Do you think Bitcoin should modify to POW + POS ? █████ Poll █████

[achimsmile]

if you are actually serious, you might want
to read this post and those that follow: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=905385.msg9995601#msg9995601

You are right. I see DPoS as a trade between less decentralization but more transaction speed.

Nothng wrong with that, but I like 100% decentralized blockchains more.

[1714867541]

1714867541

[1714867541]

1714867541

[Lauda]

Voting yes would be a mistake.
Stop complaining about miners controlling the network. Anyone can mine,thus that's no real reason.

[crazyearner]

I voted yes for the simple fact it would help out where higher diffs are and would allow to control some of the greedy ones and remove some of the massive diff spikes that happen with POW. Even maybe to have a CAP on how much power can be put across the network and have better control over the entire network. Maybe have something new like a minable POS filed where so much power can be put towards it but only gets x amount compared to normal POW mining. Or it gets re worked and mastered into having multipul algorythems in the future would be nice. But still can only have 21 million total coins acros all algos

[jonald_fyookball]

Even maybe to have a CAP on how much power can be put across the network

I don't see how that would be possible.   How are you going to limit people from finding blocks?

[Flashman]

I don't know, is he serious? Are you serious Flashman?

Every human uses energy, and energy is limited. There's no need to be an environmentalist to see that we should not try to waste a lot of energy.

If you have a few million wasteful fuckers crammed into a metropolitan area with an ageing grid, yah, energy is limited, if you have a nice big dam and reservoir in the middle of nowhere, then energy is abundant. Thing is, all those millions of wasteful fuckers don't want to go live near the dam, so someone comes up with a scheme to finance the 100 thousand dollars a mile to get the hydroelectric to them and charge them out the arse for it. Plus they don't want JUST a nice steady flow of juice, they wanna come home and turn all their shit on at 5pm, so there also has to be a fossil fuel plant in there somewhere, coz you can't make water fall any faster than gravity wants it to for the hour or two every day that they want to zap their frozen dinners.

Anyway, renewable  and zero emission energy is abundant, getting it to where people like to be is a problem. Bitcoin ASICs don't want to live somewhere where theres a Walmart and Nightlife, thus don't need to have big thick high tension lines run across whole state(s) to supply them, they go near the abundant energy, they get it cheap. Scarcity is artificial, it's determined by grid and concentrations of demand, not sources.

[pawel7777]

Stop spreading your retarded logic. USD has 1% interest on savings accounts, does it stop anyone from spending USD?

Sunshine, let's keep some manners here, OK?

1% interest is less than inflation, does it pay to hold?

Ever heard of negative interest rates? Why did they do that?

http://www.bloombergview.com/quicktake/negative-interest-rates

Are you now saying that deflation is good for economy?

Besides, USD is a legal tender, so people will be spending it even if they don't want to. You can't really compare it to un-established crypto-currency.

Are you saying deflation is not good for economy?...

Yes.

How is this relevant anyway? Proof of Stake can do both inflationary and deflationary, you can take your pick. For example, with Bitcoin, the PoS system can be implemented as deflationary, since Bitcoin is deflationary.

It's relevant to the "USD has 1% interest on savings accounts" argument you used.

Again:

If we switch bitcoin to pure PoS, without changing issuance model, what would prevent the majority from hoarding? It's a simple question.

[pawel7777]

But that's one of the problems with PoS, it promotes hoarding and kills activity. Less activity leads to less adoption which leads to price decline.

Marketcap isn't everything, it's merely a snapshot of how much people are willing to pay for a coin and can change rather quickly.

It's too early to judge that PoS kills activity. Quite the opposite: In Nxt, numbers of transactions per day steadily increased since July until today (around 3k per day now, which is not a lot compared to bitcoin, but still).

I agree it's too early to make a judgement based on comparing any 2 coins. But you don't need empirical data to discuss differences between PoS/PoW designs. You only need common sense for that.

NXT is probably not the best example in this case. Since it's non-inflationary, the only income you get is your share in tx fees (afaik), which atm are very insignificant. Therefore from the average holder's point of view - it's probably better to use it and keep it alive.

Now what would happen if we switch BTC to PoS (with the same issuance model)? You think it would increase activity? You have @micky123 above saying he would stop investing. I know I wouldn't be keen on buying a coffee with my PoS coins and wouldn't touch my stash to tip or donate.

If your coins generate you more coins - you don't want to spend them. Simple.

Right now you have bitcoin hoarders, who (despite all the logic) wouldn't use their coins at all. If they're further incentivised to hoard - why would they change their approach?

Stop spreading your false logic. USD has 1% interest on savings accounts, does it stop anyone from spending USD?

Exactly. And Nxt forging gets you something like 0.5%. It is far better and more profitable to use your nxt to invest or to spend. The goal of nxt forging is to have hundreds of nxt based businesses, all forging blocks to secure the network and protect their business with their running balance, rather then to have people getting rich off forging. For a smaller forger, forging allows you to have quite a few free transactions on the network.

Did you basically repeat what I said to use as an argument against what I said?

[kokojie]

Stop spreading your retarded logic. USD has 1% interest on savings accounts, does it stop anyone from spending USD?

Sunshine, let's keep some manners here, OK?

1% interest is less than inflation, does it pay to hold?

Ever heard of negative interest rates? Why did they do that?

http://www.bloombergview.com/quicktake/negative-interest-rates

Are you now saying that deflation is good for economy?

Besides, USD is a legal tender, so people will be spending it even if they don't want to. You can't really compare it to un-established crypto-currency.

Are you saying deflation is not good for economy?...

Yes.

How is this relevant anyway? Proof of Stake can do both inflationary and deflationary, you can take your pick. For example, with Bitcoin, the PoS system can be implemented as deflationary, since Bitcoin is deflationary.

It's relevant to the "USD has 1% interest on savings accounts" argument you used.

Again:

If we switch bitcoin to pure PoS, without changing issuance model, what would prevent the majority from hoarding? It's a simple question.

How does USD stop people from hoarding? if inflationary currency is needed, then so be it, you can petition to change Bitcoin to inflationary. You can go ahead and push for your ideal model. It has nothing to do with PoS, since it can do both.

Bitcoin is also deflationary, how do you stop people from hoarding Bitcoin? How does PoW vs PoS have anything to do with this?

[inBitweTrust]

Bitcoin is also deflationary,

False. Bitcoin is disinflationary. ~10% inflation now, ~5% 2016 , ~2.5 2020, ~1.25% 2024, ect....
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/disinflation.asp

Nxt has 0 inflation now after the ICO, and Bitshares has moments of hyperinflation ~2Billion to ~2.5Billion (unknown when and if this will occur again)

you can petition to change Bitcoin to inflationary. You can go ahead and push for your ideal model. It has nothing to do with PoS, since it can do both.

Bitcoin is unlikely to ever remove PoW because of vested interests and security concerns, but I could potentially see a TaPoS layer one day added upon it to enhance security and confirmation speed. Discussing the possibility of convincing miners and vested interests from switching completely away from PoW or changing the 21 million limit appears to be an effort in futility.

Good news ..... Once miner block rewards are minimized , security may have to be supplemented with many other discussed means, thus there isn't some infinite energy drain that some PoW critics suggest. PoW will essentially be limited by profitability from transaction volumes and thus hashrate will only be increased based upon ASIC effieciency advancements or if we develop unlimited power from fusion tech(unlikely).

[Flashman]

but I could potentially see a TaPoS layer one day added upon it to enhance security and confirmation speed. Discussing the possibility of convincing miners and vested interests from switching completely away from PoW or changing the 21 million limit appears to be an effort in futility.

I'd think something like a sidechain, where 10,000 bitcoins are burned to create a million "new" coins, then y'all can play in PoS paradise and gradually use the value of the coin to buy more and more bitcoins into the PoS system. Then when you've got all the bitcoins, you can turn PoW off.

[inBitweTrust]

but I could potentially see a TaPoS layer one day added upon it to enhance security and confirmation speed. Discussing the possibility of convincing miners and vested interests from switching completely away from PoW or changing the 21 million limit appears to be an effort in futility.

I'd think something like a sidechain, where 10,000 bitcoins are burned to create a million "new" coins, then y'all can play in PoS paradise and gradually use the value of the coin to buy more and more bitcoins into the PoS system. Then when you've got all the bitcoins, you can turn PoW off.

Sidechain or not. No need for burning bitcoins, as someone could simply create a TaPoS blockchain that mirrored and synced the distribution of BTC and than have a wallet acknowledge both blockchains but have the TaPoS layer hidden where only BTC is used and the TaPoS layer acts to add another form of security that could have 1-30 second confirmation times in addition to PoW 10 min confirmation times.

I.E... pay for a cup of Coffee the confirmations start rolling in this way:
TaPoS 1 second confirmation, TaPoS 3 second confirmation, TaPoS 5 second confirmation, TaPoS 10 second confirmation, TaPoS 30 second confirmation, TaPoS 1 min confirmation, TaPoS 3min confirmation, TaPoS 5 min confirmation,TaPoS 7min confirmation, PoW Bitcoin 1st confirmation ~10min, TaPoS 13min confirmation, ect...

This would allow you to have instant confirmations and better security because now you are trusting full nodes and miners and you could detect a PoW 51% attack if the TaPoS confirmations weren't confirming while the PoW confirmations were.

You wouldn't even need a softfork or hardfork to accomplish this, just a TapoS blockchain and a wallet that acknowledged it.

[Zhan21]

Operators force centralization trend is getting worse, a large number of small miners exit. It is time to consider how to allocate .

[desired_username]

Can someone from the "change camp" please explain what they are expecting from such a change?

I suspect that altcoin sales people are brigading this poll.

[achimsmile]

Can someone from the "change camp" please explain what they are expecting from such a change?

I suspect that altcoin sales people are brigading this poll.

Less centralization by mining companies/pools , much less electricity wasted compared to PoW

[pawel7777]

How does USD stop people from hoarding?

Do you honestly need an explanation why stashing USD under your mattress is financially not a good idea?

...if inflationary currency is needed, then so be it, you can petition to change Bitcoin to inflationary. You can go ahead and push for your ideal model. It has nothing to do with PoS, since it can do both.

Bitcoin is also deflationary, how do you stop people from hoarding Bitcoin? How does PoW vs PoS have anything to do with this?

I'm not pushing for anything. I see some pros and cons with both PoS and PoW, while you seem to stuck with logic "PoW sucks because of mining costs, therefore PoS must be perfect".

Lets take this scenario:

1) You have X PoW bitcoins, which is x% of total existing bitcoins. Since new coins are issued every day, if you want to maintain your x% you have to be active. You'd have to buy/mine/invest/scam/steal/gamble/create new BTC business/lend out etc.

2) You have X PoS bitcoins. To maintain your X% of total BTC, you have to do nothing, you just need to stake up all your coins in the wallet and don't use them.

Which system promotes activity and which one discourages it?

[jubalix]

Pos is probally going to happen sooner or later to BTC. The head wind of mining is an issue. Further PeerCoin has just implemented cold minting, which mean your coins can not be stolen even if they get the private key for minting (which would be the only one exposed to a hack). Your sending key is kept of line if you wish.

That right 2 keys, one for minting one for sending.

Peercoin is solving the problems, now.

The BTC argument is mining is an external factor vs minting in internal and so can not be checked. Sort of an unbounded out put from a bounded input argument, or no -ve feed back loop to keep it stable. I have not seen a rigorous proof for this assertion yet.

The next argument of BTC is that there is nothing at stake for POS, so you can mint n-chains at once. But who cares? This is just like merged mining, which happens now for POW. This doesn't make IXC coin or IOC the same value as BTC? So that argument falls flat as well.

Another argument is Hording. So what a bitcoin is very divisible or near enough not and issue


So there is not real argument that has been tendered that say we cant use POS

[hl5460]

That's impossible. It will make bitcoin a clone of peercoin.

[achimsmile]

Pos is probally going to happen sooner or later to BTC. The head wind of mining is an issue. Further PeerCoin has just implemented cold minting, which mean your coins can not be stolen even if they get the private key for minting (which would be the only one exposed to a hack). Your sending key is kept of line if you wish.

Same is already possible in Nxt since more than half a year. You can lease your forging power from your offline wallet to your online wallet, the private keys of your stash can completely remain on an offline machine.

[Daedelus]

Pos is probally going to happen sooner or later to BTC. The head wind of mining is an issue. Further PeerCoin has just implemented cold minting, which mean your coins can not be stolen even if they get the private key for minting (which would be the only one exposed to a hack). Your sending key is kept of line if you wish.

Same is already possible in Nxt. You can lease your forging power from your offline wallet to your online wallet, the private keys of your stash can completely remain on an offline machine.

True, this has been implemented in Nxt since April 2014.


When minting on n-chains at once (aka multibranch Forging), n grows exponentially with time. To keep signing each new branch attempting to get a better chain, POS will then tend towards becoming POW. So allowing multibranch forging is a positive for properly implemented POS.

Research papers available for anyone interested...

[jubalix]

That's impossible. It will make bitcoin a clone of peercoin.

that's not an argument to make something impossible.