The truth is that Proof of Work is the true consensus mechanism/method for a trustless decentralized Blockchain Network. The moment you start deviating from this fact the more complicated and confusing things become.
It's simply a consensus method for proving to a trustless Network that a work has been properly done before it's approved, possibly with reward. Any Consensus method you develop should be based on this(PoW), maybe slightly or completely different from Bitcoin PoW type.
Proof of Stake should never even exist in the first place as the name and idea is fundamentally flawed. Consensus or agreememt only happens once a work is done with proof that it has been done, which is why a true consensus must always have the word Work rather than Stake attached to Proof..
So your own consensus method must be Work Based Proof and nothing else.
You could say "Issues with Bitcoin Proof-of-Work" rather than "Issues with Proof-of-Work". Proof of Work has no issue as it's perfect consensus method for a trustless network or world.
By the way, Bitcoin PoW remains the best consensus mechanism for a decentralized & trustless network as far as I can tell. It doesn't violate the other Bitcoin principles. But I know of alternative PoW that will prove very useful for any truely decentralized and trustless network. And it maybe compatible with the current Bitcoin. I just prefer it tested on another network. Notwithstanding, the current Bitcoin consensus is still very much useful and it's the right method for any true cryptocurrency.
Topic: Issues with Proof-of-Work - page 4. (Read 874 times)
I agree POW > POS by far I just think that POW may also be limiting the potential of decentralized currency in its own way.
It seemed promising a first but with all the required amendments is it really still the best solution out there or is it time to rethink the base principles of consensus.
It seemed promising a first but with all the required amendments is it really still the best solution out there or is it time to rethink the base principles of consensus.
Only two bitcoin pools were responsible for mining more than half of Bitcoin's blocks in the second half of December. Doesn't that prove POW is vulnerable as well in the sense that a few mining pools make up a super large portion of the network?
what you think of when u mention Pow pool are not what you think
within those pools are sub groups of stratums where there are subgroups of miners per stratum. located all over the world with different managers. and people can pool hop to different pools/stratums in milliseconds
when times are good and there are no malicious proposals where devs made bad code and blackmailing the network.. hashrate per pool is meaningless(in regards to rules)
if devs were to make malicious proposals(taking weeks-months to enforce/activate). asics can pool hop in MILLISECONDS
no one in ethereum PoS can de-stake from their CEX pool right now
Only two bitcoin pools were responsible for mining more than half of Bitcoin's blocks in the second half of December. Doesn't that prove POW is vulnerable as well in the sense that a few mining pools make up a super large portion of the network?
Apart from the drama that Franky loves to raise about devs,
crypto is not self coding AI.. all rules of al cryptos are dev created!!its how code is created.
ignoring the politics is allowing their centralisation to influence their ability to activate without restraight
they call themselves "core" "reference" "proposer" client for a reason
its bitcoins only drawback. head even lead maintainer of core admits how core is a central point of failure which they are trying to get away from
it pays to keep attention to details and critique proposers/devs influences. to not let them have free reign
Apart from the drama that Franky loves to raise about devs, he is right. The scaling has very little to do with mining algorithm, it is about the block space being limited which exist in both PoW and PoS.
However the flaws in PoS are by design and there is nothing that can really fix them whereas PoW doesn't have those flaws. For example in a PoS coin (specially altcoins) where people store their coins on exchanges and the altcoin exists only on the exchange for trading (aka gambling) the exchange suddenly gains a supermajority power to control the PoS network (which has happened in the past!). Something that is not possible in PoW because by design we have a genius way of preventing such attacks by making them needing to do actual work.
However the flaws in PoS are by design and there is nothing that can really fix them whereas PoW doesn't have those flaws. For example in a PoS coin (specially altcoins) where people store their coins on exchanges and the altcoin exists only on the exchange for trading (aka gambling) the exchange suddenly gains a supermajority power to control the PoS network (which has happened in the past!). Something that is not possible in PoW because by design we have a genius way of preventing such attacks by making them needing to do actual work.
What do you think it would take for people to be open to a Consensus method that works off a new base mechanism(not based in POW or POS)?
Most people are very open to new innovations in cryptocurrency world the problem is that we are always disappointed because almost everything new we see is a money grab project which is why the algorithms they introduce is also designed to ease their scam not to innovate and solve problems. Example: everything about Ethereum from its conception to help create tokens to scam people to their recent switch to PoS that helps them make money using their 72 million premined coins.
PoS issues are a multitude of things
but lets use ethereum as an example
just look at the 6month market charts
ethereum blind follows bitcoin market.
this is because ethereum does not have an independent community.
by this i mean if it did they would have their own sentiments of price and desire and their markets would not resemble the wiggles(ups and downs) of bitcoins.
lack of independence/desire means the markets just follow the prime markets due to arbitrage opportunities made by prime mainnets of real good utility/community/value
other factors are although ethereum switched to stake. they didnt add the redemption method at the merge. meaning peoples value has been locked and unmovable between 'staker pools' thus frozen and unspendable
yes they can find off-market trades to swap ownership. but thats just taking one person out away from his stake to put another sucker into that persons stake
these stakes in coinbase for instance are locked to coinbase. meaning if coinbase were to want to change some code. users owning that stake will not want to oppose coinbase because opposing a change = stake being destroyed and the owner losing it all. so they blindly go along with their stakers plans
AKA centralisation
other aspect of centralisation is that the threshold to be a staker is 32 coin meaning more then $30k invested. so people end up having to pool/syndicate smaller amounts with other people. thus less independency and along with the other flaws above less freedom to get out and just say no
with bitcoin Pow
asics can just pool jump in milliseconds away from malicious pools at no cost/harm
but lets use ethereum as an example
just look at the 6month market charts
ethereum blind follows bitcoin market.
