Topic: Annual 10% bitcoin dividends if mining were Proof-of-Stake - page 16. (Read 16667 times)

This
One can’t emphasise this enough, to experiment safely one could spin-off the blockchaine into a NXT clone. The predicted outcome will be the paradox of thrift, as holding capital is reworded, where as in Bitcoin holding capital is a risk that increases or decreases according to the state of the economy.

Understated but important are the myriad of speculators creating a free market force who perform the same function as the FED as they try and control the money supply by selling high and buying low.  In contrast PoS rewords give advantage to those with capital and leave those without vulnerable to rent seeking, (more realistically seeking a PoW alt.) 
 

Bitcoin doesn't necessarily need to be banned to get overthrow.

In a pure free market perspective, what's best: to have an asset which is debased 10% per year or an asset which pay 5% dividend per year?

The rate of adoption and the absence of credible competition hide the flaw of Bitcoin right now. But when more efficient alternatives will be out there, the flaw of BTC will be glaring. And it's not far-fetched to think the adoption rate will be hinder and the price put in a negative feedback loop. I'd prefer see Bitcoin succeeding too, but market creates efficiency: to survive in the free market, Bitcoin need to become efficient.

Yes, that is how I understood it.  But remember that in the very unlikely event that every current bitcoin core developer got on board with your proposal, a new set of bitcoin core developers would step up to maintain bitcoin PoW.  There is no way to "force" a change from PoW to PoS.  The only way is to create your spin off and then use your influence and economic power to attempt to legitimize it.  In the end, the market will decide.

As Satoshi Nakamoto foresaw, and as last year's blockchain hard fork demonstrated, you carry on as normal. The majority of v2 full nodes will build the longest valid blockchain, and v1 nodes will only create orphans.

Let me be more clear. In the best case, I would like Proof-of-Stake to be owned by Bitcoin Core developers before it gets turned on. I would help develop, document and test Proof-of-Stake on a Bitcoin sandbox testnet that receives new transactions from the Bitcoin network but does not otherwise interfere with it.

I get the notion that existing and planned Proof-of-Stake altcoins are a short-term bet that Bitcoin continues its 3.2x annual economic growth, and lifts the value of all altcoins as the public adopts crytocurrencies. Those same altcoins are a long-term bet that Bitcoin keeps Proof-of-Work and thus gets banned in some countries as wasteful allowing those altcoins the opportunity to replace Bitcoin.

My mission is with Bitcoin.

That's the real revolution guys...
Worth reading!

Delegated Proof of Stake
by Daniel Larimer on April 3, 2014

This paper introduces a new implementation of proof of stake that can validate transactions in seconds while providing greater security in a shorter period of time than all existing proof of stake systems. In the time it takes Bitcoin to produce a single block a DPOS system can have your transaction verified by 20% of the shareholders and by the time Bitcoin claims the transaction is almost irreversible (6 blocks, 1 hour) your transaction under DPOS has been verified by 100% of the shareholders through their representatives.

read more here
http://bitshares.org/security/delegated-proof-of-stake.php

This is not quite correct.  There is no difference between your "worst case" and your "best case."  They are the same thing in both cases.  

If you attempt to do this SlipperySlope, and win-over some developers to your cause, you could create a PoS spin-off and try to legitimize it.  After you launch it, both bitcoin-PoW and bitcoin-PoS would be running side by side; users would control the same % of coins in each system.

And then the market would decide which system is legitimate.  

I expect to see the first spin-offs launched within 6 months.  It will be very interesting to watch the experiment unfold.  

POW will be eliminated sooner or later, but blockchain will survive forever. bitshares go!

SlipperySlope what you say is what Dan Larimer from Invictus started saying months ago.

Bitcoin is an autonomous company which have a negative bottom line. Bitshares, thanks to a variante of PoS, will be a range of several autonomous companies which will make profits and therefore pay dividends to shareholders/owners of the company token. Bitcoin will need to adapt (ie. eliminates PoW) in order to survive.

