Proof of stake mining of bicoin

[Come-from-Beyond]

sorry if this has been mentioned in this thread in the past, but how would PoS actually work ? Wouldnt that benefit existing holders of bitcoin ?

Holders - yes.
Miners - NO.

[jonald_fyookball]

i was wandering in the future can bitcoin switch to proof of stake?

This is an obvious troll thread that belongs in alt coins. Bitcoin has never considered any other design. Please move this thread.

Who is this bitcoin you speak of and when can we get an official statement?

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Prohibited_changes

There is nothing stopping you from making a hard fork. This isn't even a dispute. I don't know why the wiki says such nonsense. Good luck getting miners to switch to your fork.

The wiki says adding Proof of Stake elements to the Proof of Work would be a disputed change...because it is.  Why is that nonsense?

Claiming something and doing something are two different things. Apparently this is the wiki author's opinion. That doesn't make it so. If someone wants to do it then they should go ahead and do it. Unless what you mean is that begging everyone to follow you is a bad idea. The begging part is in dispute.

Ok fair enough, but then by the same token, we can also say that the assertion "it is nonsense" is simply your opinion too.  Agree?

Technically rejecting an unsubstantiated argument doesn't require evidence.

You're not making sense.

The wiki says this.

Disputed

    Adding alternatives to Proof of Work such as Proof of Stake. This could change core bitcoin too much, but with widespread agreement of some sort might be possible.

I think that's pretty accurate.  You can disagree, but so far you haven't convinced me why you're right and the wiki is wrong. 
What would you change it to?

[BTCXE]

sorry if this has been mentioned in this thread in the past, but how would PoS actually work ? Wouldnt that benefit existing holders of bitcoin ?

Holders - yes.
Miners - NO.

obviously that would make it non-lucrative for miners... how exactly would that work ?

[cbeast]

i was wandering in the future can bitcoin switch to proof of stake?

This is an obvious troll thread that belongs in alt coins. Bitcoin has never considered any other design. Please move this thread.

Who is this bitcoin you speak of and when can we get an official statement?

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Prohibited_changes

There is nothing stopping you from making a hard fork. This isn't even a dispute. I don't know why the wiki says such nonsense. Good luck getting miners to switch to your fork.

The wiki says adding Proof of Stake elements to the Proof of Work would be a disputed change...because it is.  Why is that nonsense?

Claiming something and doing something are two different things. Apparently this is the wiki author's opinion. That doesn't make it so. If someone wants to do it then they should go ahead and do it. Unless what you mean is that begging everyone to follow you is a bad idea. The begging part is in dispute.

Ok fair enough, but then by the same token, we can also say that the assertion "it is nonsense" is simply your opinion too.  Agree?

Technically rejecting an unsubstantiated argument doesn't require evidence.

You're not making sense.

The wiki says this.

Disputed

    Adding alternatives to Proof of Work such as Proof of Stake. This could change core bitcoin too much, but with widespread agreement of some sort might be possible.

I think that's pretty accurate.  You can disagree, but so far you haven't convinced me why you're right and the wiki is wrong.

I concede the point because I don't understand it. Maybe someone should write a white paper on how it would be done so I have facts to deal with.

[jonald_fyookball]

There is no white paper because the wiki is speaking in general terms.
One example is Meni's implementation of adding proof of stake
checkpoints.... One of the key words here is adding proof
of stake, NOT replacing proof of work entirely.

If you were meaning to say that replacing proof of work entirely
with proof of stake shouldn't even be considered (rather than
being in the category of "disputed"), then I would generally
agree, as it is too huge of a change.

And by the way, this is a perfect example.  Meni's idea sounds
appealing, but the core devs (and even Meni) dispute it being
implemented because they do not believe it will make bitcoin
more secure.

[Come-from-Beyond]

obviously that would make it non-lucrative for miners... how exactly would that work ?

Imagine that every bitcoin is a virtual mining rig and they can mine new blocks by taking part in a provably fair lottery.

[cbeast]

There is no white paper because the wiki is speaking in general terms.
One example is Meni's implementation of adding proof of stake
checkpoints.... One of the key words here is adding proof
of stake, NOT replacing proof of work entirely.

If you were meaning to say that replacing proof of work entirely
with proof of stake shouldn't even be considered (rather than
being in the category of "disputed"), then I would generally
agree, as it is too huge of a change.

And by the way, this is a perfect example.  Meni's idea sounds
appealing, but the core devs (and even Meni) dispute it being
implemented because they do not believe it will make bitcoin
more secure.

I think Meni had an ulterior motive for including it in the wiki. Perhaps he will remove once PoS has found its niche.

[inBitweTrust]

obviously that would make it non-lucrative for miners... how exactly would that work ?

Imagine that every bitcoin is a virtual mining rig and they can mine new blocks by taking part in a provably fair lottery.

He is probably asking how the migration would be possible with vested interests and he brings up a fair point. Migrating away from PoW for Bitcoin probably isn't likely unless there was a 51% attack.

[BTCXE]

obviously that would make it non-lucrative for miners... how exactly would that work ?

Imagine that every bitcoin is a virtual mining rig and they can mine new blocks by taking part in a provably fair lottery.

He is probably asking how the migration would be possible with vested interests and he brings up a fair point. Migrating away from PoW for Bitcoin probably isn't likely unless there was a 51% attack.

my question was a combination of a) how exactly does PoS work and yes, b) WTH would people do with their mining equipment ?

[Come-from-Beyond]

He is probably asking how the migration would be possible with vested interests and he brings up a fair point. Migrating away from PoW for Bitcoin probably isn't likely unless there was a 51% attack.

OK, let's wait for a lower Bitcoin price that will force some miners to switch to other coins.

[jonald_fyookball]

my question was a combination of a) how exactly does PoS work 

read this:  http://peercoin.net/assets/paper/peercoin-paper.pdf

[inBitweTrust]

What could happen is another consensus layer that gave the right features and supplemented PoW was added to Bitcoin or people just used it with the Bitcoin protocol. This may happen in the future.

What if you had a TaPoS layer that had 1-10 second confirmations which worked with the miners where peoples wallets reflected both the ~10 min confirmation and the 1-10 second ones for added security and to allow for on the sidechain transactions to occur while not giving up on PoW security.

So a TaPoS blockchain could indeed supplement Bitcoin and at the same time would not change any of the core principles like disinflation 21 million , PoW, ect..

The fact that this can be done does not bode well for Nxt or Bitshares and should have them concerned.

[cbeast]

What could happen is another consensus layer that gave the right features and supplemented PoW was added to Bitcoin. This may happen in the future.
What if you had a TaPoS layer that had 1-10 second confirmations which worked with the miners where peoples wallets reflected both the ~10 min confirmation and the 1-10 second ones for added security and to allow for on the sidechain transactions to occur while not giving up on PoW security.

I am agnostic on side chains. There's a lot of ways to skin a cat.

[jonald_fyookball]

What could happen is another consensus layer that gave the right features and supplemented PoW was added to Bitcoin or people just used it with the Bitcoin protocol. This may happen in the future.

What if you had a TaPoS layer that had 1-10 second confirmations which worked with the miners where peoples wallets reflected both the ~10 min confirmation and the 1-10 second ones for added security and to allow for on the sidechain transactions to occur while not giving up on PoW security.
 

Would it help mitigate 51% attacks?

[inBitweTrust]

What could happen is another consensus layer that gave the right features and supplemented PoW was added to Bitcoin or people just used it with the Bitcoin protocol. This may happen in the future.

What if you had a TaPoS layer that had 1-10 second confirmations which worked with the miners where peoples wallets reflected both the ~10 min confirmation and the 1-10 second ones for added security and to allow for on the sidechain transactions to occur while not giving up on PoW security.
 

Would it help mitigate 51% attacks?

Depends upon what you mean by a 51% attack. It would not protect PoW layer at all directly but would protect the end user because after you receive payment you could depend upon the combined trust(with both the strengths and weaknesses of both consensus algos) of both systems. So If a 51% attack was occurring on the mining pools and the nodes on the TaPoS blockchain were not confirming than one could delay accepting and trusting the transaction until the community figured out what the problem was.

This brings up many other complicated questions though like if it is an act of supererogation and introducing new potential attacks but overall the benefits could be really nice as it would bring a lot more decentralization back into bitcoin, increase security overall, allow for decentralized instant confirmations,  and act as a backstop against the asic manufacturers or mining pools from any mis-behavior.

[cryptogeeknext]

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

If you really want to see energy waste, go check out reddit.com/r/bitcoin.
It is one huge circle jerk, and r/buttcoin makes fun of them (us)

So the mass-debating continues

There is no white paper because the wiki is speaking in general terms.
One example is Meni's implementation of adding proof of stake
checkpoints.... One of the key words here is adding proof
of stake, NOT replacing proof of work entirely.

If you were meaning to say that replacing proof of work entirely
with proof of stake shouldn't even be considered (rather than
being in the category of "disputed"), then I would generally
agree, as it is too huge of a change.

And by the way, this is a perfect example.  Meni's idea sounds
appealing, but the core devs (and even Meni) dispute it being
implemented because they do not believe it will make bitcoin
more secure.

I wonder what happens if stakeholders hire a small group of miners and simply start checkpointing the blockchain they produce, even though it's not the longest one?

Would it help mitigate 51% attacks?

51% attacks is a cornerstone of PoW design.
If attack is not possible then the entity/mechanism preventing the attack becomes the central point of failure.

[durerus]

i was wandering in the future can bitcoin switch to proof of stake?

This is an obvious troll thread that belongs in alt coins. Bitcoin has never considered any other design. Please move this thread.

SlipperySlope started a project to implement PoS in Bitcoin. Looks like he gave up and tries to make his own new coin now: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=584719.0

Edit: Actually he didn't give up but is just going another way to make Bitcoin a PoS coin.

[cbeast]

i was wandering in the future can bitcoin switch to proof of stake?

This is an obvious troll thread that belongs in alt coins. Bitcoin has never considered any other design. Please move this thread.

SlipperySlope started a project to implement PoS in Bitcoin. Looks like he gave up and tries to make his own new coin now: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=584719.0

Edit: Actually he didn't give up but is just going another way to make Bitcoin a PoS coin.

Super! I wish his project well.

[cryptogeeknext]

SlipperySlope started a project to implement PoS in Bitcoin.

Implementing PoS in Bitcoin is indeed a SlipperySlope
Nothing is coincidental.

[ThomasVeil]

my question was a combination of a) how exactly does PoS work 

read this:  http://peercoin.net/assets/paper/peercoin-paper.pdf

Or this: https://wiki.nxtcrypto.org/wiki/Whitepaper:Nxt#Proof_of_Stake


Also I would straight up say: Switching bitcoin will be impossible. How would a transition even work without compromising the security of the network? What will happen to all the gear?

I think it's a good example of the problem of divided incentives. Should POS in theory prove to be better for the coin, the miners would still block it - and rather harm the coin to prevent their financial loss. They will have the ultimate decision.