Topic: changing Bitcoin mining algorithm to non-PoW after block 630,000 (Read 2975 times)

Stopped reading there.

If you were to buy up a large amount of a PoS coin you would launch an attack, then transfer the coins to an exchange an sell them before the network realizes it has been attacked.

It is good strategy to attack a shitcoin, but it'll be very expensive, and maybe impossible to buy considerable part of all the bitcoins. And if you have such considerable stake, you wouldn't destroy the value of them by attacking the system.

It could be the case that some already proposed method happens to be ok. My main point is that none of them have enough theoretical basis or empirical evidence to justify any confidence in them.

All you would need to do to attack a PoS coin is buy up a lot of the shitcoin, transfer them to a lot of different wallets housed is various VPS that all have different IP addresses. You then attack the network, transfer the shitcoin back to an exchange, sell the shitcoin before anyone notices

+1

I would assume a great deal of power and resource goes into extracting oil, gold, silver etc.. I do not think at any stage they stop to think whether its worth it, because it is something that will run out at some point and no matter what such a thing will always have power and value.

You are looking at the situation from the current price perspective and not with a lateral perspective that include its technologies, platforms and overall projected value in the coming years.

Non-PoW is not as safe as Pow Algorithm
and who will keep the bitcoins of the blocks until  the 21 million
it is not going to be done nothing as you plan

Typical bitcointard thinking process.
Please show me how you attack NXT or BTSX without spending 1$.

If you use PoS or DPoS to mine your scamcoin then you will not need to spend any resources to mine. If you are not spending any resources to mine then it would not cost any resources to attack the network. If it does not cost anything to attack the network then the network is not secure. If the network is not secure then people will have no reason to own or accept the coin for payment, and thus the coin would have no value

Correct. OP should be smarter than this guy.

hi Meni,

Perhaps you can elaborate why no
POS current method is solid enough,
even for synchronization.

Is that because of the nothing-at-stake
attack vector and similar issues?

Thanks,

Jonald

This man is smarter than OP.

This post (like much of the discussions of alternative mining) seems to confuse the two roles of mining, issuing new coins and synchronizing transactions. Your calculation of costs relates to issuing coins, yet PoS is not a viable method for a fair issuing of coins, only for synchronization.

If we stick with synchronization - the idea of updating now for the far future has merit, but no currently existing method is solid enough to deserve being privileged as the default future method - and that's taking into account our ability to change it later.

Also, I don't see a problem with making a change when it's relevant. The miners may resist, but we're not asking them.

Let’s face it: PoW algorithm lead the Bitcoin currency to nowhere. If someday Bitcoin become to be no. 1 world reserve currency the price of it would raise to over 1 million dollar for unit. This price on 2021 means electricity waste of 1 bn dollar daily on PoW mining. Same price on 2019 means electricity waste of 2 bn dollar daily. It is obvious that those quantities of energy waste are not substantial.

As the Bitcoin system work on PoW, the miners community grab all the bitcoin community on the balls. They would never agree to give up their huge income from PoW mining, even if they’ll be shown that other authentication algorithm will be better to the bitcoin community and to Bitcoin as a system.

Future hard fork in the Bitcoin network is inevitable. Otherwise, Bitcoin will lose its consensus as the main cryptographic currency to another no-PoW currency. The losers from such developement would be all the bitcoin community: investors, users, merchants, and Bitcoin services suppliers.

The best solution, by my opinion, is an immediate fork which changes the mining algorithm to DPoS (or any other algorithm that not include huge electricity waste in its core functionality) after block 630,000 (approx. on year 2020) The miners would have relatively low resistance to this kind of update, as their business plans are not go so far, and as their actual mining hardware shall be anyway useless on that future point. Miners that’ll enter to the mining scene with new hardware in the future would anyway take this fork in their rentability calculations.

It is important to code this update in a way which the miners would not know what clients and what users use the forked version, so they couldn’t discriminate them in any way. This point is very easy to implement, as there is no difference between the functionality of the two versions before 2020.

There is no need to wait for a non-PoW algorithm will prove effective over the years. If we will discover in the future that DPoS algorithm does not work properly, or there is a better algorithm, the fork would be updated to the optimal algorithm. Anyway, the fork has no effect on the current functionality of the Bitcoin network, but only on the functionality of its future after 2020.

Meanwhile, leaders in the community, as exchanges, blogs and wallets developers will inform the users about the proposed change and its meaning, so when the inevitable hard fork in the blockchain will happens, all the Bitcoin community will be behind the more efficient forked version, leaving only the miners with the old one.

The core developers will be able to take further action to prevent "miners rebellion" before the year 2020: the threat that if such a revolt happens, transition to the new non-PoW algorithm will start immediately. Not in the future, so the miners will lose their expected income till 2020.