Could you please elaborate on the nature to your objections. The public consensus cannot be moved towards Proof-of-Stake unless all objections are reasonably addressed.

This thread makes me so happy... OP do you follow Invictus and Bitshares? Most up to date POS models and many more insights


This is already a thing! bitshares.org

you want to fork bitcoin and call it bitcoin?

Then, if i want to send some coins, which protocol is being used?
Do I have to tell someone , i want to send you bitcoin v1 or v2 ?
how is that going to work?

what you are suggesting is a very dangerous game, i don't like the idea whatsoever, and i'm sorry but you will find a multitude of ugly little me's if this ever gets approval.

Yes, it is a hard-fork of the blockchain. Not a from-scratch genesis block as used by altcoins. The Proof-of-Stake version of bitcoind would be made to reject as invalid new blocks created by the then-existing Proof-of-Work version.

This scenario is worst case. In the best case, public opinion sways the majority of Bitcoin Core developers to embrace Proof-of-Stake and the migration from Proof-of-Stake to Proof-of-Work is handled via long advance notice and simply a new version of Bitcoin Core for download by everyone.

spin off?  is that a fork?

I agree with Peter_R regarding altcoins and sidechains, yet hope to allay his concerns about Proof-of-Stake.

My notion of a Proof-of-Stake spin-off is to spin-off the Proof-of-Work miners from Bitcoin, which means that we need approximately 24,000 Proof-of-Stake full nodes participating in the Bitcoin Network as non-generating stealth nodes until everyone on our side is at the table - so to speak. I choose 24K because that is three times the number of bitcoind Proof-of-Stake full nodes in the network now.

To make the spin-off work, we need the Bitcoin brand and for it to want us. As US President Abraham Lincoln said "In this age, in this country, public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed."

The major problem is that the Energy Charter Treaty encourages our respective governments not to permit waste of energy. In perhaps four more years the cost of electric power to operate and cool ASIC mining equipment will exceed $100 billion annually. The precedent is the incandescent light bulb ban. Do we want a bitcoin ban when it can be avoided?

The lesser problem is fairness. Why should Proof-of-Work ASIC-operators waste their bitcoin rewards on equipment and power, when those very same rewards can be given to us, the bitcoin holders as annual 10% bitcoin dividends using ordinary computers.

I liken the current Proof-of-Work system to a bank protected from robbers by a moat filled with burning paper currency.

This make no sense. There are plenty of independent miners.

Yeah. It's competitive. There are no laws preventing you from being a top miner. The only barrier is you.

Ha. I am presently researching whether anyone has a full node bitcoind running on a Linux smartphone.

CPU capacity on a multi-core smartphone already exceeds what Proof-of-Stake requires. Likewise for RAM regarding the flagship Android phones now, and ordinary phones in a couple of years. The blockchain is about 20 GB today and could fit on flagship Android phones now. Furthermore, Bitcoin Core developers have plans to prune or otherwise compress the blockchain for the purposes of validation.

From my own experience running a full node, network bandwidth is the most precious resource. Propagation of new blocks, and of the entire blockchain for new mobiles entering the network requires much symmetric bandwidth, depending upon the number of permitted peer connections.

In a possible world, every smartphone is a Proof-of-Stake full node. There would be billions of them in the Bitcoin Network rather than the less than 10 thousand full nodes nowadays. It is fair that only block-validating, and blockchain-maintaining wallets receive their annual 10% bitcoin dividends. These dividends, given the higher prices for bitcoin that I expect with Proof-of-Stake, would be sufficient to pay for the cellular data bandwidth consumed. Or consider that the full node smartphone client could connect to the network only when WiFi is the connection - and receive a diminished bitcoin dividend in proportion to the time spent securing and maintaining the network, effectively receive annual 5% bitcoin dividends for coins held in the smartphone's full node wallet connected 12 hours each night to the owner's WiFi.