Pages:
Author

Topic: Is PoS the future of Bitcoin mining? - page 2. (Read 2721 times)

legendary
Activity: 3248
Merit: 1070
May 10, 2015, 02:00:17 AM
#45
Nope, but PoW isn't as well... right now is the best we got, but clearly is not ideal. Even people like Gavin are saying it's a waste, and we should eventually find a superior way to deal with all of this.

why worry about it, can always be changed in the future, i mean hard fork aren't that scary, we are approching one for the block size, we will make other to improve the overall bitcoin world

maybe the better alternative isn't out yet, pos ins't exactly the answer and it is also an old protocol like pow
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
May 10, 2015, 01:50:05 AM
#44
You can agree of disagree but classic PoW is going to die.

Maybe in a year, maybe in 5 years but it is going to die. It is expensive, it s waste of energy, it generates negative extrenalities and it ll die.

Whether PoS or something else s going to be the next step in evolution of crypto, that I cannot claim. But BTC ll have to adapt and improve. Or fade away.

Considering BTC as something final and untouchable in the crypto world is not good. There has be a constant tendency towards innovation and improvements.
Did a magic ball tell you that that is going to happen?
I personally don't mine PoW. I know because I was a miner who at a time was barely paying for the electricity. Considering all the ways that humans are wasting energy, there is nothing wrong with wasting some for Bitcoin.
PoS isn't the next step because it is not as safe as people think. You'd need to dig up a few threads to find out why.
legendary
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1007
DMD Diamond Making Money 4+ years! Join us!
May 10, 2015, 12:23:31 AM
#43
You can agree of disagree but classic PoW is going to die.

Maybe in a year, maybe in 5 years but it is going to die. It is expensive, it s waste of energy, it generates negative extrenalities and it ll die.

Whether PoS or something else s going to be the next step in evolution of crypto, that I cannot claim. But BTC ll have to adapt and improve. Or fade away.

Considering BTC as something final and untouchable in the crypto world is not good. There has be a constant tendency towards innovation and improvements.

What is "negative extrenalities"?



This is how Wiki defines it: "A negative externality (also called "external cost" or "external diseconomy") is an economic activity that imposes a negative effect on an unrelated third party."

In other words, negative aftereffects generated by the waste of energy caused by PoW mining.
hero member
Activity: 658
Merit: 501
May 09, 2015, 03:29:45 PM
#42
You can agree of disagree but classic PoW is going to die.

Maybe in a year, maybe in 5 years but it is going to die. It is expensive, it s waste of energy, it generates negative extrenalities and it ll die.

Why cannot waste energy be recycled into a useful byproduct? Can you not think of some positive externalities of PoW?

1) Spurring ASIC and chip development
2) Encouraging innovation into datacenter and cooling technologies
3) Creating new technologies that recycle waste heat for useful needs
4) Providing a source of security that cannot be easily manufactured and costs real money and real resources to attack
5) Removing the ability of direct human involvement from being able to manipulate or attack the network by separating the power dynamic between the full nodes, miners and developers

Perhaps there will be a version of PoR or a "curecoin" like PoW version could be used in the future. Curecoin current has to depend both on ASIC SHA256 mining and GPU folding for security so doesn't represent a good example of a 100% folding PoW. I could see a small possibility of a future PoR/newer PoW algo slowly being introduced into the reward structure and eventually replace PoW if the benefits are much better and an alt can show it is secure.
hero member
Activity: 700
Merit: 501
May 09, 2015, 03:28:16 PM
#41
Nope, but PoW isn't as well... right now is the best we got, but clearly is not ideal. Even people like Gavin are saying it's a waste, and we should eventually find a superior way to deal with all of this.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
May 09, 2015, 03:23:27 PM
#40
You can agree of disagree but classic PoW is going to die.

Maybe in a year, maybe in 5 years but it is going to die. It is expensive, it s waste of energy, it generates negative extrenalities and it ll die.

Whether PoS or something else s going to be the next step in evolution of crypto, that I cannot claim. But BTC ll have to adapt and improve. Or fade away.

Considering BTC as something final and untouchable in the crypto world is not good. There has be a constant tendency towards innovation and improvements.

What is "negative extrenalities"?

legendary
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1007
DMD Diamond Making Money 4+ years! Join us!
May 09, 2015, 03:00:18 PM
#39
You can agree of disagree but classic PoW is going to die.

Maybe in a year, maybe in 5 years but it is going to die. It is expensive, it s waste of energy, it generates negative extrenalities and it ll die.

Whether PoS or something else s going to be the next step in evolution of crypto, that I cannot claim. But BTC ll have to adapt and improve. Or fade away.

Considering BTC as something final and untouchable in the crypto world is not good. There has be a constant tendency towards innovation and improvements.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
May 09, 2015, 11:47:56 AM
#38
The point is this big farms can't keep the share forever. And even switch to pos, it also could be only a few person own most of coins. The person who want to mine more coins will buy more coins.
There is nothing changed.

Why not? 3-4 big farms I know of are the ones who were the biggest a year ago.
Stop talking about farms, start talking about pools. There are thousands o farms out there and none are even close to reaching a dangerous percentage o the hashrate.
If you take a look at hashrate distribution charts, things have been changing a lot over time. Some pools had huge shares in the past and now almost have none.
Also you need to consider something else. PoS is bad. It will make the rich much more richer.

good point.  Yes it is a few big pools but many "farms".
Anyway, PoS is still theoretically broken.  Although
it seems to work in practice in coins like Nxt, it is
doubtful if it could scale because of costless simulation
which has been discussed many times.

legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
May 09, 2015, 11:32:58 AM
#37
The point is this big farms can't keep the share forever. And even switch to pos, it also could be only a few person own most of coins. The person who want to mine more coins will buy more coins.
There is nothing changed.

Why not? 3-4 big farms I know of are the ones who were the biggest a year ago.
Stop talking about farms, start talking about pools. There are thousands o farms out there and none are even close to reaching a dangerous percentage o the hashrate.
If you take a look at hashrate distribution charts, things have been changing a lot over time. Some pools had huge shares in the past and now almost have none.
Also you need to consider something else. PoS is bad. It will make the rich much more richer.
Q7
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
May 09, 2015, 11:28:58 AM
#36
If it is going to be Pos and reward people holding onto bitcoin I'm afraid we are introducing more supply to the market right now instead of trying to achieve the opposite. The system of pow isn't perfect and neither does adding pos is going to help either. And how about the cap limit? We have to consider on that as well.
legendary
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1016
May 09, 2015, 06:23:42 AM
#35
I hear constantly about how miners would not agree to fork and introduce PoS. What miners? If we continue this road, in 2 years we ll have 4-5 big farms in the world mining 95% of BTC while the rest ll be cover while hobbyists who mine at a loss, simply for the sake of good old times.

We try to avoid centralization but without any serious improvement, we are heading towards it.

Even if there will be 4-5 big farms, I doubt that it will be own by 1 single person , perhaps it could be a joint of several companies or people so it is not truly a centralization. Obviously switching into POS is not helping at all because it might destroy the value of bitcoin . There is some improvement but alot is disagree with it like the 20mb block fork

Having BTC rely on 4-5 big farms is much more dangerous then BTC fork. Remember Amhash? I do not see any other way we can maintain decentralization in the future.

It is not yet clear about this thing on which is far more dangerous, as far as I know, people have a phobia with fork but I do support the 20mb fork but not changing to POS. As I said even if there is 4-5 big farms, it would nt be owned by the same person so it would not looks like a centralization
legendary
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1007
DMD Diamond Making Money 4+ years! Join us!
May 08, 2015, 01:04:12 PM
#34
I hear constantly about how miners would not agree to fork and introduce PoS. What miners? If we continue this road, in 2 years we ll have 4-5 big farms in the world mining 95% of BTC while the rest ll be cover while hobbyists who mine at a loss, simply for the sake of good old times.

We try to avoid centralization but without any serious improvement, we are heading towards it.

Even if there will be 4-5 big farms, I doubt that it will be own by 1 single person , perhaps it could be a joint of several companies or people so it is not truly a centralization. Obviously switching into POS is not helping at all because it might destroy the value of bitcoin . There is some improvement but alot is disagree with it like the 20mb block fork

Having BTC rely on 4-5 big farms is much more dangerous then BTC fork. Remember Amhash? I do not see any other way we can maintain decentralization in the future.
The point is this big farms can't keep the share forever. And even switch to pos, it also could be only a few person own most of coins. The person who want to mine more coins will buy more coins.
There is nothing changed.

Why not? 3-4 big farms I know of are the ones who were the biggest a year ago.
sr. member
Activity: 322
Merit: 250
May 07, 2015, 11:44:41 PM
#33
I hear constantly about how miners would not agree to fork and introduce PoS. What miners? If we continue this road, in 2 years we ll have 4-5 big farms in the world mining 95% of BTC while the rest ll be cover while hobbyists who mine at a loss, simply for the sake of good old times.

We try to avoid centralization but without any serious improvement, we are heading towards it.

Even if there will be 4-5 big farms, I doubt that it will be own by 1 single person , perhaps it could be a joint of several companies or people so it is not truly a centralization. Obviously switching into POS is not helping at all because it might destroy the value of bitcoin . There is some improvement but alot is disagree with it like the 20mb block fork

Having BTC rely on 4-5 big farms is much more dangerous then BTC fork. Remember Amhash? I do not see any other way we can maintain decentralization in the future.
The point is this big farms can't keep the share forever. And even switch to pos, it also could be only a few person own most of coins. The person who want to mine more coins will buy more coins.
There is nothing changed.
legendary
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1007
DMD Diamond Making Money 4+ years! Join us!
May 07, 2015, 10:50:54 PM
#32
I hear constantly about how miners would not agree to fork and introduce PoS. What miners? If we continue this road, in 2 years we ll have 4-5 big farms in the world mining 95% of BTC while the rest ll be cover while hobbyists who mine at a loss, simply for the sake of good old times.

We try to avoid centralization but without any serious improvement, we are heading towards it.

Even if there will be 4-5 big farms, I doubt that it will be own by 1 single person , perhaps it could be a joint of several companies or people so it is not truly a centralization. Obviously switching into POS is not helping at all because it might destroy the value of bitcoin . There is some improvement but alot is disagree with it like the 20mb block fork

Having BTC rely on 4-5 big farms is much more dangerous then BTC fork. Remember Amhash? I do not see any other way we can maintain decentralization in the future.
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 6382
Looking for campaign manager? Contact icopress!
May 07, 2015, 10:49:42 AM
#31
Yes it is not based on the mining equipment and of course even if you need such expensive mining equipment and the price of mining still larger than the current price , what do you think of getting bitcoin from POS? it will ofcourse be such lower. In addition, some feature of shitcoins is a great feature, no doubt about that but changing to POS is not a good thing to follow

I never said that PoS is the best option (actually, I agree it's one of the worse ones), but it's an option.
However, it doesn't matter as long as Bitcoin has fork-o-phobia.
legendary
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1016
May 07, 2015, 10:47:39 AM
#30

Changing to PoS could solve some problems, like the problem of current miners crying for more fiat as income.

changing to POS wont help anyone because if BTC is change into POS then the value of it will drop too, leaving it meaningless to be just useless coins and not BTC anymore. Forking it in 20mb block will atleast make some decent effect to that

The price seems to drop whether we keep the current over-expensive mining or not. The meaning of the coins doesn't (or should not) come from how expensive the mining gear is.
The price was rising when people were hiding the money into Bitcoin (also with help from Gox bot). Since then people realized that Bitcoin can be traced and wallet can be somehow linked to person. What if they'll go for Monero, eh?

The 20Mb fork may have some meaning. Also having per kb fee is a reasonable option. However, the history shows that bitcoin is extremely reticent to forks.

Maybe someday Bitcoin will drop the fear of the forking, maybe it will take a look what the "shitcoins" can innovate and learn from them. Being the first may not be such an advantage after 5 more years, and just debating and over-debating is not too helpful.

Yes it is not based on the mining equipment and of course even if you need such expensive mining equipment and the price of mining still larger than the current price , what do you think of getting bitcoin from POS? it will ofcourse be such lower. In addition, some feature of shitcoins is a great feature, no doubt about that but changing to POS is not a good thing to follow

legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 6382
Looking for campaign manager? Contact icopress!
May 07, 2015, 10:38:10 AM
#29

Changing to PoS could solve some problems, like the problem of current miners crying for more fiat as income.

changing to POS wont help anyone because if BTC is change into POS then the value of it will drop too, leaving it meaningless to be just useless coins and not BTC anymore. Forking it in 20mb block will atleast make some decent effect to that

The price seems to drop whether we keep the current over-expensive mining or not. The meaning of the coins doesn't (or should not) come from how expensive the mining gear is.
The price was rising when people were hiding the money into Bitcoin (also with help from Gox bot). Since then people realized that Bitcoin can be traced and wallet can be somehow linked to person. What if they'll go for Monero, eh?

The 20Mb fork may have some meaning. Also having per kb fee is a reasonable option. However, the history shows that bitcoin is extremely reticent to forks.

Maybe someday Bitcoin will drop the fear of the forking, maybe it will take a look what the "shitcoins" can innovate and learn from them. Being the first may not be such an advantage after 5 more years, and just debating and over-debating is not too helpful.
legendary
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1016
May 07, 2015, 10:20:22 AM
#28
I hear constantly about how miners would not agree to fork and introduce PoS. What miners? If we continue this road, in 2 years we ll have 4-5 big farms in the world mining 95% of BTC while the rest ll be cover while hobbyists who mine at a loss, simply for the sake of good old times.

We try to avoid centralization but without any serious improvement, we are heading towards it.

Even if there will be 4-5 big farms, I doubt that it will be own by 1 single person , perhaps it could be a joint of several companies or people so it is not truly a centralization. Obviously switching into POS is not helping at all because it might destroy the value of bitcoin . There is some improvement but alot is disagree with it like the 20mb block fork
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
May 07, 2015, 10:17:40 AM
#27
obviously switching bitcoin to pos isn't happening.  but still I'm curious to know, don't pos coins still have to deal with blockchain growth anyway?  if not, why not?
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
May 07, 2015, 10:14:56 AM
#26
I hear constantly about how miners would not agree to fork and introduce PoS. What miners? If we continue this road, in 2 years we ll have 4-5 big farms in the world mining 95% of BTC while the rest ll be cover while hobbyists who mine at a loss, simply for the sake of good old times.

We try to avoid centralization but without any serious improvement, we are heading towards it.
You've said nothing new. This was said multiple times in the past and most people should know this by now (I hope).
How about you present a solution that is viable? People tend to complain and just write about problems rather than present potential solutions.
Switching to PoS is not a viable solution. Until someone comes up with something, things are just going to be that way.
Pages:
Jump to: