Topic: Economical mammoths versus PoW and PoS - page 2. (Read 526 times)

Because it will cost miners, and therefore risking wasting all the energy expended for the attack. In POS, there's no such cost, and therefore very tempting/possible for some groups to bribe other groups to control/manipulate the network.

Their-selves?
Those are not their money, it's the customer money!

You're doing exactly this:



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


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 .
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.
 

exactly!
this is the only reason every other altcoin that has PoS algorithm chose it in first place and is the only reason why some of the other coins are going that way. if you look at each of them, they have big owners that have a large "stake" in that coin. for example XRP is 100% premined and controlled by their creators. ETH has 72 million premine and is controlled by their owners. they all want more power and control with their free "stakes" + the easy money they earn just by having that amount.
now they are pushing the same thing for bitcoin because they have some coins and want free profit. it will never happen.

Ok, let's compare. 
PoW : Pool Operators would double spend on the Exchanges and Cash Out to FIAT.

PoS:  Exchanges would Double Spend Against their-selves. 
        Not likely and much easier to just sell all of their coins in an exit strategy.




That is a personal emotional response, of which you have every right,
but emotional responses don't determine factual results based on design and energy efficiently.
PoS may not be your favorite sports team , but that does not mean they won't win the crypto Superbowl.




Excuse me, you realize you basically speaking of Coinbase without the staking part.
The Most stable Bitcoin Nodes are currently run by companies, and you can bet the real successful LN hubs will all be company owned.

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. 

 

I was getting to think about proof of stake since the ethereum network is going this route sometime in 2020 or later.
There are some coins which have done this successfully and continue to go forward even with the early adopters getting into it cheaply at the beginning.
But there are other pos coins which have alleviated this problem with the unequal amount of coins available to the rest of the adopters by creating more coins available to the pool.
And somehow has devised a way of not having a deflationary value attributed to them over time.

This is the main reason PoS is dangerous long-term especially for decentralization. Governments can still take over PoW but it would be pretty easy to detect their large PoW miners and know who really run them.

The solution to this problem is either the replacement of current mining with something more decentralized and difficult to centralize or the elimination of mining altogether. 

I once suggested that mining should be restricted to people who use blockchain and have lots valuable contributions on any area of life that exists on blockchain. They must have earned reasonable amounts of Bitcointalk-like merits before they can qualify to be miners and the merit must be earned in fair manner

Change pool operators to exchange and there you have the guys that can control your "destiny".
Coincheck was holding 10% of the entire NEM supply on their exchange when they were hacked.
Binance currently hold around 210k bitcoins in their identified cold wallets, god knows how many they actually have in storage.

And don't start with people holding their coins in their own wallets and stake them, the same could be said about miners going solo mining, none of the two will happen.

I actually don't like PoW, I've always warned people here that if we reach insane values of 50k before the halving the number of miners plugging in would drive energy consumption to an insane level so much as it would start to influence energy prices.

But, misquoting Beorn here,
"I don't like PoW, with its electricity consumption driven by greed...but PoS, I hate more".


And slowly the nodes would start to be run by companies, offering you a share of the profit if you deposit your coins, people would start depositing those as they do in a bank to gain interest, solo staking would turn into a useless business, and guess what the outcome would be? Back to square 1.

You do realize, that the block rewards could be set to the exact same schedule as now,
and that when all block rewards ends, the bitcoin staker would only earn transaction fees.
This would also end the nonsense of non-mining nodes as all nodes could be staking nodes
and since they earn profit end the nonsense that the blocksize can't be increased because people can't afford to upgrade their hardware.

PoS can do fixed rewards so their are no changes in the current inflation rate.  

But hey choose PoA or some other energy efficiency design,
PoW is the failure, prefer another energy efficient algo, then no complaints here.  

PoW energy waste is an attack vector on 3 fronts.
1.  Energy Footprint showing Location, for seizures or destruction of ASICS
2.  Public Relations Nightmare , raising the general public electric bills
3.  Pretense for Governments to Ban Bitcoin Mining

summary...
seems someone wants to go pos so they can have their cake and eat it

in the end pos advocates end up revealing their motives are about wanting rewards without any costs
using boring arguments which "economically" is empty of validity

p.s its obvious when the title is "economical" not "security" as its bases for prefering pos

*My replies in Blue. *

PoS                                                                      PoW
Energy Efficient                                                     Energy Wasteful
Requires ~90% to dominate a network                   Requires 51% to dominate a network
Secured by the # of coins staking + Coin Age          Secured only by the elite that can afford extreme mining costs paid in Fiat
Rolling Checkpoints, blocking All Reorgs                  Only Client Checkpoints , blocking only reorgs after client updates
More resistant to Government Seizure                     More susceptible to Government Seizure, due to inability to hide ASICS energy footprint

The confusion seems to be that since bitcoin wastes more it is more secure,
that is a false assumption, it only means it wastes more nothing else.
At the end of every day, 4 pool operators control bitcoin destiny,
where as every decent PoS coin is secured by many more than 4 people.  

---

FYI: Bitcoin Mining Is Vulnerable article
https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2018/7/229033-majority-is-not-enough/abstract


All PoW Pools are collusion for better rewards.
This means you are trusting a mere handful of Pool Operators not to abuse the system.

You've misunderstood the point.

Pools don't own the hash power. They can't leverage a sustained attack. That would require billions of dollars they don't have. If a handful of pools 51% attacked the network, they would only control the best chain for a matter of hours -- or minutes -- after which their customers would leave with their hash power.

Colluding majority attackers in POS actually own the stake. They can attack the network indefinitely at zero cost. With infinitely lower costs to mount an attack, majority attacks are much more attractive in POS -- assuming there is sufficient value to be gained.

These are apples and oranges.


That doesn't make any sense. Please elaborate.


This doesn't make up for POS's inferior security model.

It is funny, in your mind, 4 pool operators would never 51% attack a coin,
because of the financial damage it would cause them.
But you think , Stakeholders would cause direct financial damage to themselves.

I suggest you reexamine your statements, because logically no one wants to harm their-selves financially,
but you think all stakeholders are on financial suicide watch, while all pool operators are not.

Look deeply so you can see how confused you are.  

FYI:
You also don't understand staking verses mining,
miners only require 51% to dominate a network ,
stakers require closer to 90% to dominate a network.  

FYI2:
You also missed the point that the Government can locate any warehouse of ASICS,
merely by having the power company report excessive energy usage,
where as no one can determine the location of a PoS client by it's energy usage alone.
Also a PoS Client could be running off of wireless laptop and moving between alternative locations on a daily basis,
something a warehouse full of ASICS could never do.

Take us through a hypothetical attack scenario. What will miners who are pointing their hash power at these pools do, if the pool operators collude to 51% attack the network? Stay with those pools, or point their hash power elsewhere? Any rational miner will leave the pool.

Maybe the attacking pools could "steal" their users hash power for some hours. What would be gained? Some censored transactions, maybe a small rollback? I would be curious to see the incentives that would even justify pool operators doing that. They'd be nailing their own coffin shut.


Between hardware, electricity and overhead costs, a sustained attack on Bitcoin requires billions of dollars.

None of these costs exist in a pure POS network. Existing stakeholders can simply collude together at no cost. This is a permanent condition. This isn't like mining pools in Bitcoin who can only temporarily leverage other peoples' hash power.

Which if those early adopters want any fiat , then they have to sell a % of control.
Only PoS coins that have inflation rates so high that the PoS users never have to sell from their principle ,
would the early adopters never lose control. Simple solution is only buy coins with low or extremely low inflation rate.
* Funny , how no one worries that only 4 BTC Mining Pools can dominate all of Bitcoin. *
* But with PoS it scares the hell out of them if 30 or more stakers could collude to dominate. *  


PoW ASICS used in BTC are way more vulnerable to government seizure than any Proof of Stake coin.

A PoS coin network can be hidden, plus with the click of a key can be transferred to another country at a moment's notice,
where as BTC's ASICS energy drain will paint a giant bullseye on it,
so any government agency can stop by and either just turn off the power or seize the ASICs, like what IRAN just did.

It only takes a few solid PoS supporters to keep a PoS network secure from Government takeover,
PoW network warehouses can't hide and are easy to find, therefore are much easier for government seizure.

you can't stop rational greed and profit motive. there's no way to prevent users from selling coins to colluding parties intent on attacking the network. it's impossible.

the biggest problem with many POS (or hybrid POS) supply distributions is that early adopters have disproportionate control over the supply. in fact, this element is present in POW networks like bitcoin too. but in bitcoin, it's not a problem re consensus and potential attacks on the network. in a POS system, it is. this is why POS remains unsolved.

Hi everyone,
last time I thought about centralization making in decentralized networks and systems, exactly about Proof of Stake.
With PoW consensus mechanism, the users can't stop potential malicious user or group of users from simply buying their power in network via buying new ASICs because this isn't directly commited to blockchain.
By the principle you can't stop anyone buy a lot of hashing power. In this way I see PoS as the good way how to avoid this because coins in PoS which make the power can be bought only from blockchain users, so by the other words, users can decide not to make possible centralization because they do not allow selling coins to malicious users or pools. But not at all.
However, there are many ways how can centralization-lust groups hide their behavior by TOR principles, so you can think that you are selling your Ether or imaginary Bitcoin with PoS to common user, but the wallet is held by centralized mammoth. So the PoW is weak in holding too many coins instead of too many ASIC cards for mining, plus - and ironically - there isn't any way how to redistribute coins in free and decentralized manner as in PoW.
For example, state can always take control over the PoS network by anonymously buying the majority of the coins (it doesn't need to use violence, it can just use its economical dominance). There isn't any way how to recognise between institutional buyer and common buyer in the manner: No! You're Big Bro! I don't sell you 100 000 000 ETH, because you will take control over Ethereum blockchain!
By the way, if there will be any true-blockchain-decision-making mechanism, in pseudoanonymous network you can't recognize that the state is getting control over it (of course - if will the attack for getting control well distributed).
But if you assumpt, that there are only certain ways how to buy crypto if you don't have any digital coin for exchange yet, you probably can recognize it.
But clearly hypothetically, if all assets, cars and things for everyday use will be smart contract ensured, the only way how to buy crypto will be simpy trade your smart asset with it, and that means no identity revealing at the entry of trade, so the full pseudoanonymity (you will be sure not able to recognize between state and common user).
Anyway, the states can't buy all digital coins in the world, that unluckily don't figure them out from taking control over early beginning blockchains.
If you have any ideas how to avoid taking control over blockchains by economical mammoths, please reply. At now I see the biggest problem in the side of recognizing between state and the others.