Proof of stake mining of bicoin

[jonald_fyookball]

PoS security mechanism is that of a private enterprise.

PoS = PoW with one level of indirection removed.

Instead of

Code:

Dollars -> Mining rig -> Cryptocoins

PoS offers

Code:

Dollars -> Cryptocoins

Yes, but with PoW, you need to keep consuming
an external resource, so the two aren't exactly
comparable.  I'm not going to debate the implications
or pros and cons, as its all been said before, just
pointing that out.

[cryptogeeknext]

Is it some form of hidden g@y propaganda? I'm straight, so I'm out

Have you just attempted to insult ~10% of BTT users?

Of course not, everyone has a right to choose what they prefer, bicoin is cool, let's furk it!

PoS security mechanism is that of a private enterprise.

PoS = PoW with one level of indirection removed.

Instead of

Code:

Dollars -> Mining rig -> Cryptocoins

PoS offers

Code:

Dollars -> Cryptocoins

Comparison with a private enterprise is incorrect because you compare only few aspects ignoring the others.

I could say that Bitcoin = FED because miners print money if I followed your tactics.

So you equate PoS cryptocoins to dollars, which is correct as both have stakeholders at the center of their security model, while recognizing that PoW makes a difference, which I fully agree with.

[sumantso]

Like it or not, some variation of PoS is going to dominate. The general opinion is slowly being aware that the money given over to the electricity and the hardware companies is better off being utilized to develop the coin itself.

[jonald_fyookball]

Like it or not, some variation of PoS is going to dominate. The general opinion is slowly being aware that the money given over to the electricity and the hardware companies is better off being utilized to develop the coin itself.

uh, pretty sure we've been debating that for 14 pages...but feel free to stroll in and give your word as gospel. 

[cryptogeeknext]

Like it or not, some variation of PoS is going to dominate. The general opinion is slowly being aware that the money given over to the electricity and the hardware companies is better off being utilized to develop the coin itself.

No one is forced to give any money to anyone, people exercise their own choices.
Competition requires energy, no-competition doesn't.

[sumantso]

Like it or not, some variation of PoS is going to dominate. The general opinion is slowly being aware that the money given over to the electricity and the hardware companies is better off being utilized to develop the coin itself.

No one is forced to give any money to anyone, people exercise their own choices.
Competition requires energy, no-competition doesn't.

So which of the competition is better suited - the one which is spending resources to keep the network running, or the other which is using the same resources in improving itself?

[Come-from-Beyond]

So you equate PoS cryptocoins to dollars...

No, I could use BTC instead of USD.

[jonald_fyookball]

Like it or not, some variation of PoS is going to dominate. The general opinion is slowly being aware that the money given over to the electricity and the hardware companies is better off being utilized to develop the coin itself.

No one is forced to give any money to anyone, people exercise their own choices.
Competition requires energy, no-competition doesn't.

So which of the competition is better suited - the one which is spending resources to keep the network running, or the other which is using the same resources in improving itself?

Again, confusing security model with distribution model.

Security costs depend on distribution rewards (issuance of new coins),
not whether the coin uses PoS or PoW.

[sumantso]

Like it or not, some variation of PoS is going to dominate. The general opinion is slowly being aware that the money given over to the electricity and the hardware companies is better off being utilized to develop the coin itself.

No one is forced to give any money to anyone, people exercise their own choices.
Competition requires energy, no-competition doesn't.

So which of the competition is better suited - the one which is spending resources to keep the network running, or the other which is using the same resources in improving itself?

Again, confusing security model with distribution model.

Security costs depend on distribution rewards (issuance of new coins),
not whether the coin uses PoS or PoW.

You can buy miners and spend electricity and earn coins.
You can go to an exchange, spend money and buy coins.

[jonald_fyookball]

Like it or not, some variation of PoS is going to dominate. The general opinion is slowly being aware that the money given over to the electricity and the hardware companies is better off being utilized to develop the coin itself.

No one is forced to give any money to anyone, people exercise their own choices.
Competition requires energy, no-competition doesn't.

So which of the competition is better suited - the one which is spending resources to keep the network running, or the other which is using the same resources in improving itself?

Again, confusing security model with distribution model.

Security costs depend on distribution rewards (issuance of new coins),
not whether the coin uses PoS or PoW.

You can buy miners and spend electricity and earn coins.
You can go to an exchange, spend money and buy coins.

Not really sure your point.  Mine is that cryptos like NXT
can claim lower security cost because they aren't issuing
new currency.  Very simple.

[sumantso]

Like it or not, some variation of PoS is going to dominate. The general opinion is slowly being aware that the money given over to the electricity and the hardware companies is better off being utilized to develop the coin itself.

No one is forced to give any money to anyone, people exercise their own choices.
Competition requires energy, no-competition doesn't.

So which of the competition is better suited - the one which is spending resources to keep the network running, or the other which is using the same resources in improving itself?

Again, confusing security model with distribution model.

Security costs depend on distribution rewards (issuance of new coins),
not whether the coin uses PoS or PoW.

