Topic: Annual 10% bitcoin dividends if mining were Proof-of-Stake - page 12. (Read 16688 times)

This is basically back to the psychological dillema.

Accumulation doesn't happen to anyone without capital investment one way or another.
Its just a question of:  is Bitcoin big enough, mature enough, established enough
IN PEOPLE'S MINDS that we don't need to rely on PoW.

Anyway, people don't forget: the 2 implementations in the Wiki are hybrid PoW/PoS.  

No, because Bitcoin was and is miles ahead in terms of infrastructure, adoption, and market cap. The people with so much invested in Bitcoin had every incentive not to allow a competitor to succeed. But now thanks in part to Peter's idea (not sure if he was the first to conceive it, but I learned it from him first) of shifting the exact distribution and ownership of Bitcoin to a new blockchain, it is possible implement a PoS system that will have the support of the entire Bitcoin community because they do not have to give anything up to have a stake in the new system and they automatically have the same investment in it as in the original blockchain.

so if I mine a fiat value of $500,000 per day, how much stake does my wallet accrue... my 3 btc will accrue 0.3 in one year - are you taking the piss?
I think i'd rather keep mining thanks.

How do you figure? In the PoS system proposed, a holder of 3 or 4 coins would receive a yearly dividend of approximately 10 percent. A year later he would have 3.3 or 4.4 coins. In the current system a holder who does not mine does not receive any dividend. In fact, it the opposite of what you say; small holders actually get poorer in the current system because their share of the total coin supply decreases as new coins are mined (they get richer relative to fiat holders, of course). Sorry, but the idea that PoW is good because difficulty level trends are interesting is not a strong argument.

I do not believe Bitcoin will fail if it does not shift to PoS, but if it can be improved with little risk, it should be done.

you completely misunderstand me. My objections are not political, nor are they to do with risk. I am not adverse to change.
We have Bitcoin, which has been designed from the ground up before any other additives or preservatives were realised. Sure it has it's minor flaws but that is all part of it. It is not broken, in actual fact, it is surviving pretty damned well; from it's humble beginnings.

By introducing PoS into the workings, all you are doing is making those who have massive farms, even richer - and those who have 3 or 4 coins in a wallet, poorer.

your idea stinks of idiosyncrasies and I feel, if you want a coin which produces PoS, then you should go mine some shitcoin or other.

This is not for Bitcoin. Bitcoin is exciting - difficulty level trends are tremendously interesting, as is - for a small miner like myself, watching who is top of the pile. If you introduce PoS into Bitcoin, then you will see value plummet, Bitcoin accumulation lifespan shortened and interest lost.

It's not a good idea, whatsoever.

Sorry - I read the 1st post and then skipped the last 9 pages.

Shouldn't PPC have been the one end-all to be all had proof of stake had been successfull wouldn't the mass majority of miners simply convert to PPC and hold a portion of it to roll over with POS?

"makes me dream of folks out there who have 10,000,000 PPC and recieve a cool million PPC each year to live off of "

The adoption of Bitcoin is apparently mathematically chaotic in the sense that certain small changes to the present situation lead to large and unexpected consequences. There is simply no precedent for Bitcoin, and therefore we depend upon argued imagination.

The problem with fiat is not costlessness, but possibility of arbitrary, limitless creation. PoS costs much less than PoW, but coin creation is still constrained by the parameters of the code.

People have been cheated by costless fiat for so long time that they already forget that a currency without cost actually worth nothing, legally counterfeiting is still counterfeiting

You make some good points and it could be argued either way.

Perhaps we have indeed hit upon the heart of the matter.

I believe that is the spin-out proposed by Peter_R. While there is any chance of retaining the Bitcoin brand and its connected customers, I will work entirely in the framework proposed by Satoshi who allowed for changes via a consensus of full node miners. There are about 8300 of those today, and a million wallets at Blockchain.info.

In a possible world a couple of years from now, there is a peer-reviewed and invulnerable Proof-of-Stake version of Bitcoin Core - not yet deployed but running great on a large scale Bitcoin testnet. The sales pitch to Blockchain.info is simple. Blockchain.info arranges to lease m3.large instances from Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud that support Bitcoin Proof-of-Stake Bitcoin Core full node instances for an online wallet. Blockchain.info makes an offer to its million customers to pay a minimum of annual 10% bitcoin dividends to each online wallet that chooses Proof-of-Stake on the condition that at least 50,000 enroll. Blockchain.info keeps a fee of 2% of the earned rewards.

50,000 low-latency, well-connected full nodes on the new Proof-of-Stake version easily outvote 8,300 full nodes on the old Proof-of-Work version and on the pre-announced day, the blockchain forks. Ordinary bitcoin users are unaffected. Suppose at that time bitcoin is valued at $10,000. The daily mining reward is 3,600 bitcoin divided among the 50,000 Blockchain.info enrolled wallets. Blockchain.info's daily commission is $720,000 from which they pay for the Amazon instances at $72,000 daily, a gross profit margin of 90%. The deal is great for the 50,000 enrollees who get daily dividends each of bitcoin worth on average $705. Of course these numbers are for the early adopters. Once the remainder of the million online wallets enroll, the average daily dividends drop by a factor of 20 yielding a daily average dividend of $35 dollars.

From a simplified, possible world business case such as this example, it is clear to me that a very large opportunity exists to disrupt the disrupter. The challenge is to create an invulnerable and broadly acceptable Bitcoin Core Proof-of-Stake.

It actually makes sense given the context.  

Fiat money finds it's utility simply from its universally acceptance that has already been established.

Bitcoin is new, and in order to achieve adoption, people want something that seems fair and just.  Proof of work accomplishes this.  Perhaps in the future, when Bitcoin has wide acceptance, we will converge onto a point where proof of work is no longer needed, but I don't think we are there just yet.

I would say that psychological preference for the perceived fairer and open PoW system may have been important in the early days of Bitcoin, but at the current stage of its evolution, I think future adoption of Bitcoin depends on practical things like price and usability. I have tried explaining the virtues of Bitcoin to many people, and none of them have cared about how new coins are distributed. The fact that the supply of coins is limited and it is a bank-less, decentralized system is good enough. If PoS is indeed superior and a shift to PoS is possible, then I do not know any rational reason why it should not be done.

Sounds to me like you have touched upon the true heart of the matter. Emotional attachments prevail.

You're right logically. However, human psychology isn't always logical.  Having the "option" to mine your own coins makes one feel that it is more of an open system and seeing that "work was done" gives it more perceived value.

I don't understand why needing to buy from an adopter is bad thing. Isn't mining essentially buying coins from ASIC manufacturers and energy companies?

You can always create and altcoin with the same addresses as Bitcoin and with the same distribution of existing Bitcoins over those addresses. Than everyone can choose which Bitcoin to use (or both). I would personally feel safer using both concurrently than to change the existing social contract of the original Bitcoin. When the first change is made, the discussion for the 21M limit will surely start as well ....

. . . Key to your understanding, but misleading to someone who does not appreciate the reality of bitcoin mining.

When you say "find them yourself", it means buying shares at a bitcoin cloud mining company, or leasing a mining rig, or buying a bitcoin mining rig and buying electricity to operate and cool it. Return on investment for a miner is only positive because the price of bitcoin has risen on average 10x per year. In the bitcoin coin mining sub-forum, when a new person asks "what miner should I pre-order?", the conventional wisdom response is "just buy bitcoin with the money you would have spent on the miner - you will come out further ahead".

I would restate your point, weakening the distinction . .

There are two ways to get PoS coins: buy them from an adopter or use your coin stake to certainly earn them yourself.
There are two ways to get PoW coins: buy them from an adopter or buy stuff and use that stuff to probably earn them yourself.

The only way to get PoS shares is to buy them from an adopter.  There are two ways to get PoW coins: buy them or find them yourself.  This is key.  

Based on the results of SlipperySlope's poll, it looks like there is a slight preference for PoW.  But I seem to be the only one here arguing for it.  Probably because we've had this debate many times and if you actually want to create a PoS spin-off go right ahead.  No one is stopping you.  In fact, I would like to see what happens. 

The market will decide whether or not it has merit.

That's it for me guys.  Off to sushi...