Economical mammoths versus PoW and PoS

achach

newbie

Activity: 37

Merit: 0

Quote from: Wind_FURY on July 04, 2019, 03:53:49 AM

I heard Christmas lights waste more electricity than Bitcoin, and produces nothing useful and valuable. POS coin holders should petition to stop Christmas first, before Bitcoin. Hahaha.

Christmas is only once a year, so this will not be quite the correct comparison

user512

newbie

Activity: 12

Merit: 6

Quote from: davis196 on July 07, 2019, 06:28:48 AM

A trade happens only if the seller wants it to happen.The states can try to buy hashpower and coins,but the sellers/miners have the freedom to refuse to sell it.Yes,they could get monetary profit from such deal,but eventually they will lose their business,because of the government control over the hashpower and the majority of coins,which will make a government a monopoly.

Otherwise yes, you have the freedom to refuse it, but how do you do it, if the government is well pseudoanonymized? That's the core of problem.

xWolfx

member

Activity: 322

Merit: 20

Donating 10% to charity

Quote from: squatter on July 04, 2019, 02:56:11 PM

The problem you have is with money. All reliable forms of money require significant energy expenditure. How about the mining and minting costs of gold, or the energy running the entire banking system from physical ATMs and bank branches to SWIFT infrastructure? At least industrial miners have economic incentives to seek out load balancing arrangements with power generators, where Bitcoin saves energy from being wasted.

POS is a nice ideal, but don't be surprised when people demand a more theoretically and practically secure method to secure their wealth.

This is precisely the problem. This world was created in a way where we need multiple things for our survival, right? Then to be comfortable and then comes luxury. In order for society to be more comfortable they created the trading system, which means that you don't necessarily have to plant tomatoes in your backyard to have tomatoes but exchange something for it.

Money in any form or denomination just simplified that trading system, replacing it in such an effective way that if you try to trade a good for another good you would be frowned upon normally when that was the norm long years ago.

We need resources to build things and unless we inherited a company who happens to manufacture/produce those resources you will have to get them from someone else and give that someone else, something in exchange. That is the problem, how to build something meaningful with few resources.

This is in fact a huge window of opportunity to come up with a innovation that is really needed inside Bitcoin. Who knows, it might be the starting point for innovations like that for other industries.

davis196

hero member

Activity: 3150

Merit: 937

A trade happens only if the seller wants it to happen.The states can try to buy hashpower and coins,but the sellers/miners have the freedom to refuse to sell it.Yes,they could get monetary profit from such deal,but eventually they will lose their business,because of the government control over the hashpower and the majority of coins,which will make a government a monopoly.

subSTRATA

legendary

Activity: 1288

Merit: 1043

:^)

Quote from: squatter on July 07, 2019, 05:31:17 AM

Quote from: subSTRATA on July 06, 2019, 02:47:37 PM

Quote from: squatter on July 04, 2019, 11:28:38 PM

The ability to 51% attack one time for a few hours doesn't imply trust. In fact, the possibility of 51% attacks has nothing to do with trust. The only thing the attackers can do is censor transactions for a short time.

partially correct; given the hypothetical situation where the attackers would be able to sustain the 51% attack for say, a few hours, they would not only be able to keep transactions from being confirmed as you said, they would also be able to reverse transactions made during the time they were in control of the network, enabling them double - spend coins.

Yes, I'd consider rollbacks under the umbrella of transaction censorship. You're correct that a double spend attack is possible. Since the attack would be so short-lived, though, I wonder if the rollback would survive.

that's fair, didn't know the full extent of what fell under your definition of 'transaction censorship.' that aside, in the scenario of an actual 51% attack, it is definitely possible for the double spend to survive beyond the duration of the 51% attack. While the main bitcoin network has never been victim to a 51% attack, some smaller PoW blockchains have; it all comes down to weather or not the attack can mine more blocks and create a longer 'version' of the blockchain which includes their double spends (they would be mining on their own fork for a bit since it does differ from the main blockchain). if the attacker manages to mine a longer blockchain and broadcasts it to the network, the bitcoin protocol will deem the flawed chain as the 'real' chain, and the network will swap over, effectively rendering the 49% chain useless. again, incredibly unlikely to happen on the bitcoin network anytime soon.

there are examples of it having been accomplished on altcoin blockchains in the past, namely bitcoin gold. a few more examples are included in this article: https://cryptoslate.com/prolific-51-attacks-crypto-verge-ethereum-classic-bitcoin-gold-feathercoin-vertcoin/

squatter

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1196

STOP SNITCHIN'

Quote from: subSTRATA on July 06, 2019, 02:47:37 PM

Quote from: squatter on July 04, 2019, 11:28:38 PM

The ability to 51% attack one time for a few hours doesn't imply trust. In fact, the possibility of 51% attacks has nothing to do with trust. The only thing the attackers can do is censor transactions for a short time.

partially correct; given the hypothetical situation where the attackers would be able to sustain the 51% attack for say, a few hours, they would not only be able to keep transactions from being confirmed as you said, they would also be able to reverse transactions made during the time they were in control of the network, enabling them double - spend coins.

Yes, I'd consider rollbacks under the umbrella of transaction censorship. You're correct that a double spend attack is possible. Since the attack would be so short-lived, though, I wonder if the rollback would survive.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: DooMAD on July 05, 2019, 05:03:29 PM

Quote from: Khaos77 on July 04, 2019, 10:46:32 PM

PoW is the only one that continue to require an Exponential increase in energy with nothing to show for it.

Seems to have more to show for it than any coin you're shilling for. Cheesy

Iran seizes 1,000 Bitcoin mining machines after power spike
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/iran-seizes-1000-bitcoin-mining-machines-after-power-spike-5160116

Call me when they can find the altcoin stakers to actually seize them.
And keep thinking drawing megawatts and higher , won't be a problem. Cheesy

That's actually bullish news for the demand for Bitcoin.

Plus call me when there's a POS coin that's actually going to be as highly demanded as Bitcoin. Because there's none, and there's not going to be.

subSTRATA

legendary

Activity: 1288

Merit: 1043

:^)

Quote from: squatter on July 04, 2019, 02:56:11 PM

The problem you have is with money. All reliable forms of money require significant energy expenditure. How about the mining and minting costs of gold, or the energy running the entire banking system from physical ATMs and bank branches to SWIFT infrastructure? At least industrial miners have economic incentives to seek out load balancing arrangements with power generators, where Bitcoin saves energy from being wasted.

POS is a nice ideal, but don't be surprised when people demand a more theoretically and practically secure method to secure their wealth.

It never actually occurred to me to think of currency as an expenditure of energy this way, thanks for that take.

Quote from: squatter on July 04, 2019, 11:28:38 PM

The ability to 51% attack one time for a few hours doesn't imply trust. In fact, the possibility of 51% attacks has nothing to do with trust. The only thing the attackers can do is censor transactions for a short time.

partially correct; given the hypothetical situation where the attackers would be able to sustain the 51% attack for say, a few hours, they would not only be able to keep transactions from being confirmed as you said, they would also be able to reverse transactions made during the time they were in control of the network, enabling them double - spend coins. I personally think the opportunity to double - spend coins is the more likely of incentives for an entity to attempt a 51% attack, given how much energy and money would be required. then again, if they did it just to halt bitcoin transactions, man they must really hate bitcoin.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: DooMAD on July 05, 2019, 05:03:29 PM

Quote from: Khaos77 on July 04, 2019, 10:46:32 PM

PoW is the only one that continue to require an Exponential increase in energy with nothing to show for it.

Seems to have more to show for it than any coin you're shilling for. Cheesy

You and your various alt accounts have been banging on about PoS for a while now, all whilst taking weak pot-shots at Bitcoin every chance you get. What have you got to show for your efforts? All I can see is an exponential increase in desperation from you in your trolling attempts. Cheesy

That's why, for the newbies' sake, it's our responsibility to troll those trolls. Hahaha.

But if the newbies decide to listen to those fudsters, then they will learn. The hard way. Cool

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3948

Merit: 3191

Leave no FUD unchallenged

Quote from: Khaos77 on July 04, 2019, 10:46:32 PM

PoW is the only one that continue to require an Exponential increase in energy with nothing to show for it.

Seems to have more to show for it than any coin you're shilling for. Cheesy

You and your various alt accounts have been banging on about PoS for a while now, all whilst taking weak pot-shots at Bitcoin every chance you get. What have you got to show for your efforts? All I can see is an exponential increase in desperation from you in your trolling attempts. Cheesy

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: Khaos77 on July 04, 2019, 11:42:13 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on July 04, 2019, 03:53:49 AM

I heard Christmas lights waste more electricity than Bitcoin, and produces nothing useful and valuable. POS coin holders should petition to stop Christmas first, before Bitcoin. Hahaha.

I heard you never even mined one bitcoin block?
So technically , you produce nothing by your own standards.

Therefore what reason do you have to exist?

I imagine you could afford to run a Christmas light.

FYI:
Sad world you live in ,that an energy wasting parasite called bitcoin is your deity.
Thinking it is going to solve your problems, is a delusion with harsh consequences.

Are we talking about me, or are we talking about the Bitcoin Network, a network that produces value to the world.

A ground-breaking, self-sovereign, decentralized, censorship-resistant cryptocurrency a parasite? Go back to eating your crayons, and go try harder. Cool

zbig001

member

Activity: 162

Merit: 19

In the future Bitcoin could be a carrier for dozens of layers of projects dependent on it.
Even Microsoft very sensibly plans to use Bitcoin's ledger...

Consequently, electrical energy will be actually saved, not wasted.
That is possible even now, if there are companies that use Bitcoin to carry out billing.
One transaction consumes 40 kWh (for example).
But if a company will improve its operations with a faster settlement with the second company and save 400 kWh (because, for example, goods requiring cold storage will be sold faster), total economy is getting more efficient by 360 kWh.

squatter

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1196

STOP SNITCHIN'

Quote from: Khaos77 on July 04, 2019, 10:46:32 PM

Quote from: squatter on July 04, 2019, 02:56:11 PM

The problem you have is with money. All reliable forms of money require significant energy expenditure. How about the mining and minting costs of gold, or the energy running the entire banking system from physical ATMs and bank branches to SWIFT infrastructure? At least industrial miners have economic incentives to seek out load balancing arrangements with power generators, where Bitcoin saves energy from being wasted.

POS is a nice ideal, but don't be surprised when people demand a more theoretically and practically secure method to secure their wealth.

PoW is the only one that continue to require an Exponential increase in energy with nothing to show for it.

If Bitcoin exponentially increases in price, it follows that electricity usage will increase similarly. Let's not view this in a vacuum, though. It should be viewed in the context of taking market share from other extremely energy intensive monies like gold and fiat. Again, the fundamental problem here is that reliably secure and usable money requires significant energy.

Quote from: Khaos77 on July 04, 2019, 10:46:32 PM

No matter the energy expenditure , 4 colluding pool operators could double spend on a whim.
Meaning the trust of 4 individuals is all bitcoin has protecting it.

The ability to 51% attack one time for a few hours doesn't imply trust. In fact, the possibility of 51% attacks has nothing to do with trust. The only thing the attackers can do is censor transactions for a short time.

Spaffin

full member

Activity: 1316

Merit: 108

It seems to me that everything that surrounds us goes to the detriment of the environment, starting with the plants and ending with even the clothes we wear. I think you should not pay attention to the energy costs that are spent on bitcoin mining. Otherwise, we need to go back to the stone age.

Khaos77

member

Activity: 200

Merit: 73

Flag Day ☺

Quote from: squatter on July 04, 2019, 02:56:11 PM

Quote from: Khaos77 on July 04, 2019, 11:42:13 AM

Sad world you live in ,that an energy wasting parasite called bitcoin is your deity.
Thinking it is going to solve your problems, is a delusion with harsh consequences.

The problem you have is with money. All reliable forms of money require significant energy expenditure. How about the mining and minting costs of gold, or the energy running the entire banking system from physical ATMs and bank branches to SWIFT infrastructure? At least industrial miners have economic incentives to seek out load balancing arrangements with power generators, where Bitcoin saves energy from being wasted.

POS is a nice ideal, but don't be surprised when people demand a more theoretically and practically secure method to secure their wealth.

PoW is the only one that continue to require an Exponential increase in energy with nothing to show for it.
No matter the energy expenditure , 4 colluding pool operators could double spend on a whim.
Meaning the trust of 4 individuals is all bitcoin has protecting it.

PoW energy waste makes it less secure than PoS,
by increasing attack vectors against it, and it's inability to hide from superior forces.
As more government seizures of ASICS increase
because of possible grid disruption that should become apparent to the most ardent of PoW supporters.

squatter

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1196

STOP SNITCHIN'

Quote from: Khaos77 on July 04, 2019, 11:42:13 AM

Sad world you live in ,that an energy wasting parasite called bitcoin is your deity.
Thinking it is going to solve your problems, is a delusion with harsh consequences.

