sustain against an aggressor.

You can easily spot a scammy PoW coin by it having a extremely sharp rather than gradual distribution curve - I.E... Quark.

It seems to me that (unlike PoS) PoW must be a ponzi scheme or ever-inflating, otherwise it will be unsustainable.

PoW is not a ponzi, if you have any understanding how PoW works then you will know this is the case.

PoW will only be inflating until all of the units have been received via the block subsidies at which point the miners will receive block rewards from TX fees, which is the same how PoS coins reward their "miners"

[Come-from-Beyond]

PoW is not a ponzi, if you have any understanding how PoW works then you will know this is the case.

PoW will only be inflating until all of the units have been received via the block subsidies at which point the miners will receive block rewards from TX fees, which is the same how PoS coins reward their "miners"

If people stop buying BTC then miners will stop mining. How is it different from a ponzi scheme?

[jonald_fyookball]

PoW is not a ponzi, if you have any understanding how PoW works then you will know this is the case.

PoW will only be inflating until all of the units have been received via the block subsidies at which point the miners will receive block rewards from TX fees, which is the same how PoS coins reward their "miners"

If people stop buying BTC then miners will stop mining. How is it different from a ponzi scheme?

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#Is_Bitcoin_a_Ponzi_scheme.3F

[Come-from-Beyond]

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#Is_Bitcoin_a_Ponzi_scheme.3F

The link doesn't asnwer, also Bitcoin Wiki is not a credible source of information on anything that criticizes Bitcoin.

[jonald_fyookball]

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#Is_Bitcoin_a_Ponzi_scheme.3F

The link doesn't asnwer, also Bitcoin Wiki is not a credible source of information on anything that criticizes Bitcoin.

If people stop valueing a coin, yes it becomes worthless, duh.  True for PoW,PoS, proof of whatever...

That's not what a ponzi scheme is.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

[Come-from-Beyond]

That's not what a ponzi scheme is.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

Read http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm and ask yourself - what if Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme but "mutated" because Bitcoin is a decentralized entity.

[jonald_fyookball]

That's not what a ponzi scheme is.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

Read http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm and ask yourself - what if Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme but "mutated" because Bitcoin is a decentralized entity.

The SEC page says essentially the same as the wikipedia page:

A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors.

If you want to mutate the definition of a Ponzi scheme, than anything could be one.
I'm not going to debate "is Bitcoin a ponzi scheme".

[Come-from-Beyond]

I'm not going to debate "is Bitcoin a ponzi scheme".

Aye, we derailed the thread.

[inBitweTrust]

If people stop buying BTC then miners will stop mining. How is it different from a ponzi scheme?

Really .... really?   Ok, you cannot possibly be that ignorant, being around this long.
You are just trolling and I have better things to do than play games.

[inBitweTrust]

Right. And by the same token PoS absolutely require fancy names like Monero, Ethereum, and Peercoin, and heavy marketing to succeed. Marketing a PoW like Doge gets notoriety, but the notion of actual work kills the romance. Ultimately, future PoS coins will be premined (or pre minted, or pre birthed or whatever) by whatever corporations can afford the best advertising.

I understand the point you are trying to make but you are doing so in the worst possible way by suggesting all those coins are PoS.
Ethereum will be PoW.
Monero is PoW
Peercoin is PoW/PoS
Out of all the examples given you just had to use the few PoW examples which invalidated your argument ?

[J. J. Phillips]

I think this thread should be moved to "Bicoin Discussion."

[Come-from-Beyond]

I think this thread should be moved to "Bicoin Discussion."

Taking into account your signature:

I don't think this thread shouldn't be removed from "Bitcoin Discussion".

Right?

[cryptogeeknext]

I think people are forgetting one simple fact about PoS, it saturates.

It means that even if all people on the planet are given equal amount of coins in a PoS system, the competition will make some of them richer and others poorer. At some point a group of wealthiest stakeholders will maintain the majority vote in the system. No one can outrun their blockchain. That's where Snake awaits them with the offer they can't refuse.

The wealthiest few will be approached individually with a choice - rule with us or be ruled over. Thus inner circle of control is completed and the system becomes a private enterprise. That's when zoo cages are closed and the hunger games can begin. People are brainwashed enough to not see the cage for all the food. I mean it's not called Proof of Snake for no reason.

PoW stays in PoWer

[jonald_fyookball]

I think people are forgetting one simple fact about PoS, it saturates.

It means that even if all people on the planet are given equal amount of coins in a PoS system, the competition will make some of them richer and others poorer. At some point a group of wealthiest stakeholders will maintain the majority vote in the system. No one can outrun their blockchain. That's where Snake awaits them with the offer they can't refuse.

The wealthiest few will be approached individually with a choice - rule with us or be ruled over. Thus inner circle of control is completed and the system becomes a private enterprise. That's when zoo cages are closed and the hunger games can begin. People are brainwashed enough to not see the cage for all the food. I mean it's not called Proof of Snake for no reason.

PoW stays in PoWer

Very compelling argument.  Can we end the thread now?

[cbeast]

Right. And by the same token PoS absolutely require fancy names like Monero, Ethereum, and Peercoin, and heavy marketing to succeed. Marketing a PoW like Doge gets notoriety, but the notion of actual work kills the romance. Ultimately, future PoS coins will be premined (or pre minted, or pre birthed or whatever) by whatever corporations can afford the best advertising.

I understand the point you are trying to make but you are doing so in the worst possible way by suggesting all those coins are PoS.
Ethereum will be PoW.
Monero is PoW
Peercoin is PoW/PoS
Out of all the examples given you just had to use the few PoW examples which invalidated your argument ?

With all the hundreds of altcoins who can keep them straight? Many of them are hybrids but lean toward PoS. Ethereum waffles but will probably be PoS. I should have looked up the names rather than pull them out of memory, but this topic makes me weary. I prefer to let the market decide.

[inBitweTrust]

With all the hundreds of altcoins who can keep them straight? Many of them are hybrids but lean toward PoS. Ethereum waffles but will probably be PoS. I should have looked up the names rather than pull them out of memory, but this topic makes me weary. I prefer to let the market decide.

Fair enough, but Ethereum is going to be PoW:

 Ethereum will be a hashimoto dagger IO bound PoW consensus mechanism.
The latest under review is here under PoC7:

https://github.com/ethereum/cpp-ethereum/wiki
http://gavwood.com/Paper.pdf

[cbeast]

With all the hundreds of altcoins who can keep them straight? Many of them are hybrids but lean toward PoS. Ethereum waffles but will probably be PoS. I should have looked up the names rather than pull them out of memory, but this topic makes me weary. I prefer to let the market decide.

Fair enough, but Ethereum is going to be PoW:

 Ethereum will be a hashimoto dagger IO bound PoW consensus mechanism.
The latest under review is here under PoC7:

https://github.com/ethereum/cpp-ethereum/wiki
http://gavwood.com/Paper.pdf

So WTH were ethers for? Well, if a better PoW comes along, then Bitcoin can adapt it. I try to listen to Buterin, but while he understands the mechanics of these technologies, his ideology is inconsistent. That's just his youth and I don't hold it against him personally, but until you have the kind of resolve Satoshi has, you cannot be truly innovative.

[inBitweTrust]

So WTH were ethers for?

Well, that's a very big conversation. I can assure you there is technological merit to ether and important use cases. Obviously, since there was a crowdfunded ICO this was a partially premined PoW coin.

Well, if a better PoW comes along, then Bitcoin can adapt it.

I am not so sure about that. For the best or worst there is some deeply entrenched interests and it is doubtful that the main consensus mechanism is likely to change for Bitcoin.

I try to listen to Buterin, but while he understands the mechanics of these technologies, his ideology is inconsistent. That's just his youth and I don't hold it against him personally, but until you have the kind of resolve Satoshi has, you cannot be truly innovative.

If you have been following his thought processes and papers he actually has been really consistent about testing and formulating different consensus mechanisms. The reasons why it seems like he has been inconsistent is because he was doing what he is paid to do and research different algos as chief scientist in a thorough and neutral manner whether it is DPoS/TaPos or PoW.

If you fear the threat of innovation from Ethereum and don't have the time to read through Vitalik's long papers than I would just summarize that Bitcoin could handle some of the features and abilities that Ethereum will handle with sidechains and oracles --
http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2014/06/bit-thereum.html

I think much of Vitalik's work is helpful and fascinating but I would bet upon bitcoin and oracles handling complex code more efficiently as Gavin makes a fair observation above.

[cbeast]

I think much of Vitalik's work is helpful and fascinating but I would bet upon bitcoin and oracles handling complex code more efficiently as Gavin makes a fair observation above.

What you call oracles, I call social constructs. I agree. They will evolve organically. Complex technologies must be modular and based on simpler, more adaptable mechanisms. That's why Bitcoin shines. I still think someone needs to find a way to make transaction malleability a useful tool. The design is elegant and the exploit shows its undeveloped versatility as metadata. Developing such a tool would flood out attackers.