Can someone from the "change camp" please explain what they are expecting from such a change?
I suspect that altcoin sales people are brigading this poll.
Topic: Do you think Bitcoin should modify to POW + POS ? █████ Poll █████ - page 9. (Read 7564 times)
January 06, 2015, 05:15:10 AM
January 06, 2015, 04:47:04 AM
Operators force centralization trend is getting worse, a large number of small miners exit. It is time to consider how to allocate .
January 05, 2015, 10:05:01 PM
but I could potentially see a TaPoS layer one day added upon it to enhance security and confirmation speed. Discussing the possibility of convincing miners and vested interests from switching completely away from PoW or changing the 21 million limit appears to be an effort in futility.
I'd think something like a sidechain, where 10,000 bitcoins are burned to create a million "new" coins, then y'all can play in PoS paradise and gradually use the value of the coin to buy more and more bitcoins into the PoS system. Then when you've got all the bitcoins, you can turn PoW off.
Sidechain or not. No need for burning bitcoins, as someone could simply create a TaPoS blockchain that mirrored and synced the distribution of BTC and than have a wallet acknowledge both blockchains but have the TaPoS layer hidden where only BTC is used and the TaPoS layer acts to add another form of security that could have 1-30 second confirmation times in addition to PoW 10 min confirmation times.
I.E... pay for a cup of Coffee the confirmations start rolling in this way:
TaPoS 1 second confirmation, TaPoS 3 second confirmation, TaPoS 5 second confirmation, TaPoS 10 second confirmation, TaPoS 30 second confirmation, TaPoS 1 min confirmation, TaPoS 3min confirmation, TaPoS 5 min confirmation,TaPoS 7min confirmation, PoW Bitcoin 1st confirmation ~10min, TaPoS 13min confirmation, ect...
This would allow you to have instant confirmations and better security because now you are trusting full nodes and miners and you could detect a PoW 51% attack if the TaPoS confirmations weren't confirming while the PoW confirmations were.
You wouldn't even need a softfork or hardfork to accomplish this, just a TapoS blockchain and a wallet that acknowledged it.
January 05, 2015, 09:49:23 PM
but I could potentially see a TaPoS layer one day added upon it to enhance security and confirmation speed. Discussing the possibility of convincing miners and vested interests from switching completely away from PoW or changing the 21 million limit appears to be an effort in futility.
I'd think something like a sidechain, where 10,000 bitcoins are burned to create a million "new" coins, then y'all can play in PoS paradise and gradually use the value of the coin to buy more and more bitcoins into the PoS system. Then when you've got all the bitcoins, you can turn PoW off.
January 05, 2015, 08:59:22 PM
Bitcoin is also deflationary,
False. Bitcoin is disinflationary. ~10% inflation now, ~5% 2016 , ~2.5 2020, ~1.25% 2024, ect....
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/disinflation.asp
Nxt has 0 inflation now after the ICO, and Bitshares has moments of hyperinflation ~2Billion to ~2.5Billion (unknown when and if this will occur again)
you can petition to change Bitcoin to inflationary. You can go ahead and push for your ideal model. It has nothing to do with PoS, since it can do both.
Bitcoin is unlikely to ever remove PoW because of vested interests and security concerns, but I could potentially see a TaPoS layer one day added upon it to enhance security and confirmation speed. Discussing the possibility of convincing miners and vested interests from switching completely away from PoW or changing the 21 million limit appears to be an effort in futility.
Good news ..... Once miner block rewards are minimized , security may have to be supplemented with many other discussed means, thus there isn't some infinite energy drain that some PoW critics suggest. PoW will essentially be limited by profitability from transaction volumes and thus hashrate will only be increased based upon ASIC effieciency advancements or if we develop unlimited power from fusion tech(unlikely).
January 05, 2015, 08:30:36 PM
Stop spreading your retarded logic. USD has 1% interest on savings accounts, does it stop anyone from spending USD?
Sunshine, let's keep some manners here, OK?
1% interest is less than inflation, does it pay to hold?
Ever heard of negative interest rates? Why did they do that?
http://www.bloombergview.com/quicktake/negative-interest-rates
Are you now saying that deflation is good for economy?
Besides, USD is a legal tender, so people will be spending it even if they don't want to. You can't really compare it to un-established crypto-currency.
Yes.
How is this relevant anyway? Proof of Stake can do both inflationary and deflationary, you can take your pick. For example, with Bitcoin, the PoS system can be implemented as deflationary, since Bitcoin is deflationary.
It's relevant to the "USD has 1% interest on savings accounts" argument you used.
Again:
If we switch bitcoin to pure PoS, without changing issuance model, what would prevent the majority from hoarding? It's a simple question.
