Topic: Do you think Bitcoin should modify to POW + POS ? █████ Poll █████ - page 2. (Read 7564 times)

Thanks for replying. Lets leave it like that, further discussion would be just posting the same all over again.

But for the record - I don't have a problem in changing my point of view if presented with reasonable arguments. That's my superpower. I've done it many times before.

In fact, when I first posted in this thread I was slightly in favour of migrating bitcoin to PoS, but now I think I'll rather stick to PoW.

Still keeping an open mind about other solutions tho.

Edit: This is my last post on the topic. I think that our views are not compatible, and that no one will change his point of view. It does not make sense to go on.

Look, Ghash doesn't have 51% anymore. Look, Slush or Eligius, who were major pools are not such anymore. Look, now you're complaining about Discus Fish who were irrelevant not too long ago.

According to your theory (highlighted), such changes are not possible. So how did that happen?

So your/kokoije's posts were pointless and didn't address ab8989's concerns?

it seems impossible to get any straight-forward answers here, other than hysterical reaction and arguments like "PoS is great because mining sucks".

1) Since anyone can own infinite number of wallets/addresses, how would you even know whether the coin is currently centralised or not? Is there anything more than just hopes and belief?

2) If at any point in the future (when the coin is established) it is revealed and proven that one person/entity/government owns say 40% and plays on maximising his stash. What can be done to prevent him from increasing his stake to 50% by simply stashing. Can anything be done or is it 'Game Over'?

3) Assuming PoS coin not fully issued from the start. There is a clear and strong incentive to hoard ('stake').

ghash is also only ~15% of the network now and is no longer a dominating player. There is no longer a "danger" that ghash will attempt a 51% attack as they have much too far from 51% of the network.

BItcoin is moving away somewhat from pool mining to large corporate farm mining

Miners CAN NOT switch if GHash decides to act maliciously. Since GHash is mostly cloud mining nowadays, the hashrate is actually owned by GHash and then resold to miners.

Miners CAN NOT switch if GHash decides to act maliciously. Since GHash is mostly cloud mining nowadays, the hashrate is actually owned by GHash and then resold to miners.

Look, Ghash.io had >51%, and you are telling me that mining is better because miners would switch pools?... Then how did it get this large?

It just looks like there are no actions you can take to change the centralized mining situation either, because miners will go where fees are the lowest / pool is stable etc.
that's why we observe >%20 hash power in a single pool. You say that in theory, miners could switch pools. Yes, a dangerously large stakeholder also could split/sell part of his stake, but it seems like they both wouldn't.

When a pool is too large, it can do all kinds of nasty stuff. Validating blocks = power!

I just said otherwise a few posts ago:

Don't forget pools are just pools, they don't necessarily own any power. When things get ugly miners can choose to switch to other pool (P2Pool) or even create a separate one.

Yeah, I didn't realise that. You're saying that by staking 1 PoS coin I'll get the same (small) reward as someone with 1,000,000? If so - that's brilliant. If not - that's completely irrelevant to ab8989's post (to which kokoije replied).

Same chances for everyone per bought coin.

Where's the difference between PoS and PoW here? Hashpower controlled by one party split between multiple pools is just as much possible in PoW.

That's what most people don't realize. PoS reward is just a measure to prevent blockchain spam. Even large stakeholders in non inflationary PoS systems don't make much money from forging.

Ghash.io held 51% hash power.

You can just set the PoS reward to barely cover the expense of running a full node, it's not for rich getting richer at all.

Sure. But what does matter is if any of them gains too much power, there are actions you can take to change the current state.

What doesn't matter are the stats you've quoted. They don't show "persons or accounts" they show "accounts" only.

How many people control what stake? You don't know and you'll never know, until the biggest holders reveal themselves and prove their holdings.

Who in the right mind, holding 40%, 50% or 60% of coins, would keep them all in one wallet? Would you?

And that's another problem with PoS.

And we need to look also at theoretical long-term threats.

The technical and security issues are just one of many issues.

Another completely different issue is that does PoS coin have market pull?
Does the PoS message resonate with people at large?

As I understand it the current value of bitcoin comes in quite a big part from hope that bitcoin is going to the moon and even in extreme cases perhaps even some countries adopt bitcoin as their official currency.

The message of PoS has not been tested how much pull there is and I firmly believe that the market pull for PoS coin is much less than PoW coin.

The PoS message sounds way too much like telling people they should buy into a coin that is secured by Rockefellers and Rotschilds.
Some people that were in on it early on and now they are just sitting on their pile of millions doing nothing. Guess what. People do not like Rockefellers or Rothschilds. Sure if you hope you are going to become the Rockefeller or Rotcshild of the new economy you love the idea but nobody else does.

If we then think of some country they see it the other way around. A country thinks some 20 year old George or Mary in their basement are not convincing enough to be the basis to put the security of the whole economy of the country on.

The anonymity of the whoever secures the PoS coin works both ways and neither is good. The anonymity allows people to think simultaniously that the whole security is based on some bunch of 20 year guys in their basement and also at the same time that they are Rockefellers. That just is not going to be a succesful message to sell  and without a resonating message the coin is going nowhere fast.

In PoW this is not such a problem because in PoW marketing message these issues are not in front and center as they are in PoS case.

I believe PoS people understand this problem and therefore PoS people are not really convinced their own superior PoS coin is going to go places on its own. Therefore instead of selling their own coin they are in bitcointalk to convince bitcoin to surrender and die to make way for PoS. That is only way PoS can get places. But I believe that is going to be the high point of PoS if that happens and it is downhill from there.

Not everything technically superior is going to sell well.
There are lots of things that are technically brilliant but market still does not care about them.

It does not matter if Disqus Fish or Ghash.io has >20% of the hashpower.
...

It does not matter if Disqus Fish or Ghash.io has >20% of the hashpower.

And almost all stakeholders changed (at least the coins are now in different addresses) in my PoS coin.

The hardest fact for me is just:

https://blockchain.info/pools

vs.

https://nxtblocks.info/#section/blockexplorer_charts (click on "blocks")

Despite all "rich getting richer", there are more parties (or accounts) involved in block generating of my PoS coin.