The problem you have is with money. All reliable forms of money require significant energy expenditure. How about the mining and minting costs of gold, or the energy running the entire banking system from physical ATMs and bank branches to SWIFT infrastructure? At least industrial miners have economic incentives to seek out load balancing arrangements with power generators, where Bitcoin saves energy from being wasted.

POS is a nice ideal, but don't be surprised when people demand a more theoretically and practically secure method to secure their wealth.

Khaos77

member

Activity: 200

Merit: 73

Flag Day ☺

Quote from: Wind_FURY on July 04, 2019, 03:53:49 AM

I heard Christmas lights waste more electricity than Bitcoin, and produces nothing useful and valuable. POS coin holders should petition to stop Christmas first, before Bitcoin. Hahaha.

I heard you never even mined one bitcoin block?
So technically , you produce nothing by your own standards.

Therefore what reason do you have to exist?

I imagine you could afford to run a Christmas light.

FYI:
Sad world you live in ,that an energy wasting parasite called bitcoin is your deity.
Thinking it is going to solve your problems, is a delusion with harsh consequences.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

I heard Christmas lights waste more electricity than Bitcoin, and produces nothing useful and valuable. POS coin holders should petition to stop Christmas first, before Bitcoin. Hahaha.

Khaos77

member

Activity: 200

Merit: 73

Flag Day ☺

Quote from: stompix on July 03, 2019, 02:54:53 AM

Well, PoW is 10 years consecutive and only champion so you should have got used to it.

Nothing lasts forever.
Until then enjoy the ride.

Quote from: stompix on July 03, 2019, 02:54:53 AM

Quote from: Khaos77 on July 02, 2019, 01:21:24 AM

The people that actually wanted to hold their own money , would run their own node.
No doubt companies would run their own in addition. Choice is there, people will be free to choose.
Their is also confusion , a staking node does not have to run 24x7 like a ASICS to avoid losing money.
Staking Nodes can run intermittently and receive stake whenever their coinage is higher,
so a staking node can be turned on, sync a month worth of blocks and then stake.
They do lose compounding, but leaving the Node up 24x7 is optional.

People who want to stake their money, not people who want to keep their money in a wallet, big difference.
The same way people don't want to turn their asics, pos holders won't want to spend their money Tongue

.
All pos coins will turn into a desert where everyone is staking but there are no fees because nobody is spending as they are all staking.

Not the reality, I am seeing.
Here is some info you seem unaware of, Most PoS coins actually burn all of their transactions fees from sending coins, as an offset to the so called free coins. Most PoS coins also use a fixed rate and process transactions in the order they are created, which means the rising fee for inclusion in a block is a non-issue for most PoS coins.
So in a very few PoS coins, the transaction fee can exceed the interest rate.
Making that specific PoS more deflationary than bitcoin or litecoin as a negative inflation rate is possible.

But that is enough of that , if you prefer irrational hate , I'll leave you to it.

Good Day.

zbig001

member

Activity: 162

Merit: 19

The difference in energy efficiency between PoS and PoW is at least questionable...
If we assume that both types of cryptocurrencies are to be secured to the same degree (electricity cost is replaced with equal capital cost).
If I am able to comprehend non-trivial economic issues correctly, the energy expenditure will be only slightly delayed, not diminished.

That energy expenditure may be actually reduced one day, but only if a typical home heater will be able to mine cryptocurrency...

Quote from: Khaos77 on July 02, 2019, 01:21:24 AM

This would also end the nonsense of non-mining nodes as all nodes could be staking nodes

If you do not run a validating node, how do you know you're connected to honest nodes?

Quote from: user512 on June 30, 2019, 11:00:40 AM

If you have any ideas how to avoid taking control over blockchains by economical mammoths, please reply.

Control over PoW blockchain is just a choice between the correct blockchain states (all outputs and inputs must match).
And in practice, that is very expensive and temporary control.

But my answer could be Elastos (and its sidechains, which can be PoW or dPoS).
Elastos mining is merged with Bitcoin mining, borrowing from Bitcoin its unparalleled security.
Potential attacker must dispose at the same time majority of Bitcoin's hash power and votes in dPoS layer.

Topic: Economical mammoths versus PoW and PoS (Read 526 times)