this is because ethereum does not have an independent community.
by this i mean if it did they would have their own sentiments of price and desire and their markets would not resemble the wiggles(ups and downs) of bitcoins.
lack of independence/desire means the markets just follow the prime markets due to arbitrage opportunities made by prime mainnets of real good utility/community/value
other factors are although ethereum switched to stake. they didnt add the redemption method at the merge. meaning peoples value has been locked and unmovable between 'staker pools' thus frozen and unspendable
yes they can find off-market trades to swap ownership. but thats just taking one person out away from his stake to put another sucker into that persons stake
these stakes in coinbase for instance are locked to coinbase. meaning if coinbase were to want to change some code. users owning that stake will not want to oppose coinbase because opposing a change = stake being destroyed and the owner losing it all. so they blindly go along with their stakers plans
AKA centralisation
other aspect of centralisation is that the threshold to be a staker is 32 coin meaning more then $30k invested. so people end up having to pool/syndicate smaller amounts with other people. thus less independency and along with the other flaws above less freedom to get out and just say no
with bitcoin Pow
asics can just pool jump in milliseconds away from malicious pools at no cost/harm
What do you think it would take for people to be open to a Consensus method that works off a new base mechanism(not based in POW or POS)?
You could do well by pointing out the issues you mentioned with Proof of work (pos) and proof of stakes (POS), scalability is already a popular challenge to both Network algorithms and a lot of developers have been made toward solving that scalability issue.
Bitcoin proof of work is greatly criticized because of its power consumption and environmental hazards and in solving these issues, proof of work which requires a lot of energy due to its use of computing devices that are constantly working to confirm transactions, and to reduce the dependence on the grid for electricity supply, the miner is now migrating to renewable energy as alternatives power sources.
Using convertible energy such as solar panels and other environmentally friendly energy generation mechanisms!
Proof of stake on the other hand pause a great risk due to the centralization of the network in the hand of the higher pool providers and this is where the risk is.
Bitcoin proof of work is greatly criticized because of its power consumption and environmental hazards and in solving these issues, proof of work which requires a lot of energy due to its use of computing devices that are constantly working to confirm transactions, and to reduce the dependence on the grid for electricity supply, the miner is now migrating to renewable energy as alternatives power sources.
Using convertible energy such as solar panels and other environmentally friendly energy generation mechanisms!
Proof of stake on the other hand pause a great risk due to the centralization of the network in the hand of the higher pool providers and this is where the risk is.
in regards to Pow mining it does not matter how many transactions are in a block
the PoW part of mining. just solves a puzzle based on a 256bit hash.
no matter the blockdata load they all resort to a 256bit ID no matter the scale. so it has nothing to do with PoW being the problem of scaling
PoW is not limiting scaling.
scaling is delayed due to developer/corporate sponsor politics of not wanting to scale bitcoin because they want to offramp users to subnetworks rather than scale bitcoin even by % periodically..
the stall/delay is further becoming impatient due to the prime candidate subnetworks they promised to be the "solution" subnetworks.. have flaws of their own and are not fit to handle the scales they were promoted to handle (they are worse than what bitcoin can handle onchain now (unless you only want chewing gum/coffee amounts))
bitcoin however has a great value lock. and yes many subnetworks that "bridge" between many mainnets are already fostering bitcoin value as liquidity for their own network units. and yes some of them are even out liquidity providing compared to the promoted ones promised 7-8 years ago
and all this political commercial, corporate promises has nothing to do with PoW
the PoW part of mining. just solves a puzzle based on a 256bit hash.
no matter the blockdata load they all resort to a 256bit ID no matter the scale. so it has nothing to do with PoW being the problem of scaling
PoW is not limiting scaling.
scaling is delayed due to developer/corporate sponsor politics of not wanting to scale bitcoin because they want to offramp users to subnetworks rather than scale bitcoin even by % periodically..
the stall/delay is further becoming impatient due to the prime candidate subnetworks they promised to be the "solution" subnetworks.. have flaws of their own and are not fit to handle the scales they were promoted to handle (they are worse than what bitcoin can handle onchain now (unless you only want chewing gum/coffee amounts))
bitcoin however has a great value lock. and yes many subnetworks that "bridge" between many mainnets are already fostering bitcoin value as liquidity for their own network units. and yes some of them are even out liquidity providing compared to the promoted ones promised 7-8 years ago
and all this political commercial, corporate promises has nothing to do with PoW
after doing dev work with ethereum and bitcoin it seems that both consensus options are blatantly fairly flawed. POW has obvious scaling issues and POS seems like a bandaid solution with wealthy people automatically being allocated more currency through an infinitely compounding cycle. Is the crypto/blockchain community not open to new type of consensus? It seems like POW and POS just keep getting updated rather than addressing the real issue and switching base mechanisms. Do others just not see issues with POW or POS?
Jump to: