Topic: Do you think Bitcoin should modify to POW + POS ? █████ Poll █████ - page 3. (Read 7564 times)

Good counter example

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.

Well, given "reasonable" electricity rates, 10c a kilowatt or better, hobby scale miners do have the advantage that a couple of kilowatts of heat is fairly easy to disperse, and may actually be useful during the cold months. Whereas industrial scale miners need to pay to get rid of the heat, effectively doubling what they pay overall in electricity.

However there is also the problem of which manufacturer is delivering reliably at this point in time.

The difference is that dominating pools/miners change all the time. Right now it's Discuss Fish, not too long ago it was GHash, before that BTC Guid, Eligius, Slush etc.

They had significant % share in hashrate but lost it to others.

If you have PoS holder controlling significant % of all coins - there's nothing you or anyone can do about it. Unless he willingly give up some of his stake, he will remain with his % and will be slowly increasing his market share.

Exactly! mining is costly. large mining firms have cheaper rates per miner or kwh compared to most private persons. they are the only ones that get rich. Or have you ROIed on recently purchased hardware?

Why throw money out of the window for miners if you can just stake. Same chances for everyone per bought coin.

The process just looks more efficient to me.

The point is the cost of hardware.

If people use  virtual currency million times per second,the money spend on computing device、I/O device、electricity bills must not be ignored.

Hardware cost/total cost higher,profit rate lower.the money spend on hardware is same,so rich investors will get higher profit rate(PoS only).

Why?

PoW: Miner with most money invested in mining gear gets most coins = rich get richer
PoS: Stakeholder with most money invested in stake gets most coins = rich get richer ( not so much, only 0.5% per year in Nxt)

I don't see how a hybrid system makes much of a difference. In future if the Bitcoin holders decide they don't want to be controlled by the cartel, it can move to a pure PoS.

one block gives miner 25 new coins now,
so the system's cost is undertake by people who buy bitcoins,not people who use bitcoins.
but new coin's production rate is reducing,
more and more people will find the cost of bitcoin is too higher.

POW is a breakthrough,but not a good idea.
POW need hash computing,
and,
many computer work,but just one computer's working is effective at one time.
compare to bank,the cost of POW is much more higher.

POS is better,but not enough.
POS do not need hash race,but also one computer's working is effective at one time.
and,
it is not fair to miner,
the output does not connect to hardware input.
only miner who has many coins is going to mine,
it will lead to concentrate.

in PoW = The Bitmains and spondoolies
edit: I meant the Ghash.ios and Disqus Fishes

What's the difference?
Ah yes, largest mining pools control even a bigger share than largest stakeholders.

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.

I know. I'm in that crowd.

Yes of course, we are all armchair pundits here but trying to make points why (or why not)
changing the protocol would be a good idea.

Yeah, I guess so. It's still funny to watch the debates from the users. Trust me, when the debates are between the power players I watch them with quiet intent.

Technically all it takes is one dev (that can come out of nowhere) and a majority of users to switch. The chances of this happening are infinitesimally small though and for good reason.

This thread is funny to watch. You're all talking about the issue as if you have the ability to change Bitcoin. Those people exist on GitHub and the TBF forum. They communicate about the issues over there. Those people have stated, in no uncertain terms, that Bitcoin will not move away from the current PoW system. Unless you're all talking about a new coin that you're going to call Bitcoin then I'm confused about what's happening here.

Also, you do get a little autonomy with PoW ASIC mining, you can switch to other SHA256 coins or rig rental if you "disagree" with bitcoin for some reason, and get instantly compensated. You don't have to take a "hit" in that your coins are not mature, moving between PoS coins, and waiting it out every time you think one has a better deal than another.

In that sense there is a bit of a "lock in" problem with a PoS coin, like a cellphone contract, theoretically you can dump it, but it costs you. This in turn will build external distrust of particular coins, "Is it really popular, or are people just scared to move out of it?"

Privatization in a sense that if I want to have more say in what gets into blockchain and what doesn't (censorship, accounts freezing) I need to ask major stakeholders' permission to sell me their stake. If they refuse I am out of luck.

If less than 51% of PoS stake is floating on the exchanges for free trade, then the system remains semi-private. In PoW even if no one wants to sell me ASICs I still have an option to fund my own development team and create my own equipment, thus avoiding political censorship, sanctions and so on. PoW allows you to disagree.

That's the gist of it.

yes, and with little to no cost.



Because everyone who is transacting, moving coins,
or just got them won't be able to forge.  So those
people's stake won't be part of the proof of stake
consensus.