Topic: Do you think Bitcoin should modify to POW + POS ? █████ Poll █████ (Read 7564 times)

Summary of discussion on research of the described POS attacks to date. Looks very positive for POS.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10152632

Anyone wanna change their vote?   

CLAMs are not a fork of bitcoin. The only relation that CLAM has with bitcoin is that they were airdropped to holders of bitcoin who had unspent inputs in their address(es) (as well as to holders of DOGE)

There are some realities what is going to happen if there is a switch.

1) The design, implementation and testing is going to take a long time. Think a year or two. Bitcoinv2 better be almost perfect in many ways.
2) The current bitcoinv1 still needs development and support during this time
3) If miners are going to be made obsolete they might not take that year laying down. They are going to do something but what?
4) There is going to be competition. Competing teams are going to emerge with their own proposal.
5) We need competition of different proposals. There are a million details to be sorted out. It is not as simple as just go to PoS.
6) Innovators are different people than who maintain old designs. Sorry if whoever is offended by this.
7) Old bitcoinv1 is still going to exist after the switch whether you like it or not or whatever is done to prevent this.
8 )Old bitcoinv1 and new bitcoinv2 are going to compete for whoever wins in the long run.

There are others as well, but I think there is now enough.
In my opinion these are not negotiable. These are something that will 100% happen.
You have a choice how you try to deal with these facts.

A) Ignore them and be surprised when you find them happening.
B) Try work against them and lose the battle.
C) Work with them and embrace them.

I very much promote for the option C) as both A) and B) are utter maddness.

Working along the option C) there are multiple possible scenarios but it could go something like this.

1) Multiple altcoin innovators present their competing proposals for new bitcoin
2) Multiple of these proposals are implemented and tested separately running them as bonafide altcoins.
3) Community vote which of them seems to be working best.
4) Losing proposals do not accept the vote but decide go ahead regardless.
5) There is a big bang and the competing altcoins are restarted from bitcoin blockchain situation as bitcoinv2s.
6) These multiple bitcoinv2s coins battle it out against themselves on the market and also against bitcoinv1
7) ....
8  )PROFIT ( or not ).

Working with options A) or B) could go something like this.

1) Community vote what to do.
2) The current bitcoin devs do not like what community voted and they quit.
3) New official bitcoin devs are recruited to work on innovating bitcoin2
4) They do not know the bitcoinv1 code and something happens which needs fix in bitcoinv1 and it does not get done.
5) 10 competing proposal emerges for bitcoin v2 that seems better than what the official new bitcoin dev team invented and they get angry why are they being undermined and there is a huge war of egos.
6) The current bitcoin miners invent some funny things to do when the projected bitcoinv1 shutdown draws closer and they are being forced out of business.
7) Chaos.
8 ) ....
9) NO PROFIT.

Alternative scenarios are welcome.

Again, if my city's subway system is bad, I don't go ahead and build a new subway system in the city. There's a vast amount of existing supporting infrastructure, it's not simple as "go build your own". Unless you could build your own city subway.

? So why do you want to submit anything to the devs?

Just gather enough people, prepare a fork (CLAM style) and you got yourself a PoS BTC. It's that simple.

Just a friendly reminder, this voting poll allows you to change your vote. But, your vote can only be count as one.

We only disagree on the definition of "Bitcoin community".

This has been a highly debated topic for the last few months on this forum. But closer examination of the subject has revealed that these two types of consensus mechanism have different long-term dynamic characteristics and therefore need to stay separate.

If the votes are high enough, then people can launch a twitter public campaign to present it to the devs.
After all, what support Bitcoin is the community, not the devs.

thats the reason i want someone to build it: doubled coins for me
and look at clam: they did it, but obviously most people trust in pow

unless there is near total consensus, it won't happen because some people will still use the old system and you can't
have two systems called Bitcoin. 

....or just build it and see how many people use it? thats the same voting as you describe...

No, it needs to be a Bitcoin stake weighted vote, since the "No" votes are probably mostly PoW miners who hold no Bitcoins.

It could be implemented as a feature in the protocol, ie. "vote with your Bitcoin". All the exchanges can provide api access for easy voting, or just install qt client and vote with it.

And then the devs/Bitcoin Foundation still won't do it.

This poll needs at least 5000+ votes to know for sure what the entire Bitcoin community feel about changing Bitcoin to Proof of Stake + Proof of Work.

i had the same idea... and have considered some of the consequences/implications...please feel free to start another thread on this topic specifically and i'll happily contribute. too much noise here...let me know.

Proposal:  Protocol level rotation between PoW and PoS blocks with separate difficulties. Example – Block A is found under bitcoin’s current PoW system with a difficulty of ~12billion (difficulty A) in a majority ASIC mining environment. Block B will then be found under a PoS environment that requires the coin-age of the blockfinder to be included and consumed in the block. Block B would be subject to a separate difficulty B such that a combined effort of CPU mining and coin-age (say difficulty / coin-age or difficulty to the coin-age root) could also be adjusted to similar 5 or 10 minute intervals.

How it fixes problem in PoW: “51%” are based on the knowledge that the attacking party will eventually be able to control all blocks that are added to the blockchain. Interjecting a separate PoS system between blocks makes this impossible. At the same time, it frees PoW miners to work in their best interest and capture even upto 100% of the mining pool distribution.

How it fixes the problem in PoS: So called nothing-at-stake attacks are based on the assumption that any self-interested minter would continue to mint all forks of the chain in an effort to maximize his potential rewards (due to very low cost of minting). To the limit of such a case, all branches of the blockchain are continuously mined, and no single version is provably authentic. Interjecting a separate PoW system between blocks provides the resource intensive requirement to prevent the blockchain from spiraling out of control.

Side-thoughts
 – part of the original reason for PoS was to avoid the electricity cost of PoW. PoW miners could be setup to run on standby (only listening to the network communication) after a PoW block was found. Upon communication of a PoS block, they would again run at full speed. That savings vs. costs of thermal cycling or lost mining time could be optimized per mining hardware.
 - block times could be modified for 5 minute averages (5 mins PoW + 5mins PoS = 10 minute overall) so that PoW rewards stay consistent during the cutover.
 - As mentioned, a hard-fork or side chains using "burned" coins could be used for implementation

+1
We are in it together, that's how we win!

But aren't the people of the world supposed to hold hands and sing "end oppression using Bitcoin"? Bitcoin self corrects because we all love each other and won't allow one evil power to take over. Even if someone gets all the control they won't do anything because they will not profit then, right? lol


Let's praise Bitcoin and save the world

Good job missing the point.

GHash had 51% yes?
Ghash is mostly cloud mining yes?

It has already happened in the past, there's absolutely nothing to stop it from happening again in the future. PoW is centralized and insecure, with the additional drawback of causing Bitcoin value loss and energy+hardware waste.