Topic: It's about time to turn off PoW mining - page 21. (Read 39732 times)

i never said that a new coin would take over every couple of years.. most likely it will only be one that is so much more innovative than the rest that it out strips btc in a couple years and then eventually dominates the global financial system. this platform would be backwards compatible and a lot more so that bitcoin is. hell bitcoin doesnt need to be backwards compatible because its been pretty much set in stone the last 5 years. that is why i said only 2-3 platforms stand any chance at all of surpassing bitcoin.

and most likely you are correct that if a pos coin displaces bitcoin many people from the current userbase will be lost. but you must bare in mind that the current userbase is so tiny. if a new far more innovative coin does displace bitcoin it could very well pick up a whole new base of users that were not previously in crypto. perhaps it may not even be PoS but a newer even more innovative platform with a newer more innovative consensus algo, im not arguing that PoS will be the platform that does this as it most likely wont be. there are still flaws in PoS that need to be fixed and currently i only see one new (unlaunched) platform that is actually making major fixes. the bebo v facebook argument comes back here again.. bebo, for a while, dominated the userbase at the time in the social network arena, but then facebook came along. how many people that use facebook today ever used bebo? i didnt and now i use facebook. many many people swapped from bebo to facebook, bebo collapsed and with the rise of facebook, the second generation of social networks if you like, social networks hit the mainstream like no one could have foreseen. for sure many people that used bebo were alienated and bebo collapsed, but social networks grew far far stronger because of the "second generation" of social networks and now people dont give two shits about the one that pretty much kicked this all off.

bitcoin could very well be the bebo of crypto. it only has a user base of 1-2 million people as far as i know. 20k in the uk. far less where i live. PoS could very well be the myspace(bigger than bebo but far smaller than facebook) and there could very well be a new coin that is far more innovative and powerful than PoS that turns out to be the facebook of the crypto world.

cryptocurrencies are evolving at an astonishing rate.. way faster than any other technology. each major step in the evolution is ironing out the major flaws of the last. PoW's major flaws have mostly been fixed by PoS but in turn PoS has brought about a whole new generation of Flaws aswell as a new generation of tech. there is a new algo that i wont mention that seems like it is going to be the next major step in the evolution of cryptographic currencies that will fix the new flaws of PoS and any remaining flaws of PoW that were brought forward.

id like a question answered if you or anyone can.. name one technology with multiple generations where the 1st generation created is still the most widely used? i mean phones, tv's mp3's electronics or anyother face paced technology?  how many people still use basic phones that only call and txt which is what bitcoin would be if it was a mobile phone. and how many people use smart phones, which is what the 2.0 currencies would be if they were phones?

once you compare crypto technology to other innovative and disruptive technologies it is very simple to see where all this is going. you might also say well basic phones went main stream long before smart phones took over and you would be correct, but you must also take into account the speed of development of the telecoms v crypto technology. crypto is evolving and innovating way way faster than phones ever could have so the first generation of crypto may not even have long enough to gain wide spread main stream adoption before the 2.0 platform takes over. with only 1-2 million people estimated to be actually using bitcoin, bitcoin is a far cry from mainstream.

so i agree that if bitcoin is displaced many users will be lost, but while displacing the few who refuse to adapt to the ever changing crypto landscape we may very well gain a few orders of magnitudes more users in the process of displacing bitcoin and for a long time after displacing bitcoin. i have already watched this happening in real time. i have watched and been involved in a business that uses the new tech of a 2.0 platform at its core and guess what.. new users who never used bitcoin, started using the 2.0 platform as a result of the new tech brought about by the 2.0(happens to be PoS) platform. for every person that these 2.0 platforms displace while displacing bitcoin itself, many more users will join. just like bebo and facebook.

times are changing rapidly. for a long time many legendary/hero members were so far ahead of the curve that they could sit pretty and be proud of being ahead of the curve. but in their complacency in the current status quo and complacency in the innovative yet stagnating PoW technology many have fallen behind the rapidly advancing tech and the curve has quickly caught up to them with out them even noticing. new people with open minds are seeing this curve and jumping ahead of it long before many "early crypto people/PoW heads" realise they are even behind the curve. the reason for this delayed realization is most certainly due to complacency in their current situation(or denial/vested interests blinding them etc) the exact same way that investing juggernauts are complacent in old school investments and fail to see the advantages and potential of crypto.

ps. how many accounts bellow hero or senior are arguing the case that so many hero/legendary members are arguing? the only people i see fighting the anti-altcoin corner are those who have been in bitcoin a very long time and are therefore emotionally attached to their bitcoins, have vested interests, or are complacent in their current situation and therefore intentionally cover their eyes and ears anytime it is mentioned that, god forbid, another platform surpasses bitcoin that isnt PoW. people fighting that corner were once or maybe still are the majority. but this is also changing, prompting far far more prominent and public trusted people to openly attack PoS. the smarter of the bunch are seeing the curve move ahead of them but cannot openly support the change as it would go against their interests so instead they attack that that pushes the curve further forward in a futile attempt to prevent the progression of the curve.

everyone should step back, take a look around with open eyes and an open mind and then the truth might be seen. the curve is moving and its moving fast. burying of heads will not stop the rapid progressing that is leaving so many hero/legendary forlks behind with their heads in the ground

LOL this CoinHoarder idiot still use the same old come back :


I'm getting tired of his stupid shit : "There are so many better innovation in Altcoins.... Its better than Bitcoin, i cant explain it but i know its better ..."

Fck reading his post is like trying to understand why a dog likes to lick his fifthy asshole.



Welcome to my ignore,

Innovation is great, but on the other hand you also need stability and backwards compatibility if you want the platform to succeed in the long run. If every few years a new coin takes over the world in a manner that devalues the vested interests in the previous coin then people would pretty much consider cryptocurrencies as flash-in-the-pan bullshit, only good for short term speculation at most.

Of course, nobody really can control what happens. For me personally, the key feature that I am looking for is inflation-protected long term store of wealth. If the cryptocurrency scene becomes too dynamic such that it is unable to offer me this then I will pretty much leave, as would many others.

As for switching to PoS, that would definitely be destabilizing to Bitcoin and you will risk alienating some of the current userbase. It would certainly move the flow of wealth away from the hardware manufacturers and utility companies, but it may not have the desired effect on BTC price that the OP is hoping for.

This guy gets it. Furthermore, PoS coins have network effects of their own which makes PoS clones have to go through the above steps and innovation to usurp them. You can't clone a cryptocurrency.. PoW or PoS... and expect it to be successful.

The exact same applies for PoS coins. How do you not get this...........

It also takes money to be able to create competitive PoS coins. To be competitive you need to be innovative and have the below bolded assets, and to implement those innovations/assets is not free. You either need to spend a lot of time developing and marketing (time=money) or you need raise funds (IPO) to develop a competitive PoS coin. Either way you are risking money on the success of the PoS cryptocurrency.

A competitive cryptocurrency relies on it having the assets bolded below.


I don't get this obsession with PoW in that it is the only way a cryptocurrency can derive its value or success. Again, you are completely ignoring other dynamics to a cryptocurrency's success including network effects, features, utility, infrastructures, ease of use, communities, innovation, developer dedication & skills, and resources (large market caps to pay for development/infrastructure).

10, 100, or 1000 copies of the same PoS cryptocurrency will not be successful due the dynamics I listed above. Just as 10, 100, or 1000 copies of a PoW cryptocurrency will not be successful. If you think it is so easy to create a successful PoS cryptocurrency, then I urge you to go try it. I think you will find it much harder to be successful than you are alluding to. There are many PoS coins that have failed, just as there are many PoW coins that have failed. This is because the consensus algorithm is only one factor to the success of a cryptocurrency.


I've already addressed that it costs money to make a competitive PoS coin above.

As to security, there are different forms of PoS and I believe there is at least one of them that is sufficiently safe from a "nothing at stake" attack, which is what I believe you are referring to. It is called delegated proof of stake.

More about DPoS: http://bitshares.org/delegated-proof-of-stake/
Even more about DPoS: http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/DPOS
Old discussions on DPoS: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4009.0
Discussions regarding "nothing at stake" attacks: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6584.0
More discussion about NaS attack: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6638.0

If a PoW altcoin gets big enough because of technical superiority, Bitcoin will change its protocol. I just don't see any PoS protocol doing that.

+1

Bitcoin is the best.  (for now)

Bitcoin does not have the best tech.

Bitcoin has the biggest network so it is the easiest to use.  That is why it is the best.  

A coin spent and accepted is a real coin and a good coin.  

Many other coins have much better tech, but not nearly the network and end user points.  

Alt coins can't really be spent so they aren't worth much.

If/When one of these better techs gets a bigger network and more end points of sale, it will be very interesting to watch how it challenges bitcoin and probably usurps, but not completely displaces it.  

Better tech = faster, lighter, stronger, safer, easier, prettier, better, simpler, more adaptable, more options, and better meeting the needs of the world

It's actually very easy to start a new PoW coin. All you need to do is fork Bitcoin by mining a new Genesis Block. You can change the protocol more significantly, but it isn't necessary. The altcoins are unsuccessful because they haven't changed the protocol in a significant way and people haven't invested enough energy into creating them.

The reason why there are not more PoW coins is because it takes work (money) to be able create (mine) PoW coins, therefore there is more risk if your coin does not catch on with the masses. With a PoS coin on the other hand it costs nothing to make (mine) the coins so there is nothing to stop someone from making 10 (or 100, or 1,000) PoS coins hoping that at least one will catch on. With PoW actual money needs to be risked in order to make the coin. This also speaks to the security of the coin because an attacker will need to invest actual money to attack a PoW coin while they will need to invest nothing (if it cost nothing to mine) to attack a PoS coin

Maybe that was harsh, but I'm not one to beat around the bush. Ignore me if you must.. I was done talking to you anyways.

Welcome to my ignore list and please see yourself out of this PoW Bitcoin forum.

You are either bias, clueless, or in denial. I'm not sure which one, but I am done debating with you sense you lack logical reasoning skills. At least I am able to admit PoS has flaws, but to you PoW's shit doesn't stink and you are clueless as to how cryptocurrencies derive their value on the free market. You need to be more open minded to perceive reality accurately.

Yeah, that's why I think that the only PoS coin that will work is one that is marketed by a nation state and declared legal tender.

Solarcoin is about to switch over to PoS in about 2 days.

So you're just going to ignore kodtycoon's very valid arguments? PoW does not give a coin value, otherwise there wouldn't be many worthless PoW coins. Just as PoS does not give a coin value, otherwise there wouldn't be many worthless PoS coins.

You are completely ignoring network effects, features, utility, infrastructures, ease of use, communities, innovation, developer dedication & skills, and resources (large market caps to pay for development/infrastructure).

There are many clones of Nxt and most of them are pretty much worthless. Only the ones with large communities and the most innovative ones have even a fraction of Nxt's market cap.

Furthermore, Gold has many other dynamics in play as to how it derives its price, just like cryptocurrencies.

Gold has value because it is PoW.  Mining, securing, and transporting takes calories of energy. PoW should really be called Energy Backed. Energy is what backs the entire global economy. That's why the USD is called the petro-dollar. If money could be backed strictly by ideas, then my idea would be to have money shooting out of my ass.

your argument is made on the idea that all proof of work coins are of the same source code and have the same features.. so you can most certainly tell the difference.. the value of say nxt does not fall because 100 new clones of blackcoin came out..(not that they are of the same source).

the value of these coins is derived from the functions and features they provide and also to a very large extent the network effect they command. perhaps only among the straight clones of coin x you have a fair point.. but coin x would not be included in the equation. coin x actually benefits from the many clones because anyone who finds out about the clone would soon enough discover the mother coin leading to further adoption of the mother coin.. look how many people discovered bitcoin because of doge. you are basing your argument outside of the context of the 2.0 landscape in order for your argument to work.

also, imo the more coins that are created the better.. recently a trend has taken off where straight clones fail.. now it is also going the route that even coins written from scratch are failing very early on.. and the reason isnt that they are not innovating, it is that they are not innovating enough. the heat is rising in the altcoin race.. and there are only 2-3 main competitors that have any worth while odds of winning while the others are just filler.. people are starting to see that for a coin to succeed short, medium and long term it must be able to compete with the most innovative of platforms other wise people make a quick buck off the lesser coin in order to build their holdings in the platform they deem as the most likely to succeed and therefore strengthening the grater platform. those who cannot innovate enough, fall severely behind the pack and struggle to gain ground in any meaningful way. this is what negates your argument that a PoS platforms value can be depleted due to "clones" and the low cost of production.

if facebook released their source code and 1000000000 clones appeared that were exactly the same.. would anyone use anything other than the original? no, because that is what everyone is using and therefore gains value from the network effect it commands. just because 1000000 clones of facebook come out, it doesnt mean people become confused about what one to use or what its worth. but the network effect cannot protect something forever if something far superior comes along.. it will for a while but eventually it will be surpassed by the superior tech. look at bebo. it was the first social media to bring social media into mainstream as far as i know.. atleast it was where i live. it lasted a couple years value shot way up but then facebook, the younger better platform can along. it took a while for it to challenge bebo, but by the time it was seen as a genuine threat it was far too late to do anything about it. it was a better more innovative platform long before bebo fell to its knees. bebo could not innovate enough in a short enough time period and therefore facebook stormed the social network arena in a blaze of fire and bebo collapsed, and only remains today as a legacy of social networks.

the only thing holding bitcoin up as top dog right now and for probably a good while longer is its immense network effect which it has from a very long 4-5 year lead on all alts.. whether you like it not, bitcoin will fall just like bebo. and whether you like it or not, a technically more advanced and far more innovate platform is going to pick up where bitcoin left off and take over the globe in a blaze of glory like no other tech has seen before, and its going to be spectacular.

ps.. vested interests are a BITCH

I partly agree with this as the hashing power does indeed add another layer of security that PoS and DPoS doesn't have, but I think you are overstating your case a bit. PoS and DPoS coins can differentiate themselves from others through other means like community involvement, merchant adoption, brand recognition, a large userbase, a large developer base, and distribution ratio. Bitcoin has all of that and more.

The PoW altcoin does not dilute the value of the lead coin, just because it is PoW based: You can easily copy the source code, but there is no way to copy the hash power, people already invested huge amount of real valuable resources to establish an enough large hash power. Since resources are limited, the miners will most possibly assign the resources to the most strong and mature coin

In a PoS system, the lead coin can still have the first mover advantage, but the late comers can create and mine more clones of it without too much resource, but you really can not tell the difference between them and why one of them worth more than the other. For PoW coin it is very easy to tell: The mining cost roughly decide one coin's value