Topic: Bitcoin can go to proof of stake after they see how ethereum goes (Read 513 times)

what about other governments wanting to tackle growth rate in China, would they not want to help facilitate a move to POS?

Also the environmentalists, they too surely would be in support of a move to POS.

Btc mining in China accounts for 65% of all Bitcoin mined. The majority of asic mining hardware is produced in China.

2017 btc energy consumption was around 0.25% of electricity usage in China, by the following year it was nearly 0.75%, total energy consumption over all sectors grew at 3.3% so the growth rate in energy consumption due to btc mining (not including other energy consumption from manufacturing of Asic chips, or shipping of products etc) accounted for 15% of China's total growth rate in Energy sector.

Asic manufacturing is a multi billion dollar industry, as is production of Solar panels and wind generators, also with lots of supply chains (all within China) for numerous other electronic components, this Asic chip industry has a sustained growth rate of about 8.5% a year.

The rise in these industries has not been significant yet due to subdued btc prices. If prices were to rise another order of magnitude to $70k a coin or even more, as some people calling for $100k, $250k, and more, then energy consumption and demand for mining hardware increases much more and becomes an increasing global risk.

To hit China with a move to POS would certainly benefit other countries stance on China's increasing growth rate.

It surely makes more sense to switch to POS? In an environmentally challenging environment, how much dependance can we place on electricity to facilitate a simple transfer that can be done at almost zero environmental cost. Btc's total % of energy consumption will only rise with increased difficulty and the resultant price increases.

Clearly, everyone in the topic who says that "nothing is wrong with Proof of Stake", obviously hasn't thought hard about the faulty incentive-structure in POS. The staker doesn't lose anything from behaving dishonestly/badly.

I don't see anything wrong with Proof of Stake, and I'm interested to see how it goes with Ethereum.

But no way in hell will Bitcoin ever go to proof of stake. That would require a massive hard fork and we all know the bitcoin devs are extremely reluctant to do a single hard fork, otherwise we would have gotten a needed block size increase long ago. And if (and hopefully when) sometime in the future a hard fork update does occur, there will be plenty of other updates much more important and needed for Bitcoin than just randomly deciding to switch it from PoW to PoS.

It really doesn't make any sense to want to switch Bitcoin to PoS. PoW works, most of the energy used is cheap green energy, there's already massive economic cost sunk into the PoW system, it's already the most secure network in history. It makes sense for there to be one ultra secure PoW system running on the planet, and that of course is Bitcoin.

Transaction can never be instantly, at least, it will take 10 minutes for a transaction if good transaction fees is used for the transaction.


For the POW, you have to stake a coin before making, that is rubbish because POW does not require coin stalking. The only thing you can talk about is to reduce the fee and if you are not comfortable with it, make use of lightning network for transactions which we can proof to be POS because you will have bitcoin before making lightning network transactions, and it is at a lowest feels with fastest transaction that can take less than a minute at times.

I doubt they are operating at a loss, the fact that there's so many of them and the new ones keep appearing means that this business is quite profitable. I can totally see them making good profits with ads and paid shilling for shitcoins, exchanges and other companies. Majority of people in crypto don't see any problem with them, they trust that the content they get is actually good, because so few people understand even the basics of cryptocurrencies, most come here for trading.

Indeed.  It's perverse that people are attempting to cite Ethereum as an example that could be followed, rather than an example of what to avoid at all costs.  ETH painted itself into a corner and is looking for a way out.  Switching algo is a subsequent act of desperation on their part. 

Or to put it another way, if someone stranded in the desert is forced to drink their own piss in order to stay alive, that doesn't mean drinking your own piss is an advisable course of action under normal circumstances.   

Your argument doesn't make a valid debate to what phillipma1957 was saying. He was talking about Bitcoin's incentive-structure, and how Bitcoin is energy-backed. Why would miners sell below its real price based on costs? That would bankrupt them out of business.

You the actual cryptocurrencies that are trading with paper value? POS coins. Made from thin air, and valued based on promises.

it is funny how some people still think the community cares about what ethereum does. the only thing that people care about involving ethereum is its pump and dumps and the profit they may or may not make from that process.
not to mention that the only reason why they are going towards PoS is that they are trying to save their failing project. they know well enough that the chain can not survive long term and it will start losing price and consequently the miners. in PoW that means death of that coin. so they are acting faster to mitigate that.
additionally PoS rewards whomever has large amounts of that coin or "stakes", and since the centralized power has the most amount of ETH they obviously want this profit making for absolutely no work.

I don't believe movements from retail investors will drive the price lower. At most, they will keep the price sideways.
Small investors dont have enough money to move the market, even collectively.

I have to remind you that 1% of bitcoin users controls 99% of bitcoin's supply, both inside and outside the exchanges. And we dont know who these users are, if they are compromised with the fiat system and, in case it is so, to what extent. I can say the "hodlers cult" is somewhat involved with derivatives speculation, since they defended it fiercely when I attacked it.

I have enough fiat for some years. I'm worried, though, with the rise of the medical totalitarian global state. This will cause a melting of the fiat currencies, maybe in a unprecedented level in history. Some global centralized cryptocurrency might be launched to replace all fiat currencies, and also dethrone bitcoin from the first position in the market.

