Topic: Bitcoin Green upgrade proposal (Read 221 times)

Then the goal is to waste as much electricity as possible to secure 4-7 transactions per second which is also insane. Miners dumping their coins is the equivalent of a hidden fee charged to the hodlers for basically making no transaction which is even more insane but I guess time will tell who's right so we should both shut up and see what happens. 

So if you think PoS is the solution, there are already a lot of PoS projects out there. Failed and on-going. What do you think about the EOS debacle though?

What about all the manipulations that are possible in PoS for cornering fee and delegation etc?

Also, those that claim that PoS has equal vote because it doesnt have miners, sadly neither understand PoS, nor PoW.

There is no equal "voting" in PoS. Its all a bunch of corporations/ exchanges/ foundations that setup nodes having sufficient compute to have low latency and process the transactions. Just look at the node requirements for Validating nodes.

In case of PoW, you guys complain about wider macro-issues like miner hardware centralization, mining pools etc. The mining pool argument is worthless anyways. What you conveniently ignore that in PoS these macro-issues have been shown to be much bigger and much frequent, even at way lower scales of transaction value and locked value.

So until there is an actual working chain with even 50% of Bitcoin value, you all should STFU about PoS or others of those academic curiosities somehow being better than PoW. 

In fact most miners dump their coins immediately after mining a new block and most of the blocks are mined in countries where bitcoin is illegal which doesn't make any sense.. I think that the move to PoS is inevitable but miners will do whatever they can to prevent that from happening so they can keep making huge profits on the back of the hodlers. After implementing a PoS system to secure the network we could reduce the block time to lower the transactions fees and to allow quicker confirmations.

@ModelT,
Forgot to save the change in my settings, hopefully now it should work.

Still got- User 'topcoin360' has not chosen to allow messages from newbies. You should post in their relevant thread to remind them to enable this setting.

That might make sense if each person (or corporation) was allowed to each vote once, but if 1 person has 10,000 asic mining rigs, don't they effectively get 10,000 votes? How is that any different than someone with more money getting more votes than someone with less money? And what if you own some bitcoin, but don't have an asic rig? Seems like you don't get any votes.

Bitcoin was built around the idea of a decentralized currency, not around the idea of wasting as much electricity as possible to secure a transaction worth one USD. Bitcoin is no longer decentralized because of ASICs and mining pools. TangentC is right, Satoshi's vision is one-CPU-one-vote and POS is perfectly aligned with that vision. And you're also right, that's a pointless debate.

@TangentC,
I think it will take some time before I understand how ADA works...

Kohas7787, is that another you? I told you, I’m franky1’s doppelganger. Call me franky2. Hahaha.

If talking about changing Bitcoin POW, then you are debating the impossible. Changing it will break the very structure that’s making the whole system stick together. It’s a pointless debate. Satoshi’s breakthrough is actually his implementation of POW in Bitcoin.


 

It’s about settlement assurances, and overshooting security. Bitcoin is actually faster than Dogecoin if you understood that.

I'm not worried about a sell-off (you probably already know why). I don't need to mine my own fork, if all the "economically relevant nodes" agree to reject a fork then the other nodes have no choice but to follow (even if they are not aware of the new rule). I expected some resistance from miners but who else would refuse to have a vote?

@ModelT,
my mailbox is fixed

Better to place more emphasis on quality of work done than how much money a voter has otherwise you'll have such "Bitcoin" easily taken over by people who have the ability to print unlimited cash, or you'll have a situation where few people with most of the money control consensus.
Satoshi voting standard requires One vote per participant  (one cpu one vote and one ip address one vote,)

Basing consensus or governance on how much money participant have in an open source public system like Bitcoin typically sounds like financial corruption to me. It's incompatible with how civilized governance/consensus system works and wouldn't encourage true decentralization.

Sorry , you are 12 years old T-Man aka Wind_Fury, you really don't know what is possible and what is not.  
Perhaps take some programming classes when you get to high school.

---

@NeuroticFish,
If the increase energy used actually increased transaction performance, I would agree it was needed.
But the increase energy used by Bitcoin PoW really gives no performance increase whatsoever.
As far as the security , if I had 4 guys (with 51%) securing a PoS coin, I have the same security as bitcoin
with only the 4 mining pool operators controlling over 51% on a daily basis. Another reason the increased energy is just wasted.

---

@ModelT
You're good if you want to try and PM me now.

Isn't that what Bit Green (https://bitg.org/) basically did to start? Now they are trying to have more of a positive impact rather than simply reduce energy use (in part as they realize there are many low energy use alternatives to bitcoin including Cardano and Nano to name just a few). FWIW, Nano is in many ways the peer to peer cashless network described by Satoshi. Of course, the bitcoin community has been able to create a much larger market cap by brining in 3rd parties and repositioning btc as a store of value.


@Topcoin360 & @TangentC, I tried to dm you but got a message saying you hadn't enabled receiving from newbies.

@NeuroticFish...can you explain
During a recent Bloomberg TV interview, Caitlin Long, the CEO of Wyoming based digital asset bank Avanti, stated “There is really no difference in the ultimate energy use between proof of work and proof of stake. I had to laugh out loud when I saw Elon Musk’s tweet today."
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/energy-use-ultimately-proof-of-work-proof-of-stake-5341668
Do you agree or disagree?

There are parts of Bitcoin which have become ossified, that are close to impossible to change even with consensus, if not impossible. Changing those parameters would be breaking the protocol, and break how everything has been sticking together.

Actually we, those who have seen many coins developed during the years, have noticed that if a coin doesn't "waste electricity", its price will rather soon go down never to recover.
So I guess that most of those answering are just afraid to lose money, not "bitcoin cultists".

So my advice is to make your own coin with this idea and see how it goes, but I must warn you (if you didn't already know) that it may be a wasted effort.
You can make your own fork too instead of coin, but then you may face the hate of some (especially if you'll use the word Bitcoin in your fork's name) and some of those having bitcoin will probably dump their fork-coins as soon as you'll give them the opportunity.

Of course, you are free to try.


PS. You should start with reading more about PoW and PoS, you seem to have quite some misconceptions here and there.

Dude,

FYI: You can run a PoS network from laptops, laptops are portable.
An entire Bitcoin warehouses is not that portable.
moving the laptop, pick it up and plug it in anywhere.
Bitcoin warehouse, pack up miners, and have movers move to new warehouse, that has industrial energy capacity.

Oops right there , did you see that , industrial energy capacity
That mean you can't hide the physical location of your bitcoin energy wasting warehouse.

My laptop draws less power than your xbox, you don't have a clue where it is located by energy used.

PoS network users can hide from armies and tanks and still run the network,
Bitcoin warehouse are sitting ducks for shoulder fire missiles.

PoS wins the censorship resistance hands down over your (look at me waste energy bitcoin warehouse.)

 

FYI:
Also most PoS coin process transactions in the order received, they don't let the rich jump ahead like in bitcoin pay me higher transaction fee scam to confirm today.

You are trading off decentralization for "energy efficiency ".

A pos protocol is not as censorship resistant as a pow one.

A night nation could buy a lot of coins and coherce big holders to control the network.

It is easier to identify people who hold large amounts of coins than miners, for example.

Bitcoin is doing very well with the current protocol, there is really no need to change and put security and decentralization at risk just because elon musk wrote a few tweets to get carbon credits from USA government

Bitcoiners cultist
don't want energy efficiency
don't want increase onchain transaction capacity
don't want lower transaction fees

What they do want is
coal fueling their miners
Forcing users Offchain  
higher onchain transaction fees

Oh, and they think Bitcoin is an infallible god of commerce.

So as you can see, Bitcoiner cultist are totally deranged and easily triggered.

Your best efforts for improving the cryto space coins
that are already energy efficient
already have increase onchain transaction capacity
already have lower transaction fees
and better developers.

Look into Cardano and Algorand and begin developing with them.
Developers that act like intellectual adults instead of the cult leaders that BTC calls developers.

Might want to print this post before the cult leaders zap it.   

Sounds like you need to fork and start your own coin/chain. Bitcoin is not easy to change on the base protocol level, if there is any contention it will not be adopted, the idea of making backward breaking changes as you describe and introducing proof-of-stake is not a subtle change and has no chance of being pursued.

Hi folks,

I not so long ago posted about an idea to improve the network's energy efficiency. The idea wasn't well received by the commnunity (or the miner community which is understandable) but I decided to work on the concept anyway. I obiously had to make some changes and now it seems to work in theory..

The goal of this project is to create a sustainable coin. Before explaining the concept, I want to mention two things:

1.The solution I propose would require a change to bitcoin's protocol. The BTCGreen project is an initiative to build a DApp that runs on top of bitcoin’s blockchain (all the data would be recorded on a side chain and the space required should be minimal).

2.A new consensus rule would allow the network to vote for the "true" ledger with a PoS based system.

This system could be useful for two things:

1.The network could be secured using less electricity.

2.The hodlers would have the power to reject a fraudulent fork without risking any consensus problem.

The PoS sidechain would give the nodes the ability to reject a block using a voting system. Here's how it would work:

Step 1: all the users who want to participate must create a key pair then link their wallets' addresses to their public key (the owner of the wallets must authorize the operation with his signature). In the voting process the amount of votes one voter has is equal to the amount of satoshis that he owns (the votes must include the voter's signature to be valid).

Step 2: Any participant can create a poll and allow the network to vote in favor of rejecting a specific block. Any user who doesn’t answer a poll is automatically voting in favor of not rejecting the block (even if he is not registered), the majority vote should then decide whether the block is accepted or rejected by the network (the last block of the fork should be used as a reference point for counting the votes).

Step 3: The participants must update their own record and share their data (it doesn't matter if all the records are not exactly the same as it will probably not affect the polls’ result). The participation rate should grow overtime.

What would be the next move?

We could build the app then run it on a testnet, we will go live if we can reach a 51% approval rate (according to the PoS sidechain). I will start writing the codes this summer, if you want to contribute PM me. Thanks!