You are not making any sense. In your model, there is no work that the "PoS" does. So all coin creation serves only to inflate the value of all coins. Is there anyone in the thread who knows what he is talking or do I have to conclude that all "PoS" is smoke and mirrors?
In my model there is no coin creation. Before you insult me please read what I write. 
Topic: Annual 10% bitcoin dividends if mining were Proof-of-Stake - page 7. (Read 16632 times)
You are not making any sense. In your model, there is no work that the "PoS" does. So all coin creation serves only to inflate the value of all coins. Is there anyone in the thread who knows what he is talking or do I have to conclude that all "PoS" is smoke and mirrors?
What about the DPR seized coins? Perhaps these should be redistributed for the "greater good" too?
Since PoS schemes aim to create value out of nothing (cf. alchemy)
Are you stating that shareholders shouldn't earn dividends?
How about you tell - do you think increasing the number of currency units (other things being equal) increases the market cap?
Answer is of course NO, but why is the whole thing then so important?
This value transfer from holders to miners is necessary because miners are doing a service for the network. Holders pay this service by diluting their value via the inflation of the money supply.
But with PoS, holders can accomplish by themselves the very service the miners are doing. Therefore they no longer need to pay miners, they no longer need to see the money supply be inflated and diluting their value. The main point is that PoW is fundamentally inflationnist whereas PoS is truly deflationnist. If BTC-PoS would born tomorrow we can have a money supply which will be forever 12,7 millions BTC, instead of 21 millions with PoW.
What about the DPR seized coins? Perhaps these should be redistributed for the "greater good" too?
Since PoS schemes aim to create value out of nothing (cf. alchemy)
Are you stating that shareholders shouldn't earn dividends?
economy = company
shares = currently
The problem is the company needs the shareholders to give up there shares to do business.
What about the DPR seized coins? Perhaps these should be redistributed for the "greater good" too?
Since PoS schemes aim to create value out of nothing (cf. alchemy)
No. I had a long treatise concerning this as my first post in the thread.
I dispute that the network can sustainably gain any value if the currency unit is created out of thin air.
Everybody imagine that should be the case because everybody are reasoning within the PoW paradigm which make necessary to create new units. But a PoS network can work fine without creating new units (see NXT and soon Bitshares X, or any brick and mortar corporation).
What about the DPR seized coins? Perhaps these should be redistributed for the "greater good" too?
Since PoS schemes aim to create value out of nothing (cf. alchemy)
Are you stating that shareholders shouldn't earn dividends?
How about you tell - do you think increasing the number of currency units (other things being equal) increases the market cap?
Answer is of course NO, but why is the whole thing then so important?
this thread is very superficial. to begin with the mining subsidy decreases over time. It will half in 2017 to 4%.
a fork from Bitcoin to PoS will never happen. this just doesn't make sense.
if you want to create a new protocol you should learn the basics, otherwise nobody will take you seriously. and besides there several major issues with PoS. if you solve those, just start an altcoin and get rich. end of story.
a fork from Bitcoin to PoS will never happen. this just doesn't make sense.
if you want to create a new protocol you should learn the basics, otherwise nobody will take you seriously. and besides there several major issues with PoS. if you solve those, just start an altcoin and get rich. end of story.
What about the DPR seized coins? Perhaps these should be redistributed for the "greater good" too?
Since PoS schemes aim to create value out of nothing (cf. alchemy)
Are you stating that shareholders shouldn't earn dividends?
What about the DPR seized coins? Perhaps these should be redistributed for the "greater good" too?
Since PoS schemes aim to create value out of nothing (cf. alchemy)
No. I had a long treatise concerning this as my first post in the thread.
I dispute that the network can sustainably gain any value if the currency unit is created out of thin air.
What about the DPR seized coins? Perhaps these should be redistributed for the "greater good" too?
Since PoS schemes aim to create value out of nothing (cf. alchemy)
What about the DPR seized coins? Perhaps these should be redistributed for the "greater good" too?
Since PoS schemes aim to create value out of nothing (cf. alchemy)
Does proof of work have to be limited to computer calculations?
No it could be limited to IP address or any other computer operation (all can be digitally reproduced). Satoshi discussed it here on Bitcointalk and argued that it was the hardest process to fake, in that one had to invest economic resources to do it and in so doing that would introduced risk and competition and efficiency, optimizing the distributing of coins.If you can do Proof of Storage that would be a more effective distribution method than PoS. Some proposals but not invented yet. CloudCoin comes to mind as 1 of 3 attempts I know of.