The altcoins, though, might be used as a hedge against both bitcoin and fiat currencies meltdowns, thus keeping their positions in the market. It is a theory I have been considering recently, and that is why I'm looking to place some positions in ethereum, monero and others.

I dont want to sell my bitcoins for fiat. Would you recommend exchanging it for ethereum?

More like people would start forking Bitcoin into POS and calling it Bitcoin stakes or something like that (I might have given someone an idea). Bitcoin will always be Bitcoin, there will no changes to it whatsoever because it would change the technical aspects of it. I don't have a deeper knowledge of Bitcoin but it would change the way Bitcoin is used and in a bad way.

That news is just another fiasco made to advertise.

Which is useless if you consider how much bitcoin have been contaminated with paper speculation, where contracts are sold with 100x leverage and can crash its price to zero at any moment.

Your argument would be valid if bitcoin was only sold and bought in its pure form.

POS is basically a zero back bond a junk bond much like an uninsured bank account.

If you can convince me I have recourse  with a POS coin fine.

POW is backed by power.

all the POW in the entire world uses less power then Niagara falls  power plants USA and Canada based.

POW allows power shunting for power grids.
POW creates an economic incentive to create solar arrays


Downside  oil coal and gas get burned  to mine.

That is the fault of all the governments in the world that simply choose to not incentivize solar arrays for mining coins.

So here is a hammer  (pow)

crack heads with it and zero murder laws which basically most of the world's governments are allowing.

or use the hammer to build solar arrays which basically most of the world'd governments don't do


So POS pushers   refuse to acknowledge  the real issues  which  are fucked up governments allowing coal to be burned in favor of solar power.

New Jersey USA is a solar leader due to its incentives for solar power.

I could rail on this over and over.

But I won't>  POS = piece of shit  an uninsured bank account or bond.  convince me otherwise.  As I am easy to bend if you have a legit argument.


A  10% high risk investment   for a POS coin is not a good arguement.
even 50% return is not a good argument.

Explain to me what  is the difference between  a junk bond and a pos coin.

by the way a junk bond is better in some cases as it may have company assets behind it.

In 1990's kmart issued 15%  junk bonds that actually were paid off.

POS coins are designed to fail there is no value in them.  They are all clonable with no gear to back them.

Show me I am wrong.  This is directed at Khaos77 (nice name as we will be in total chaos if we all go the way of pos coins)

And in other news, the US Mint are going to start making coins out of chocolate after seeing that done elsewhere.   

Who even writes this crap?  It's just another clickbait headline quoting a brainfart some random person had.  It's even not news.  All these crypto sites who like to pretend they're some sort of legitimate journalistic publication are just making it plain that they're on borrowed time and have no capacity to produce even remotely informative content.  Time to cut their losses and fold now, I say.  It's just getting embarrassing now.

I'm not expert enough in the technical aspects of crypto to understand why you have the opinion you have, but I respect it nonetheless--and I know there's a big rift between PoS supporters and those who only favor PoW.

But I'm thinking bitcoin won't ever move to a PoS algorithm, as that would be like adding baking soda to the formulation for Coca-Cola.  It just wouldn't be bitcoin.  I am interested to see how ETH turns out as a PoS coin, though.  I don't own any and probably wouldn't be motivated enough to buy 32 of them in order to stake it, but I'm curious to see whether it's going to be a success.

Yeah, there's that big rift I was referring to above.

I remember having read something along the lines of that, though apparently it wasn't a success (as most bitcoin forks are, lol) since the idea is pretty much diverging too much from what a cryptocurrency really is. Anyway, I'm not entirely sure whether PoS would be a good idea to any coin, ever, seeing that most power would belong to those early enough to take a stash of the coins into their coffers and hoped for the best, whereas in PoW mining could be centralized, but at least the means to get there takes a lot of effort and money and your large share of the hashing power won't mean much unless some other shithead decides to mess around the bitcoinspace with you.

I would say doing the opposite of Ethereum is the most sensible option in most cases. At least they're out there taking lumps with their whacky ideas so no one else has to do it. Ethereum has the luxury of chucking a mountain of shit at the wall and if it all slides into a heap at the bottom there's enough nutters to club together and resurrect it. Bitcoin will never follow that model.

The most important thing is to develop something that is hard to attack without sacrificing on the ideals of decentralization.
I think there are some ways the proposed PoS and the current PoW could be successful attacked. Both could easily be attacked in serious crisis when most people are distracted or when tyranny and lawlessness reigns globally

Well, since these to things are considered the defining ones by many people in this community, I am pretty sure that even a good argument would result in Bitcoin Stake or something else created as a fork, rather than Bitcoin going proof-of-stake. I think it's okay that Bitcoin is proof-of-work, and the change is too drastic to be accepted within the community. Oh, and don't we need miners onboard to do that? And how can you possibly convince miners to quit? Speaking of Ethereum, it was supposed to go proof-of-stake already, so it's unclear if that's going to happen now that the previous deadline was missed.

So have I.
The founder of bitcoin suisse is Niklas Nikolajsen. The only reason how I heard of this guy just last week was from the algorithm inwhich youtube used to find videos of his when I have done searches on bitcoin.
The last video I watched was when he was doing an interview and had a physical 5BTC in his pocket and the interviewer asked why he was carrying it around with him. And his response was as a reminder he bought it for $5 and now it was worth $200,000. That was when bitcoins price was higher two years ago during the all time high.