How does USD stop people from hoarding? if inflationary currency is needed, then so be it, you can petition to change Bitcoin to inflationary. You can go ahead and push for your ideal model. It has nothing to do with PoS, since it can do both.
Bitcoin is also deflationary, how do you stop people from hoarding Bitcoin? How does PoW vs PoS have anything to do with this?
January 05, 2015, 04:51:30 PM
But that's one of the problems with PoS, it promotes hoarding and kills activity. Less activity leads to less adoption which leads to price decline.
Marketcap isn't everything, it's merely a snapshot of how much people are willing to pay for a coin and can change rather quickly.
It's too early to judge that PoS kills activity. Quite the opposite: In Nxt, numbers of transactions per day steadily increased since July until today (around 3k per day now, which is not a lot compared to bitcoin, but still).
I agree it's too early to make a judgement based on comparing any 2 coins. But you don't need empirical data to discuss differences between PoS/PoW designs. You only need common sense for that.
NXT is probably not the best example in this case. Since it's non-inflationary, the only income you get is your share in tx fees (afaik), which atm are very insignificant. Therefore from the average holder's point of view - it's probably better to use it and keep it alive.
Now what would happen if we switch BTC to PoS (with the same issuance model)? You think it would increase activity? You have @micky123 above saying he would stop investing. I know I wouldn't be keen on buying a coffee with my PoS coins and wouldn't touch my stash to tip or donate.
If your coins generate you more coins - you don't want to spend them. Simple.
Right now you have bitcoin hoarders, who (despite all the logic) wouldn't use their coins at all. If they're further incentivised to hoard - why would they change their approach?
Stop spreading your false logic. USD has 1% interest on savings accounts, does it stop anyone from spending USD?
Exactly. And Nxt forging gets you something like 0.5%. It is far better and more profitable to use your nxt to invest or to spend. The goal of nxt forging is to have hundreds of nxt based businesses, all forging blocks to secure the network and protect their business with their running balance, rather then to have people getting rich off forging. For a smaller forger, forging allows you to have quite a few free transactions on the network.
Did you basically repeat what I said to use as an argument against what I said?
January 05, 2015, 04:50:38 PM
Stop spreading your retarded logic. USD has 1% interest on savings accounts, does it stop anyone from spending USD?
Sunshine, let's keep some manners here, OK?
1% interest is less than inflation, does it pay to hold?
Ever heard of negative interest rates? Why did they do that?
http://www.bloombergview.com/quicktake/negative-interest-rates
Are you now saying that deflation is good for economy?
Besides, USD is a legal tender, so people will be spending it even if they don't want to. You can't really compare it to un-established crypto-currency.
Yes.
How is this relevant anyway? Proof of Stake can do both inflationary and deflationary, you can take your pick. For example, with Bitcoin, the PoS system can be implemented as deflationary, since Bitcoin is deflationary.
It's relevant to the "USD has 1% interest on savings accounts" argument you used.
Again:
If we switch bitcoin to pure PoS, without changing issuance model, what would prevent the majority from hoarding? It's a simple question.
January 05, 2015, 04:46:49 PM
I don't know, is he serious? Are you serious Flashman?
Every human uses energy, and energy is limited. There's no need to be an environmentalist to see that we should not try to waste a lot of energy.
Every human uses energy, and energy is limited. There's no need to be an environmentalist to see that we should not try to waste a lot of energy.
If you have a few million wasteful fuckers crammed into a metropolitan area with an ageing grid, yah, energy is limited, if you have a nice big dam and reservoir in the middle of nowhere, then energy is abundant. Thing is, all those millions of wasteful fuckers don't want to go live near the dam, so someone comes up with a scheme to finance the 100 thousand dollars a mile to get the hydroelectric to them and charge them out the arse for it. Plus they don't want JUST a nice steady flow of juice, they wanna come home and turn all their shit on at 5pm, so there also has to be a fossil fuel plant in there somewhere, coz you can't make water fall any faster than gravity wants it to for the hour or two every day that they want to zap their frozen dinners.
Anyway, renewable and zero emission energy is abundant, getting it to where people like to be is a problem. Bitcoin ASICs don't want to live somewhere where theres a Walmart and Nightlife, thus don't need to have big thick high tension lines run across whole state(s) to supply them, they go near the abundant energy, they get it cheap. Scarcity is artificial, it's determined by grid and concentrations of demand, not sources.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
January 05, 2015, 04:25:52 PM
Even maybe to have a CAP on how much power can be put across the network
I don't see how that would be possible. How are you going to limit people from finding blocks?
