Topic: [Megathread] The long-known PoW vs. PoS debate - page 7. (Read 3812 times)

Wow I did not know so many things go into POW as compared to the POS. I am not sure why but kinda feels like POS is like rich man’s magic wand. They get it done with the money, swing the votes and confirm the identity. On the other hand POW salient features are more or less public. If you want it then prove it, work for it and it’s your. I think I am pretty sure what I want now, it’s POW.

By the way my vote is as a common man, I’m not that much into technical problems of crypto currency. I have always read and understood them as end user with basic information about it. May be such vote is indeed needed as crypto is made for all types of people. 

First of all: 9 validator nodes? Honestly? And thinking people believe this stuff is decentralized.. 'DeFi' and 'blockchain' are meaningless with 9 nodes.

Okay, so if it was not a bug in the contract, it just falls under what BlackHatCoiner mentioned: it's easy to acquire (honestly or not) a majority in PoS systems compared to gaining 51%+ on a PoW system. Then it's indeed a great example of the uncontested superiority of PoW.

That's a good point. I am not sure they do realize / know about this stuff being so insecure. Like, do they even realize that shitcoin security is way lower than Bitcoins? Would they still invest if they knew this? Probably they just don't care and only want the 'quick easy money', sigh.

For the same reason a large number of people are investing in other shitcoins like ethereum that did exactly the same (roll back) and have full control of their chain due to serious centralization. They don't care about things like immutability as long as their bets on the price has a chance of giving them a profit.

That is something that we can't control now. if the investors still trust on the company they will not leave.

Back to the topic, the hacker managed to gain access to 5 out 9 validator nodes and used that nodes to validate fake withdrawals to bridge resulted of draining the funds. Now, the reason why i see this is a dangerous flaw to POS blockchains is because POS uses majority vote system to validate a transaction block now if the hacker manages to get access to majority of validator nodes theoretically, this would bring the whole blockchain down theoretically. Of course the developers will ramp up the security of their cryptocurrencies but the recent hack shows this is possible.

I don't believe PoS was the issue here, but that it was simply a bug in their smart contract. However, the shocking part is them wanting to reimburse stolen funds.
This automatically shows they're able to print tokens if needed, which means they have total uncontested control over coin issuance and also shows their willingness to devalue all (bag)holders' portfolios due to a mistake in their own code. Why would anyone ever invest into this crap again after seeing what the team is willing and able to do just like that?

This is the announcement from Skymavis addressing the recent $500+ million hack in ronin sidechain that made headlines recently.

This is why POW is superior than POS. This shows POS blockchains has a dangerous flaw, the validators are vulnerable to attacks like this. This is impossible to happen in POW blockchains.

Yup, there is no 'longest chain' in PoS. It is equally as viable that those developers who claim an attack is going on, are the ones actually attacking the network, rolling back to their advantage, as an actual attack going on. The whole concept of there being 'the dEvElOpErS' with some sort of authority over the whole thing is one of the biggest red flags.
Sure, Bitcoin also has developers and they're definitely essential, but the way they are treated / talked about in pretty much any altcoin community (as also evidenced by altcoiners talking about Bitcoin) already shows that they do have much higher impact on those currencies and projects.

Like, everyone valuing 'Vitaliks opinion' so much, is not something I see in Bitcoin with the community questioning 'What does MarcoFalke think about this or that?' for instance.

Which brings us to the other problem: Inability to produce consensus.

Or it doesn't have to be hack, because if a hacker steals 51% of the total supply in circulation, that would give their developers and holders a reason to hard fork and roll back the chain. It can be that exchanges can cartelize, and form a cabal, using coins not withrawn by their real owners to be staked by the exchanges themselves.

Exactly, this can take a very long time. Not to mention that if a nutty billionaire attempted to attack the network that way, he had to spend a lot of time trying to gain access to all that hardware which would reveal their malicious activity and ill-intentioned behavior.

On the other hand, a person can buy half the coins relatively quickly and leave no one able to figure it out.

I mean if you want to know if governments care about the environment, it's quickly verified by comparing their 'climate budget' against 'other budgets'.
It's also pretty trivial to understand that if you're really trying to transition to renewables as quickly as possible, you have to oversize the renewable energy plants to account for variance in sunlight / sun hours and in the weather in general, to make sure you won't have periods with too little energy. When the power plants do all run on 100% though, you'll have tons of excess energy that will go to waste. Using ASICs as a variable load that can convert that extra energy back into money would certainly help building oversized renewable energy plants, by making them much more profitable.

The ASICs 'being physical' is one of my favourite points against PoS. It's much easier to buy half of a currency's tokens or steal them through a hack, while driving around the world and breaking into supervised buildings and hauling around tons of stolen electronics without being caught seems pretty unreasonable. Also just buying 50% of ASICs is never going to happen, at least not quickly. Then you'll have to set them all up and sell them back after your attack.

Instead, even if you buy PoS tokens, you can use the stake for an attack, and sell them back right after. It might even work with a loan of 1 day, if someone grants it to you.

It's also worth noting that hacking a token requires hacking a single smart contract; that's a single point of failure. Whereas stealing all Bitcoin miners would require all security systems of all mining facilities in the world to fail, as well as all police and law enforcement agents around those buildings.

I thought of another reason: What if a hacker abuses their position to increase their gains or manipulate the network? Take for instance incidents with exchanges or organizations where the hackers get away with the money; we observe those once in a while.

It's definitely more difficult to steal the ASICs by breaking into the miners' houses. 

I would ignore their nitpick, and avoid debating about the "climate" altogether. They would only troll you the moment they know that they're opinions are simply wrong.

BUT they should understand that it's not about "the climate". Because if it truly was, why haven't government entites given large subsidies for renewable energy producers? They can let the miners make renewable energy producers more profitable by letting the them buy excess production. Why attack Bitcoin? Because "bad"for them.


OG Bitcoin developers don't take him as a "serious developer". They won't say it, but I believe they take him as a scammer.

It depends on who you ask. For example Vitalik is also a serious developer but he is serious about making more money so he will tell you PoS as he has been brainwashing people to convince them the upcoming fork of his shitcoin is a good one and not at all helping him profit from 72 million premined ether

A global pow ban with fantasy land effectiveness would cause the difficulty to drop to a level where laptops can mine if needed.


Why are you insinuating that bitcoin can't adapt to a loss of hashrate? You are aware that bitcoin difficulty can drop right?



There are still bitcoin miners in china.


The real reason why pos is more popular with the shitcoin scammers is because premined proof of stake is the holy grail of scams.

Really cool to have someone with long-term mining experience join in to this topic!
There were a few new insights for me as well in your replies

There do exist some big market cap coins, but that's easily possible e.g. if you sell 1 coin for $1 to your buddy and then generate a million of them, you have a 1 million dollar market cap coin in a matter of seconds.
This video comes to mind; it's off-topic, but I found it hilarious! It's not too far off from what happens with many cryptocurrencies.
I Became The World’s Richest Man For 7 Minutes

The "energy-wasting" argument just lacks so many things, and it's used as the first offense against PoW, especially on the "go green" side of things, what the majority of people fail to realize is that PoW can actually help reduce carbon emissions to a great degree, for over a century nobody has ever found a better way to deal with uncombusted natural gas (methane) which is 80 times more harmful to the environment than carbon dioxide, gas flaring has been the only option ever since and it's also pretty bad for the environment.

The vast majority of oil extraction sites are located in places where no electricity is actually needed so that gas has to be vented into the air or otherwise flared, the only thing that lets you effectively and efficiently utilize that "otherwise wasted gas" is PoW, all you have to do is bring your mining gears near the extraction sites, and you can achieve a few things.

1-Reduce air pollution
2-Offer more jobs
3-Extract more value
4-Make the blockchain more secured
5-Make life more difficult for other miners who rely on resources with a high carbon footprint like coal

And this isn't just a "theory", people are already doing that, what ExxonMobil is doing in North Dakota is a great example of how PoW can be good for the environment.

That's laughable. Using that kind of debate, they're obviously nitpicking. Plus they're merely using different forms of arguments/straw men, and see what sticks. I believe if we ask any serious developer which technically gives superior security assurances between Proof of Work and Proof of Stake, the answer would always be Proof of Work.

Can you name a few places? the U.S is now the largest mining hub and I don't recall any blackouts were caused by mining operations, places that might have blackouts due to added mining operations are most certainly corrupt and people steal electricity without having to worry about damaging the electrical infrastructure, otherwise and in any half-decent country, the electric company will only wire energy to licensed businesses and houses, and they can limit the amount of power each of them can use to avoid blackouts, so in other words, the same blackouts would have happened due to people using more ACs or taking more showers or anything for that matter, they just happened "faster" with mining.

One point you are missing is that POW creates incentives for people to find cheaper ways of generating energy. Also consuming more energy be it clean or not is also good for every economy, it creates more jobs, increases sales, and essentially helps in economic growth.

Mining is about extracting value, so even if mining was to make energy cost higher for other businesses it does not matter, the business that extracts the most value will survive, this is how capitalism works, I don't see why would anyone have a problem with that unless they are somehow communists.

With that said, PoW isn't perfect either, the voting power will always shift towards one direction which is "cheaper power", but the process of that happening is a lot easier in PoS, it can take years for anyone to acquire say 50% of the voting power in PoW, they will need time to build the farms, time to receive the gears, and they also need to ensure that nobody else is getting close to what they are getting, with PoS, a rich prince or king can just decide to buy half the supply at any given day, he can't just own 150EH worth of hash power in a day, not even in a year even if he had an unlimited supply of money.

Also, the argument you make about the majority of top coins being PoS makes PoS better isn't exactly a perfect argument, the number of coins is irrelevant, I can create 1000 PoW coins or otherwise PoS in a few hours, that won't change a thing, you need to look at the value of the market, if you combine the market cap of all PoW coins vs PoS you will see that market has chosen PoW contrary to your claim.

I don't hate PoS, I am not PoW maxi, not even BTC maxi, I am a big fan of "if it works for you, stick to it", if ADA is doing great with PoS, let it be, if BTC is doing fine with PoW, why nag about it?

If you aren't convinced from the OP, I'd advice you to read the entire thread. There have been some noteworthy arguments that I've forgotten to mention in it.