Topic: "Coins That Use POW or POS are Screwed" Opinions? (Read 185 times)

I think that's some fancy way to tell "please buy the coins I'm HODLing, I want to make an early retirement, as soon as possible".
No. I stopped at "incentivizing centralization"? LOL

I don't think PoW (which is actually a real consensus mechanism) will be so much affected long-term if the incentive model includes any problem solve by nodes that does not compromise on decentralisation/security ... and it should be completely merit based. The current pow model doesn't seem to do this . I don't see why participants shouldn't be rewarded (not necessarily  financial reward) for being consistently honest and running their nodes properly and consistently. There are many other things to reward to help keep a Network decentralized,secure, efficient, fast, Fair, etc
By the way,the typical PoS is fundamentally flawed,so i can't fit it properly in my model without compromising on decentralization

That argument basically ignores human behaviour. Why the heck would anyone support a network if there are no benefits for them. Maybe in an idealistic world where your ideology is your currency, that might work. But the real world isn't like that. Maybe there are a few of them, but you can't run a decentralized network if there are only five or ten users.

Some FUD on reddit is hardly an article, it is worse when they are using terrible altcoins for comparison. I myself love the idea of using Directed Scyclic Graph and I wish some good developers explored it more but unfortunately the existing coins (namely IOTA and NANO) are just terrible at it, specially since they are completely centralized which is already covered above.

The thing is that bitcoin has found a way that works fine called Proof of Work and is providing an excellent security. It also found a way to reach a balance where the incentive is always there for miners to not only stay and provide security but also for mining to keep growing and the security to increase over time. This is provided whether with adoption increasing (ergo rising price) or the fee market if needed which won't be needed for about 100 years.
So far we have seen at least a dozen different substitute algorithms but most were vaporware and none of them were capable providing enough security, decentralization and reach a balance like bitcoin has.

You mean "dump"? That would be excellent news, people who have no understanding of bitcoin and panic sell based on some random misinformation on the internet are best leave bitcoin behind sooner than later.

Your response is valued. That is why it is worth talking about. New-coiners see things like this and dumb all their Bitcoin. We need forward-thinking people like you to steer them away from bad decisions.

Thank you for your response.

So basically some guy on reddit is shilling two shitty altcoins haha. Don't see what's worth talking about here.

The reason Nano doesn't have fees is because it abandoned the idea of implementing economic incentives into its network, thereby abandoning the whole reason why Bitcoin became valuable in the first place and guaranteeing that Nano never will. Even during the rabid run-up of failed altcoins in April/May as dumb dogecoin investors piled into a bunch of old failed coins, Nano still only reached half its early 2018 peak, which pretty much tells you all you need to know about it.

IOTA was an interesting idea but ended up going nowhere and now is just a failed coin amongst the large graveyard of failed cryptocurrencies. And looking at the charts now it too this year only reached half its 2018 peak.

Both of these coins had a brief moment in the sun in terms of hype and market cap at the end of the 2017 bull market when the retail market naively thought something would replace Bitcoin and people were on the search for it. Both are now long since dead projects that only bag holders care about.


PoS is fine and most cryptocurrencies that will be successful should adopt it. PoW is very powerful but we only need or should even have one PoW blockchain and obviously that is Bitcoin, so in that regard i agree that coins (that aren't bitcoin) that use PoW are screwed because they aren't secure and are wasteful because they don't provide value or the security the way bitcoin does.

Yes isn't IOTA just one switch away from being shut down or something like that? While there have been valid arguments against PoW and PoS, there are also a lot of arguments for it. The irony being here that we are in a world of consensus now! You can't have it all and the projects/coins claiming they solve problems of PoW and PoS while not sacrificing any of the achievements those two algorithms bring about so far have failed. In PoS you can implement penalties for certain actions and tendencies at the core protocol level in order to prevent harmful centralization from happening. There are all kinds of ways, most which are still subject to research and experimentation. As my previous poster implied, IOTA hasn't contributed much / anything useful so far.

The difficulty in finding the next Bitcoin hash is determined by competition, so if it's getting more difficult then it means there is more competition, which already defeats the centralization narrative as a lot of miners and pools are struggling to solve the cryptographic problem. The mining sector is not static where one entity or company accumulates all of the hashpower, rather it is dynamic and constantly changing.

Also, besides miners, there are nodes who function to encourage consensus.

You are really using IOTA as a model for decentralization? Seriously?

IOTA Being Shut Off Is the Latest Chapter in an Absurdist History

There is probably no coin in this whole world more centralized than this, as this is simply the maximum you can achieve.Two coins that have failed miserably, with little to no userbase left other than trapped investors, with security that has never actually been tested that hides behind fancy words.

Bitcoin has been "screwed" since 2013 when the first miraculous revolutionary altcoins have come by solving all problems, yet fast forward 8 years and look, all those coins are on their last legs while bitcoin dictates everything. And if you think as long run as in 50 years, nobody here cares!

I read something rather interesting on reddit earlier this evening. It discusses how ALL cryptocurrencies that use Proof-of-Work or Proof-of-Stake are inherently screwed.

""TL;DR: My thesis is that cryptocurrencies relying either on PoW or PoS, cryptocurrencies with inflation, fees & staking, cryptocurrencies with block subsidies and reward schedules are all screwed in the long run. My reasoning for this is that cryptocurrencies using PoW, PoS, or anything like it, actively undermine their own goals by incentivizing centralization over time at their core. In doing so, these protocols encourage a loss in stall resistance and a loss in security. I also argue that at least 2 cryptocurrencies (IOTA and Nano) solve this issue through their feeless/inflation-free proposition."

https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/o4wl85/all_powpos_coins_are_screwed_in_the_long_term/

I have many disagreements with this stance, especially their stance on the incentives that Nano and Iota have to offer. I want to know what my maxis think about this. I strongly encourage you give the article a read before you give input because the writer takes a very interesting stance.

Let me know what you think.