January 05, 2015, 04:10:35 PM
I voted yes for the simple fact it would help out where higher diffs are and would allow to control some of the greedy ones and remove some of the massive diff spikes that happen with POW. Even maybe to have a CAP on how much power can be put across the network and have better control over the entire network. Maybe have something new like a minable POS filed where so much power can be put towards it but only gets x amount compared to normal POW mining. Or it gets re worked and mastered into having multipul algorythems in the future would be nice. But still can only have 21 million total coins acros all algos
January 05, 2015, 03:55:39 PM
Voting yes would be a mistake.
Stop complaining about miners controlling the network. Anyone can mine,thus that's no real reason.
Stop complaining about miners controlling the network. Anyone can mine,thus that's no real reason.
January 05, 2015, 03:53:41 PM
if you are actually serious, you might want
to read this post and those that follow: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9995601
to read this post and those that follow: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9995601
You are right. I see DPoS as a trade between less decentralization but more transaction speed.
Nothng wrong with that, but I like 100% decentralized blockchains more.
January 05, 2015, 03:51:10 PM
Security and environmentalism.
no, I am not overly concerned with environmentalism, and don't believe there is much threat from consuming electricity.I think he is serious...
I don't know, is he serious? Are you serious Flashman?
Every human uses energy, and energy is limited. There's no need to be an environmentalist to see that we should not try to waste a lot of energy.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
January 05, 2015, 03:19:32 PM
if you are actually serious, you might want
to read this post and those that follow: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9995601
to read this post and those that follow: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9995601
January 05, 2015, 02:50:34 PM
Hard Fork with DPoS.
Then we will have 25x6x24x30 = 108k BTC / month
or 28 MUSD a month max for expenses in delegates.
We could use a random 1001 delegates. Then the bitcoin blockchain will have a max 28 kusd/month 1001 employes. For development, marketing and others.
Some delegates payment should be employed to buy all the mining hardware and put it at a museum.
The inflation will be lower as will be very difficult to reach 100% payment on all 1001 delegates.
Then we will have 25x6x24x30 = 108k BTC / month
or 28 MUSD a month max for expenses in delegates.
We could use a random 1001 delegates. Then the bitcoin blockchain will have a max 28 kusd/month 1001 employes. For development, marketing and others.
Some delegates payment should be employed to buy all the mining hardware and put it at a museum.
The inflation will be lower as will be very difficult to reach 100% payment on all 1001 delegates.
January 05, 2015, 02:09:14 PM
Security and environmentalism.
no, I am not overly concerned with environmentalism, and don't believe there is much threat from consuming electricity.
Yup, if sucking juice is much threat, enviro-extremists need to start firebombing all those assholes with plug-in hybrids.
Fact is, anything that you turn on and off, especially at specific times of the day, sponsors fossil fuel power plants, because those are the ones that can most respond to sudden load increases and drops, utilities commonly have to fire up and idle gas and coal plants for such events as earth hour, and superbowl commercial breaks, so they can rev them up to full power the instant all the sheeple do the same thing at once, like turn the lights back on or make popcorn/hot drink.
The corollary of that is that anything that provides a steady constant load sponsors clean, efficient generation. Oddly enough, the sources that like just to put out a steady stream of power are things like hydroelectric projects, which oddly enough are the very cheapest sources of electricity, which oddly enough seem to be attracting bitcoin mining facilities to places like Washington State and Quebec where they have a lot of that stuff.
I think he is serious...
January 05, 2015, 02:01:19 PM
Such as REDD coin? I believe it modified from pow to pos
January 05, 2015, 02:00:39 PM
Security and environmentalism.
no, I am not overly concerned with environmentalism, and don't believe there is much threat from consuming electricity.
Yup, if sucking juice is much threat, enviro-extremists need to start firebombing all those assholes with plug-in hybrids.
Fact is, anything that you turn on and off, especially at specific times of the day, sponsors fossil fuel power plants, because those are the ones that can most respond to sudden load increases and drops, utilities commonly have to fire up and idle gas and coal plants for such events as earth hour, and superbowl commercial breaks, so they can rev them up to full power the instant all the sheeple do the same thing at once, like turn the lights back on or make popcorn/hot drink.
The corollary of that is that anything that provides a steady constant load sponsors clean, efficient generation. Oddly enough, the sources that like just to put out a steady stream of power are things like hydroelectric projects, which oddly enough are the very cheapest sources of electricity, which oddly enough seem to be attracting bitcoin mining facilities to places like Washington State and Quebec where they have a lot of that stuff.
January 05, 2015, 01:58:00 PM
NO. PoW is compact. It's the most decentralized consensus protocol. PoW mining is embarrassingly parallel and potentially very anonymous, and that's what's needed to create a decentralized global consensus.
Jump to: