Topic: Annual 10% bitcoin dividends if mining were Proof-of-Stake - page 5. (Read 16632 times)

Probably because you recognize that money itself is an abstraction, or a reification. Defining money is an exercise in ontology.

I am not convinced.

The simplest explanation: It is proof of actually doing work, not proof of being rich, greedy, and power hungry.

It is a fact that mining somehow backs and adds value to Bitcoin. But how to explain it best? Who can help? (I am at a loss despite calling me "monetary economist" even before Bitcoin was invented  )

The entire Bitcoin network uses less energy than one out of thousands of large banks like the Philippine National Bank.

No, mining computes useless SHA256s. It's only purpose it to decentralize block production which can be done with POS or other consensus mechanisms.
The belief that mining somehow "backs" or adds value to bitcoin is like a cult mentality. "The bitcoin algorithm does jobs currently held by ..." - except these parts can all work fine, you just skip the part where you do a billion hashes.

If you want money that doesn't use energy, use gold. But wait, it's heavy and takes a lot of energy to move. It must be stored securely, that requires a lot of energy too.

Money must be based on energy. The USD is based on oil, which served it well for a long time. Nowadays acquiring oil is getting messy. We need an alternative to the petrodollar. Modern economics has evolved into sophisticated use of balance sheets that create efficiency of scale for corporate profitability. Our focus on an energy backed currency makes this possible.  Financialization and the ever increasing layers of money abstractions depend on a growing energy supply. This is a good thing and why you are not living in a third world country.

Work must be done to add value to that money. The Bitcoin algorithm does the jobs currently held by firms like Arthur Andersen, HBC, the Federal Reserve, and other such reputable institutions. It does the bookkeeping as transparently as you want it, but also with extreme efficiency. Bitcoin does not require large executive bonuses, bailouts, or bail bondsmen.

PoS is anti-industrial. It doesn't promote commerce nor capitalism. That's why the Bitcoin economy is growing and the PoS coins are merely hoarded by false escaping princes of Africa. PoS economies would probably be useful in dictatorial regimes which force its subjects to use them under the threat of violence.

Very interesting.

Learning from BlackCoin experience,  upon launch of the Bitcoin Proof-of-Stake project, an old version pool is launched which pays participating old-version ASIC miners new-version bitcoin via automated transactions at an exchange. The old bitcoin mined at the pool is sold for new bitcoin - depressing the price of the old and lifting the price of the new.

Bitcoin Proof-of-Stake project
Transitional SHA-256 Mining Pool

I have no clue of technical implementation, as a user i do not accept the costs for mining, i switched from BTC/LTC/FRC to BC/MINT/PHS.

Selling coins to pay for electricity and hardware is not very supportive for a price, nothing else is happening at PoW,  only sometimes hype has overdubbed this tendency.

I say there is no choice, PoW eats itself already via multipools of PoS-coins, maybe it is fun to mine, but every innovation needs high efficiency to scale.

And miners did not tell the truth of what they are doing, "securing the network" sounds like a real need for energy, but to generate an incentive for keeping the nodes online does not need hashing power.

This can be a bad year for PoW, since i only noticed a few critical voices on energy usage, all is well deserved, we have only one world and we need our energy for more important stuff, sorry.

PoS-only coins are for a good reason, it still take some time until they have reached the same age and secure status as Bitcoin - this is exactly the timeframe you have to find a solution.

Your issue is noted, and thanks for bringing it up.

This "spin-off" concept has been discussed for years in the case of a hard fork that is not at all compatible with the current one. Legacy nodes would still need to be around for stragglers for many years. It would be good to see someone try it and work out the bugs. Perhaps they can do it with one of the other altcoins first.

My code will be open sourced on GitHub, where presently sits a cloned Bitcoin repository . . .

https://github.com/StephenLReed/bitcoin

My plan is the keep this branch up-to-date with regard to released versions of the main branch.

My ideas about reward distribution change almost every day. For example today I am mulling simply allocating the block rewards, e.g. $500 million this year, to the super-peer pools, and let them compete for acquiring proof-of-stake shares from client full nodes.

LeChatNoir, if you think you can come up with a wealth distribution that would be more "popular," then simply let SlipperySlope's team do all the hard work for you, and then clone his code and re-launch it with your ideas for the best wealth distribution.  Your PoS shares will compete directly against his.  

In SlipperySlope's PoS spin-off development thread, they were recently discussing the need to win-over influential people to help promote their PoS shares.  You could play this game in a more devious manner by awarding more coins to whomever you think is most important to your cause.  You could also apply a non-linear scaling to bitcoin's wealth distribution, to alleviate your concern with "rewarding Bitcoin early adopters" and having them "dumping their Bitcoin PoS as soon as they can."  It's your creation so you can do whatever you want.  The market will let you know the value it places on your shares.  

Since PoS shares can be created without any work requirements, we could see several PoS "spin-offs" from the bitcoin blockchain.  SlipperySlope's PoS shares may stay true to the bitcoin wealth distribution (although they have already considered re-distributing the Satoshi coins), LeChatNoir's may take from the rich to give to the poor, and I may launch PeterShares where I award 100% of the shares to me (I will then arrange a sale of 0.0000000001% for $1000 to my dog giving my shares a mark-to-market value of $1 quadrillion dollars).    

I'd like to see the process of creating spin-offs made as easy as possible so that people can empirically test their ideas, rather than repeatedly engaging in the same tired debates.  It is pretty clear to me what the outcome of all these spin-offs will be, but I like them because they give people who want to "change" bitcoin an outlet for doing so and a way to "put their money where their mouth is."

The OP is proposing a PoS spin-off from the bitcoin blockchain.  It is an "alt-coin."  What separates it from the other alt-coins to date is that the initial distribution of the pre-mine is proportional to the unspent outputs in the bitcoin blockchain at some pre-determined point in time.  For example, if a current bitcoin user controls 0.0001% of the existing bitcoins, his bitcoin ECDSA private keys will also allow him to claim 0.0001% of the PoS pre-mine.  A "spin-off" is a technique to bootstrap your alt-coin with a large potential user-base and with a wealth-distribution known to be efficient for bitcoin. 

If you are already a bitcoin user, you will be awarded shares in SlipperySlope's experiment for free.  You could immediately dump them if you think the idea is silly, do nothing if you are impartial, or buy more if you like the idea.  The aggregate behaviour of all market participants will dictate whether the coin thrives or dies. 

Spin-off concept:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/spin-offs-bootstrap-an-altcoin-with-a-btc-blockchain-based-initial-distribution-563972

SlipperySlope's PoS spin-off development thread:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ai-coin-development-diary-584719

Turing-complete spin-off "request for comments" thread:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/rfc-aethereum-a-turing-complete-coin-distributed-as-per-bitcoins-blockchain-563925

+1 totally agree.

If people want PoS they should go use Peercoin or some other PoS coin. Bitcoin is bitcoin. It's a PoW coin and should stay that way. That's not to say people should favour bitcoin. By all means start using a PoS coin.

Considering that everyone has a right to make an altcoin and distribute to whomever he wishes, that is quite a reasonable proposal.


Whales are important to the new currency because:
- they have the means to prop up the price during downturns
- they have access to marketing and project development
- they supply the coins to the market at times of popular demand
- they provide the overall backbone to the economy.

If I did not have loads of bitcoins, would I do all that I am doing to help it succeed (for free)? Hell no. If there was nobody in that position, bitcoin would be without leader and without rudder. (It is already enough )

This question concerns the initial distribution of coins; it's not the same as bankers making deciding how much money to print on a day-to-day basis. It's a one-off choice.

As an aside, I don't think it's right to pick on Satoshi but I do think there's an argument for basing the initial distribution on the unspent transaction outputs in the Bitcoin block-chain that are, say, less than 2 years old. The main reason being, you want the new coins to be held by people who are reasonably active in the Bitcoin community, in the hope that they will also be active in the new altcoin community. Satoshi would be excluded, not because he is too rich, but because he's too inactive. Arguably there is no need to reward the earliest adopters of Bitcoin because they are not early adopters of the altcoin. You would advertise the snapshot date in advance, so that whales that were still active and monitoring the scene would be able to transfer their bitcoins to themselves to freshen their transaction dates before the snapshot.

Rewarding stake is actually rewarding risk. Anyone holding large amounts of bitcoin when they could sell them, is risking the bitcoin price crashing and them losing a fortune. It shows they have faith in Bitcoin. That risk-taking and faith does deserve some reward, in my view.

Also, do you see what a leap it is from "whales are dangerous to our new currency because they could crash it by dumping their coins, so perhaps we should exclude them to reduce that danger", and "we should exclude whales because they don't deserve to be rich, because they didn't work for their money"? The first is pragmatic. The second is philosophical/moral; the politics of envy.

You keep making things up and ascribing them to your opponents.

With Bitcoin, the "inflation" has not prevented the coin purchasing power from rising a lot. In this context I cannot see how inflation has been bad.

here is the newest PoS altcoin

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-zimstake-zs-pure-pos-no-ipo-premine-sha-256-583591

and only 24hours after launch, exchange volume:

https://www.scifi-ex.com/#/trade/exchange/39

people want fun, not serious clones of bitcoin