Would it be possible to tie Proof of Storage to a gps coordinate for example? If as a miner, I could register an IP address to a physical and known location, earning trust over time (it's centralization - but there could be competition, anyone can register w/gps and documented physical address depending on regulators or trust of your location by the outside world) then work could be defined as transporting to and from storage, getting resources to the most effective location, addressing. It seems to me that work might be defined as almost any human endeavor that can be agreed upon by the block chain. If there is litter on the ground, and that litter can somehow be identified as lost, and it is then registered that I've moved the litter to a waste receptacle, then I've proven work. To me, bitcoin is about rewarding more people for the work they do every day. There should at least be enough coins to measure every keystroke that has ever landed on the internet - if that makes any sense.
To me the problem is not about rewarding more people it's about distributing Bitcoin to more people. Satoshi came up with a market system to do it, one that is consistent with Adam Smith's description of why metals were mined and how metals came to hold value.
As for your solutions if you can come up with a distribution mechanism that is controlled by a trust free market system it would have value, IP address and GPS locations are easy to spoof and controlled by a central system not a trust free market system.
What about the DPR seized coins? Perhaps these should be redistributed for the "greater good" too?
Since PoS schemes aim to create value out of nothing (cf. alchemy), surely they can decide to exclude whatever entities from the
If we are aiming to have another social engineering fiat experiment, do as you wish and don't be surprised if nobody wants to hold your paper except (max) at gunpoint, as is the case with national fiats.
Yes. Thank you Risto. It is clear to me that PoS is Fiat 2.0, but I think a lot of others here haven't had that epiphany yet.
I actually hope SlipperySlope proceeds with his bitshares experiment. It will be very interesting to see the dynamics that unfold. If bitcoin holders believe in PoS, they should trade out of bitcoin and into SlipperySlope's bitshares as they could profit immensely should bitshares become dominant. On the other hand, if they are wrong, then they will transfer some of their wealth to bitcoin holders. SlipperySlope's experiment will give PoS supporters a chance to "put their money where their mouth is."
What about the DPR seized coins? Perhaps these should be redistributed for the "greater good" too?
Since PoS schemes aim to create value out of nothing (cf. alchemy), surely they can decide to exclude whatever entities from the
If we are aiming to have another social engineering fiat experiment, do as you wish and don't be surprised if nobody wants to hold your paper except (max) at gunpoint, as is the case with national fiats.
I don't get why people are so prompt to make the analogy PoS=Fiat. In fiat people who vote (Central bankers) have divergent interest with fiat holders, they have no skin in the game. Whereas with PoS the interest of the decision makers are the same than the interest of holders.
Correct. It is like a popular democracy where shares (money) can be created and destroyed based on popular opinion. For example, SlipperySlope has a tricky decision to make: should he credit Satoshi with his estimated 1,000,000 shares and risk a dump of 8% of the outstanding bitshares? Or should he redistribute them more "fairly"?
When I asked him about his policy on the redistribution of wealth, he said the following about the Satoshi coins:
The best case for redistribution to add to Satoshi's social contract would be to make permanent the up-to-now unspent coins that Satoshi mined while alpha testing the live chain.
I found it very interesting that SlipperySlope believes that Satoshi holds some sort of "social contract" with us not to spend his coins. I disagree.
What about the DPR seized coins? Perhaps these should be redistributed for the "greater good" too? And then perhaps it will become popular opinion that some whales have too many shares and it's unfair that the staking rewards flow in proportion to stake rather than work. The bitshares community will claim that people should be rewarded for work, not for rent-seeking. And then perhaps they will vote for some sort of progressive transfers of shares from these whales to projects for the betterment of humanity (the "greater good").
Bitcoins are very difficult to create for a reason.
Is there any economic benefit at all to the network from such a mining? The transactions are practically handled centrally, like in banks(?)
No, it's distributed. (Unless you think Bitcoin is also mined centrally, due to a few mining pools having a virtual monopoly.)Does it [PPCoin mining] function in absence of a central authority? If not, in what way is it distributed?
SlipperySlope reported in his PoS alt-coin development thread that a bitcoin core dev said this:
The problems to address as viewed by a member of the developers email list . . .
Quote
The problem with proof of stake is essentially that there is no cost to
creating a proof-of-stake.