You can buy miners and spend electricity and earn coins.
You can go to an exchange, spend money and buy coins.

Not really sure your point.  Mine is that cryptos like NXT can claim lower security cost because they aren't issuing new currency.  Very simple.

I doubt thats what NXT is claiming, though I can't attest to that. I was thinking more is terms of the Bitshares model where new coins are generated by elected delegates and awarded to all those working to develop and improve the coin.

[cryptogeeknext]

Like it or not, some variation of PoS is going to dominate. The general opinion is slowly being aware that the money given over to the electricity and the hardware companies is better off being utilized to develop the coin itself.

No one is forced to give any money to anyone, people exercise their own choices.
Competition requires energy, no-competition doesn't.

So which of the competition is better suited - the one which is spending resources to keep the network running, or the other which is using the same resources in improving itself?

We might have a different definitions of improving.

Improvements in PoW come in a form of advancements in energy-efficient computation, new types of power sources and research of cryptographic hash functions. These improvements are tangible and can be applied to other areas of human life.

Improvements in PoS only benefit the few in power as any innovation will be privatized and used to further strengthen the control grid.

So you equate PoS cryptocoins to dollars...

No, I could use BTC instead of USD.

In BTC large coin holders need to decide what percentage of their wealth they will keep in coins and what they reinvest in mining so that competition for control keeps the system robust.

Investing the whole stake is risky as mining farms can burn or become obsolete as new tech emerges, so some balance need to be sought. This is what separates PoW from PoS. It is much more dynamic system without obvious asymptotes of power saturation. It is possible of course that PoS system stays robust and honest for a long time without spending any energy, but it's better to have alternatives where competition is more welcome. PoW provides that.

[achimsmile]

Improvements in PoW come in a form of advancements in energy-efficient computation

You mean improve on how to waste energy more efficiently?

[cryptogeeknext]

Improvements in PoW come in a form of advancements in energy-efficient computation

You mean improve on how to waste energy more efficiently?

Energy cannot be wasted, just transformed.
Do you play computer games, do you watch tv, engage in sports maybe?

Do you realize how much energy humanity 'wastes' by simply existing?
Yeah, the whole Universe is just an utter waste of energy, this needs to stop, teh Big Crunch will save us

[Come-from-Beyond]

This is what separates PoW from PoS. It is much more dynamic system without obvious asymptotes of power saturation.

Obvious? I'm not sure that such an asymptote even exists. Provide more info, pease.

[yumei]

Even bigger asic mining company CEO being truthful about what is happening actually.

MegaBigPower’s CEO Dave Carlson about centralization with asic bitcoin mining:

Centralization remains an issue

The rise of the ASIC and the profitability shifts for mine operators has resulted in what can only be called the death of the retail bitcoin miner, according to Carlson.

“The market for retail miners has all but disappeared,” he explained. “The amount of power required to make a relevant amount of bitcoin has pretty much just left the larger operators who can run at scale using cheap power.”

Calling large mining pools a "direct threat to bitcoin’s future", Carlson said that the community should be as much against the existence of several large mining entities as they are about one huge one.

He said:

    “Each and every investor, owner, entrepreneur or bitcoin enthusiast should be concerned that having two large pools and one 'Unknown' does not ensure the healthy future of the bitcoin ecosystem.”

Source: http://www.coindesk.com/megabigpower-2014-game-changer-bitcoin-mining/

[siameze]

Improvements in PoW come in a form of advancements in energy-efficient computation

You mean improve on how to waste energy more efficiently?

Energy cannot be wasted, just transformed.
Do you play computer games, do you watch tv, engage in sports maybe?

Do you realize how much energy humanity 'wastes' by simply existing?
Yeah, the whole Universe is just an utter waste of energy, this needs to stop, teh Big Crunch will save us

I wonder how much energy has been wasted in this circlejerk of a thread.

[cryptogeeknext]

This is what separates PoW from PoS. It is much more dynamic system without obvious asymptotes of power saturation.

Obvious? I'm not sure that such an asymptote even exists. Provide more info, pease.

You should watch Hunger Games, it's one heck of a movie, that's the asymptote I refer to.

Centralization remains an issue

That's why PoW provides a 51% mechanism.
It works both ways, any 51% attack can be 51% attacked.

I wonder how much energy has been wasted in this circlejerk of a thread.

You're probably saying that we've had a lot of fun here.
I don't know about you, but I'm mining the heck out of JoyCoin:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=905184.0

[siameze]

I wonder how much energy has been wasted in this circlejerk of a thread.

You're probably saying that we've had a lot of fun here.
I don't know about you, but I'm mining the heck out of JoyCoin:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=905184.0

I was indeed saying that, and I made extra popcorn. I enjoy all this fun.

Hope JoyCoin is being good to you. I haven't heard of it but will check out the thread you posted later.

[Come-from-Beyond]

You should watch Hunger Games, it's one heck of a movie, that's the asymptote I refer to.

Is the sci-fi movie the only thing that backs your words?