Topic: [Megathread] The long-known PoW vs. PoS debate - page 4. (Read 3840 times)

That's merely a "young, nacsent" altcoin. I was thinking about a more developed/mature coin, with high market value. As an example, Ethereum, which is going to make the switch to POS.


What if they will only buy it during bear cycles, and they're willing to take their time?

You don't need some hypothetical scenario that involves printing money, we have actual cases that happened in shitcoins that have PoS algorithm in the past like the case with Steem network where exchanges took over the chain simply because they held a large number of that shitcoin without spending a dime.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.59383033

Good point; however this only works on coins with limited market cap; many PoS coins are unlimited, so they can buy bulks of it without problem.

If the world's central banks printed enough fiat currency to buy 51% of the coins, that would imply they are buying at least 10 million coins. Are there that much for sale on the open markets? Attempting to buy it in a short period of time would drive demand over existing supply. We'd see $10m BTC sooner.

I believe this is a prime example for a shitpost, as described in:


Besides full-quoting my post, you still didn't answer the questions from OP. I don't even know what you're trying to achieve with these pointless, empty posts, that neither question nor answer anything.

---

That's actually wrong. Sure, there is no mining, and there are routing fees, but that doesn't mean there is PoS happening. The whole system rests on Bitcoin's PoW, even though it doesn't happen.
If I'm lending you 1BTC by handing you the UTXO in person and you return me 1.1BTC half a year later through a printed UTXO, have we performed proof of stake? I don't believe so.

Some simple differences between a second-layer solution and a PoW base layer: Are coins generated by staking? Is consensus achieved through the amount of someone's stake? In LN, we neither generate new BTC when we collect routing fees, nor does the amount we own allow us to say what's right or wrong. If there's any debate on that, we settle on the blockchain through PoW.
So no, LN is not PoS.

Besides that, anything built on Bitcoin is not necessarily possible to integrate directly into L1. Your claim of [...] => That means, it is technically possible to transform Bitcoin into [...] is fundamentally wrong.

---

Especially there's no chance the whole world loses power concurrently. @LegendaryK, if you're so legendary, you should know different time zones have their power spikes at different times. Therefore even if you couldn't mine in the morning in North America, Europe would be in the middle of the night and mine. Whenever European miners may need to turn off their gear, American and Asian miners would continue running, and so on.
That's one of the core concepts of decentralization.

You seem to be the only delusioned person who thinks 'it is banned for 12 months' is actually a good argument against PoW, seeing as it continues to be done globally (and even in China) today - proving these bans don't work and are indeed no risk to Bitcoin.
Like, if you want to talk semantics: sure, it was banned and other countries may ban it, but it's the very unique power of Bitcoin being so decentralized that it's barely affected by them.

---

It's not just about the price of buying '51% of hash power' - it's also the fact you just cannot do it. The hardware doesn't exist. You can't produce ASICs fast enough.
You'd have to offer an insane premium to existing miners to buy their used gear; since compared to PoS holders, they've expended a lot of real-world resources to build their facilities, hire staff and whatnot.

It's not as easy to buy a ton of miners as it is buying coins. Also keep in mind the miners have a limited lifespan and need to be physically transported unless you also buy their facilities and install local staff you can trust to continue the operation where it resided.

So first i would start looking at the costs to produce more fiat. -> it’s basically 0 and there’s no limit on how much can be created, but it doesn’t mean an attack like this is easy.

So i think the difference in terms of an attack comes down to:

- In PoS:

1. If they buy half of all coins in a short amount of time, then the chain would likely just be reset to before the attack and it was printed for nothing, also the price of the coins would increase dramatically because of the huge demand(but they have unlimited money to buy more so it wouldn’t stop it), basically the sellers would keep their coins and the fiat.

2. I think a smarter and more likely scenario would be the central banks accumulating coins in secret and over a long period of time. They could spread everything over many staking pools or just keep their coins in secret till then. Like this they could gain control over the network without anyone noticing. It would be hard to reset the chain, because it could affect years worth of transactions. And this attack is basically free or could even make the central banks money, depending on what their goal is.

- In PoW:

The limit here is on how much hardware can be produced and the energy, organization, time and expertise required to run them.

It doesn’t matter how much money they have, because the supply of miners is limited by real world resources and production, money cant overcome this limit directly. Also there’s real world supply chain management going on, so it would be hard to buy them in complete secret over the years and to get more than everyone else at the same time. Also it will take real energy to run the miners, which is a limited resource again, they can’t just take the population’s energy for this, without getting into serious trouble, imagine millions of people energy bill exploding or being shut off. So they would need to build new facilities just for this and again it’s hard to hide this and the network could already notice. It will also take a lot of coordination, hiring and innovation to build all this and keep it functional(which the government is terrible at).

In the theoretical case they can overcome the resources, energy, organizational and time constraints(which comes at a huge cost):

The network could just switch to a different mining algorithm and all this effort was for nothing and would render everything they did useless.

So i think it’s obvious which attack is cheaper and more effective.

Shower thought. What if Bitcoin switched from POW to POS, and all of the world Central Banks' in the world printed enough fiat currency to buy 51% of the coins, then controlled the network.

What would "cost" more, the cost of printing enough fiat currency to buy > 51% of "POS Bitcoin" coins, or the cost of printing enough currency to have > 51% hashing power in the Bitcoin network?

There is more. See changelog for version 23.0, nodes can now connect outside of the typical TCP/IP stack, they can use other protocols, outside of what we know as "the Internet" in a classical sense.

Is the internet on? (on any location on this planet.)

If the answer to that question is yes, then bitcoin will continue to run and miners will continue to mine.

Blockstream doesn't control Bitcoin network and doesn't have much influence today. Lightning Labs have bigger influence on LN development[1] while very few people use Liquid[2]


Do you know there are 195 country in the world[3]? Have you consider each country have different policy on PoW and electricity usage? For example, New York allow PoW when miner use green/renewable energy[4].

[1] https://lightning.engineering/
[2] https://liquid.network/
[3] https://www.worldometers.info/geography/how-many-countries-are-there-in-the-world/
[4] https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/336665-new-york-passes-moratorium-on-new-crypto-mining-operations

Look at china. Energy that wouldnt have been used in the grid is hard to trace or „shut off“.


Omg this made me laugh. Bitcoin exists worldwide in different time zones, your 9am in the UK, is a completely different time somewhere else, so they couldnt even launch universal shutdowns worldwide at the same time. Will they also shut down the sun, wind, volcanoes, hydro and other renewables? Use your head before buying into media hysteria.

It just shows how resilient PoW in a worldwide network can be.


Mine with renewables, like the majority already does(to my knowledge).


Then you call other people boring.

//Edit: Most energy from renewables actually goes to waste, because it’s hard to store and most demand for energy occurs during certain peak times. This actually makes it perfect for PoW, because you will always have a buyer for your renewable energy 24/7. So PoW actually subsidizes renewables, that would struggle to even find a buyer for their energy during certain times of the day, at the same time. Then during peak demand, the energy can just be sent to the grid for everyone to use. So PoW mining actually tackles a problem in the real world with a sound and practical solution. It’s nice that PoS chains spend more time playing with jpgs and tokens than to solve actual problems, but don’t worry PoW is here to to do actual sound work for everyone to use.

@BlackHatCoiner

I was only talking to D_W.
You're one of the boring cult members .
That won't believe btc mining is banned, 12 months after it is banned.
 

Good Day.

Blockstream can propose PoS, implement PoS, run full nodes based on PoS. This doesn't mean the rest will follow, and so is now. Blockstream doesn't control PoW.

Says Mr. Whataboutism, lol. Neither does bitcoin.

Probably with difficulty adjustments.

Probably with difficulty adjustments. Also, there's no place in the world that faces such power outages due to mining bitcoin.

If there's decentralized decision-making, there'll be chain reorgs. If there are chain reorgs, there isn't transaction finality. If there aren't chain reorgs, there isn't decentralized decision-making, simple.

---

---

Please don't quote the entire post if you don't have something to add other than to reveal your pettishness. 

 

Well That was the end of your entertainment value.

Have fun agreeing with the BTC cult members that PoW is just awesome.  

 

Good point.  And how many nodes run at checklevel=4?  And...

---

tromp, I am particularly glad to see you here.

From your long experience working both with Bitcoin, and with altcoin POW, what do you think of my prediction that the current push to POSify decent altcoins is ultimately designed strategically to isolate Bitcoin?

(I am very upset about what is going on with those altcoins.  But first things first—here, I must focus on Bitcoin.)

---

The rest are boring, you're worth a few minutes.  

We both know BTC won't switch to PoS,
Blockstream won't allow it, as it lets them hamper the onchain transaction capacity,
and their future money is going to come from Liquid and LN.
https://www.gobankingrates.com/investing/crypto/bitcoin-infrastructure-provider-blockstream-hits-unicorn-status-with-new-financing/

PoS Coins don't care what BTC does or what happens to it.
The other devs made their choice and switched to a better algorithm in their opinions.

This is your real war on PoW that is coming.
As the world's energy resources become strained.  
https://www.govtech.com/computing/bitcoin-mining-threatens-to-further-strain-texas-electric-grid
How will BTC PoW survive as the governments ban it's mining?
https://cointelegraph.com/news/new-york-state-senate-passes-bitcoin-mining-moratorium
Also how will the btc network function, when the power is off from 9am-12noon, and 7pm-10pm, everyday?
https://www.theweek.co.uk/news/uk-news/956911/what-is-power-rationing-uk-electricity
(side note: That means no onchain transactions are possible during those hours, also sets up any LN funds to be stolen if one knows the attack vector.)
Also how will the miners survive once a carbon tax is enacted and it makes mining a pure financial negative?

As the baby boomers retire, they switch to US $, Bonds, and less risky ventures, which will gut all of those VC firms that have been propping up all of those miners that will go bankrupt without VC investment?
That is the war PoW is facing, PoS networks don't really care how BTC responds to their real war, because PoS network will function as normal.

One last thing for you.
Transaction Finality
Algorand PoS design has it in 1 block,  bitcoin never achieves it no matter how much energy wasted

Looking forward to your reply.  


FYI:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/sarahemerson/bitcoin-crypto-carbon-footprint-hearing

It looks like the People talking to the senate committee that will decide BTC PoW fate, don't share the view of the BTC cult that PoW is awesome.
Imagine that.  

Note that by this definition, there are relatively few bitcoin full nodes, since most nodes use the default nonzero assumevalid.

That is a matter of semantics, and quite arguable.  I disagree.  A part of the beauty of Segwit is that it allows non-upgraded nodes to degrade gracefully.  They do degrade—but gracefully so.  Anyway, would you say the same of a node that hasn’t yet upgraded to validate Witness v1 (P2TR) rules?  What about the softfork consensus cleanup before that?

This semantic argument is off-topic for the discussion of POW vs. POS—an issue that I consider to be of prime importance.  Thus, I may be reluctant to take this further here.


I flubbed that explanation while trying to squeeze in a comparison of non-upgraded full nodes to light clients.  Thanks for the correction.


Indeed!  I have been trying to hammer that point home to people for years; and it is critical for understanding the POW vs. POS issue.

Compare one of my recent posts in another thread, apropos hereof:

---

You are, of course, correct about what would happen in that scenario.  My point here is—look, hey, we won!  Why argue semantics about whether or not a non-upgraded node is a “full node”?  Segwit had such high support from people with nodes that the UASF nuclear option would have worked, had it been necessary.  We long ago had enough nodes upgraded that the scenario you state above is not of concern, outside the lies and fantasies of Bcashers.  Bitcoin won.  Enjoy it.

Having won the last war, I suggest that the adage about “fighting the last war” takes here a meaning different than the usual.

Why are we still arguing over the Segwit upgrade (especially when you and I vehemently agree about it!), instead of proactively organizing to defend Bitcoin in the new war?

“Switch to POS” is an attack on Bitcoin, and it is a threat to Bitcoin.  On a thread titled “POW vs. POS”, let’s discuss how we should respond to it.

A full node is a software that performs full verification on everything, if it skips any part of the verification then it no longer can be considered a "full node".
Old nodes that do not receive the witness are no longer performing full verification hence they are not full nodes anymore.

If PoW were the only metric then SPV clients can also not be tricked into following a "minority fork" with less work since they are capable of validating (and some of them like Electrum already validate) proof of work and follow the chain with the most work.

Keep in mind that when it comes to "longest chain" it is only an argument when everything else is correct. Miners alone don't control bitcoin, both miners and nodes do.
For example if all miners decided to produce 10MB blocks that would make that chain the chain with the most work but it still wouldn't be considered "bitcoin chain" because it breaks consensus rules. That's the same with SegWit, if all the miners decided to spend a SegWit P2WPKH output without providing any signature, all full nodes would reject that chain regardless of how long that is but the old nodes would accept it which is another proof that they no longer full nodes.

P.S. that doesn't make old nodes useless though. In other words you are right that they still provide a lot of functionality and security, they are just no longer full verification nodes.

Thanks (and I can’t believe can totally believe that we are still correcting these misconceptions almost five years after activation).

However, a node that doesn’t see these data is still a full node.  It won’t be able to validate Segwit rules; and as a practical matter, it has quite limited functionality as most people move to Segwit.  The concept of a softfork is to make consensus validation rules more restrictive; the outdated node will apply laxer rules which are a strict subset of the current rules.

Nonetheless, the old node still has the same security for its own non-Segwit funds as it always did.  Consensus validation of pre-Segwit transactions works just the same as before; and a pre-Segwit full node can still follow the correct chaintip, without the SPV/light-wallet vulnerability of being misled onto a malicious minority fork.

The import of this backwards compatibility is driven home by experience with blockchains where a centralized dev team can effectually force upgrades; there are even some chains where you can lose your money if you fail to upgrade timely.  In Bitcoin, your money is safe even if you don’t upgrade to the latest Core; and the Bitcoin Core developers deliberately make sure that they do not have the power to coerce nodes to upgrade.

There are not a few technical howlers in this thread.  Another one, just for instance:


Lightning Network is entirely dependent on the blockchain.  If miners stop mining, then Lightning loses its security.  The whole concept of Lighting is to maintain, in effect, private local ledgers that can be enforced by recourse to the global ledger (blockchain) in case of attempted theft.

By dead simple logic, it is also obvious that if Lighting or a Lightning-style network could function without the blockchain, then we would shut down the blockchain right now.  Why would anyone pay the costs of mining, if a Lightning-style network could function without it?  Although I myself have some criticisms of Lightning, the benefit of running L2 without L1 would so drastically outweigh the downsides that it’s a clear win—unless it wouldn’t work it all, which it wouldn’t.

(Nit, but a telling one:  The blockchain is the lower layer; Lightning is the upper layer.)

On these and other points:  Please stop speculating wildly on Bitcoin’s future without adequate technical knowledge.  Regardless of your intentions, all it achieves is to sow misinformation, rumours, and FUD.

---

With my apologies, I am still behind on replies to some others who addressed me above.  I’ll be back...