...
The problem is what wrecked Peercoin, which I understand is now
centralized (all blocks are signed by the developers to be valid). ]
creating a proof-of-stake.
...
The problem is what wrecked Peercoin, which I understand is now
centralized (all blocks are signed by the developers to be valid). ]
I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this information, but it sounds like the fact that shares are free to create caused a problem that forced Peercoin to become centralized around the developers who sign each block to be valid. So in essence, these developers are the "Central Bank of Peercoin."
Brangdon, what SlipperySlope is proposing is an alt-coin. The only way to turn bitcoin into a proof-of-stake network is to create a spin-off or fork (i.e., an "alt-coin") and try to legitimize it with your influence and economic power.
Yes. And I think that's going to be immensely difficult. The spin-off idea helps, but (in my view) not enough. I doubt Bitcoin will ever be superseded by an altcoin unless some disaster happens to Bitcoin (like a massive, sustained 51% attack).It is interesting to analyze how SlipperySlope's experiment (bitshares) will play out.
If SlipperySlope succeeds in releasing his PoS spin-off with pre-mine proportional to the bitcoin unspent outputs, and if he has agreements in place with various crypto-exchanges prior to launch, and if the launch is well-advertised, what will happen?
All bitcoin users will instantly be awarded an equal number of bitshares. On the exchanges, bitshares will trade directly against bitcoins. If you have 10 BTC in your Cryptsy account, Cryptsy could credit you instantly with 10 BTS for free. That's what PoS is: shares created without any work requirement. The next question is will these shares retain any value?
Some bitcoin holders might think that the idea is stupid and will immediately dump their "free shares" at say a 1 : 100,000 discount. Users who believe in PoS would be wise to purchase these, for if bitshares supersedes bitcoin, then they've 100,000X their money. Maybe I'll buy thousands of these shares if they are cheap enough. Most users will remain impartial (not do anything) and retain x BTC and x BTS. PoS supporters will keep trading out of BTC and into the "discounted" BTS ledger until the market cap of BTS is near the market cap of the other PoS alt coins (0.1 - 1% of the bitcoin market cap).
Now it gets interesting. It will probably be "worth it" to me to start selling my "free" BTS at perhaps a 1 : 100 discount. Maybe I'll slowly sell half of them should the price of BTS continue to gain on BTC. I feel a lot of others will do the same. Meanwhile, PoS supporters can continue to sell out of BTC to purchase these PoS coins as they are still "discounted." Eventually, I think it will be obvious whether bitshares has any hope of superseding bitcoin.
And the last question is : what would Satoshi do? If BTS ever trades near 1 : 1 with BTC (or higher) Satoshi could always "dump" his estimated 1,000,000 BTS shares and crash the entire PoS experiment.
in a distributed system, conflicts are resolved by majority vote, and voting has to be made expensive to prevent stuffing the ballot-box. Proof-of-work is one way to make it expensive. Proof-of-stake is another.
I have read the thread, and there was a convincing differentiation of shares vs. coins.
With shares, you vote without working, according to how much you have at stake from previous investment.
With coins, you must pay for every vote you want.
The first one is scarcely suitable to be a basis for a monetary system, because there is no anchor, no cost that "keeps people honest" like in gold standard vs. fiat standard.
Switching back to fiat after just 5-8 years of enjoying the renewed benefits of gold would be sad.
I don't get why people are so prompt to make the analogy PoS=Fiat. In fiat people who vote (Central bankers) have divergent interest with fiat holders, they have no skin in the game. Whereas with PoS the interest of the decision makers are the same than the interest of holders. Skin in the game is the way to keep decisions in check (and that's why everybody right now is fine with miners making decisions: because like holders, they have skin in the game).
Also the argument of the value derived from cost has the flavor of the marxist labor theory of value. The value of the network doesn't comes from the cost to maintain it but from the services provided by the network (the more useful the services are, the more there is adoption, and the more the price increases).
The Bitcoin Proof-of-Stake project thread is https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6397403 . A descriptive post there is . . . https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6415632 .
Is there any economic benefit at all to the network from such a mining? The transactions are practically handled centrally, like in banks(?)
No, it's distributed. (Unless you think Bitcoin is also mined centrally, due to a few mining pools having a virtual monopoly.)Does it [PPCoin mining] function in absence of a central authority? If not, in what way is it distributed?
Jump to: