I read somewhere very early that PoW and PoS are two ways of climbing the same mountain. May be someone agree too or correct me.
Except POS has nothing to do with climbing the same mountain.
It is at best simply a centralized unsecured unregulated bond based on code.
POW is a power conversion based system that uses energy, code and hard gear. It is also decentralized.
POS does not belong in the crypto space. Only decentralized Pow coins qualify. Not an opinion just factual.
So under 100 coins qualify as crypto.
POS should be under codo coins.
But I have lived long enough to know that is not going to happen.
It's giving me a headache.. again to feel that there is any need to even go down this road.. .. there is no there there, but you (WatChe) still want to somehow suggest that POS is actually adding something of value?
That's why I said either agree with me or correct me. Thanks for correcting me.
@JayJuanGee your detail elaboration on every matter is what makes WO stand out.
Edit:philipma1957 and @JayJuanGee may be you referring to this with respect to PoW and PoS?
Close enough
I find it problematic and/or misleading trying to give ethereum some kind of a platform in which you try to compare it to bitcoin, as if ethereum were some kind of valid product/project.
The main thing that makes ethereum valid is that they are marketing it as if it were something similar to bitcoin when it is not. I already mentioned that there is a missing denominator in ethereum.. no one has any clue to how many coins there are starting with, and that is not just a tiny problem.. it is a lack of transparency that causes the whole thing to just be a marketing scam.. even though you have people/businesses building on top of it.
Maybe if Ethereum were to be admitting to what it really is.. then maybe I would not have as many issues with it, but it is not anything even close to bitcoin because we know exactly how many bitcoins there are... but even in bitcoin we have fake bitcoin that seem to be ongoingly undermining the actual bitcoin system - and it is not easy to have all bitcoins as verifiable... unless they are on chain, but as soon as they are held by a third party, then the third party or even the systems of double, triple or quadruple counting them becomes quite problematic for bitcoin - even though at least bitcoin is starting out with a valid base and 100% verifiability of the coins when they are onchain.. and ethereum is not even starting out with a valid base....
So I am not saying the thing that you seem to be suggesting (@WatChe) that ethereum could be considered as valid on merely a smaller level.. because ethereum is not starting from valid in the first place, so how could it just end up being valid on a smaller level when it is not starting from a valid point? The POS is merely just another level of lack of validity that was built upon an earlier (already existing level of) lack of validity that was already in Ethereum before they moved from POW to POS.
At least with bitcoin, we can say that the bitcoin are not really bitcoin, unless they are on chain.. or if there is some system, such as lightning network, in which more bitcoin are not being created, so we know that the bitcoin that are being moved around on lightning network can still be resolved back on the bitcoin chain (people do not like the description of the lighting bitcoin as being pegged to the chain.. even though I believe that the bitcoin on lightning network are not being inflated within the lightning network system).
Bitcoin does have the problem of interfacing with various third parties that may or may not have the bitcoins that they proclaim to have --- so maybe in those cases we cannot be assured that we really have bitcoin until they are back on the chain - or they are shown to be on the chain, but we also have to be clear that those bitcoins that are being shown on chain are not encumbered, so if third parties (or the owner of the coins) enters into relationships to encumber the coins or to double, triple, quadruple or more count them in their various ledger systems, then that's an interfacing problem and sure sometimes bitcoin's price is affected by the various off-chain relations that are made - including that centralized exchanges are not transferring actual bitcoins back and forth on chain - except wasn't
Satoshi Dice (mostly utilized in 2012-2014) criticized for bloating the bitcoin on-chain transactions by having all of their transactions happening on chain, but then they later modified it to have off-chain transactions.
I guess part of my point is that POW helps to verify ongoing existence and location of coins, but it also verifies the coins all the way back to their original issuance as a mining reward. Ethereum is not doing any of that kind of verifying of coins back to their existence and then the additional layer of POS is not adding any additional transparency, but just convoluting who's deciding transactions through some crazy system that seems to be self-referential, at best. to the extent that people buy into such a bullshit Rube Goldberg machine that actually might not be doing anything except for allowing various other scams to build on top of it... why would anyone want to build on a foundation that is not even close to having any kind of verifiability or even outside (or objective source) kind of verifiability?