Topic: POS VS POW effect on valuation of bitcoin (Read 545 times)

folks beware of the ethereum switch

the plan is to pump eth1(PoW) by making it more difficult and costly to mine. heck they are now even making ETH asics to assure the costs go up above GPU costs.

meaning pumping the price to the extreme to then 'replay'/'giveaway' Eth2(PoS) coins cheap(but locked in them exchange vaults until detonation of ETH1(PoW).
then at the detonation when its all just Eth2(PoS), the coins will be cheap to sign into existance, so expect a MASSIVE dump far below any price Eth has been in the last few years

do not be fooled by the ETH1(PoW) difficulty rise to be something that lasts and keeps PoS varient strong after detonation.
do not expect prices to remain high after detonation.

although its not going to happen overnight(this week) use this ethereum event (for future readers looking back in hindsight) as an prime example of this topics question playing out

You are slightly twisting the truth here and your conclusion is wrong too. Bitcoin is never going to move to an inferior algorithm that everyone knew to have fundamental flaws a decade ago.

Ethereum is centralize while bitcoin is decentralized. Ethereum has a 72 million premine while bitcoin has no premine. The combinations of these two reasons means the centralized authority that has full control over ethereum and its future will benefit a lot by moving to PoS which is why they are forcing this move on everyone. You can't do that in bitcoin that is decentralized. Not to mention that due to lack of premine in bitcoin nobody benefits from moving to PoS like ethereum scammers do.

Unlike Ethereum, Bitcoin lacks a central party or leadership structure. It is highly unlikely for Bitcoin to follow Proof-of-Stake because of its very structure, and I don’t think it will ever happen in the future.

you first say how the number of 180+ is not high in comparison to other industry. then you say why would they use a number so high as 180+..
stick with your first thought the 180+ number not being "high" but just bigger than reality, allowing for a buffer to come down to over stages of time by revealing reality or for bitcoin to grow into without bursting above the 180+ number any time soon

EG if they went for the 55TW number in the first place. they are at a standing point of 'the only way is up' which can then leave negative arguments about government thought XX was bad and now its XX*2

however going with 'government think XXX was bad'(then debunking it in comparison to other industry).. and then in later reports saying 'well this year we are at XXX-20% so things are even better', or saying 'the following years we are still below XXX'

its a way of dowsing the flames of negative burns before the FUDDERs light the match.. first you debunk the XXX is bad. then you show that over time bitcoin has not gone over XXX in any short period of time, ending the argument before it begins

Most likely not.

Bitcoin could be worth millions in 10-15 years from now, so mining will become more profitable.

In 100 years from now, it could be worth billions, so even a miniscule block reward shouldn't matter...

If we assume that your figures are correct, it is still hard for me to imagine that they would go with such a high consumption only to show in the future that the consumption is even more than x3 less. In global energy consumption, Bitcoin mining is almost unnoticeable even with 180 TWh per year, not to mention only 55 TWh - and I don't understand how those who talk all the time about Bitcoin as something that is destroying our planet are not already destroyed with the facts that are saying the exact opposite?

In addition, with increasingly efficient mining devices and the fact that by the end of the decade, 99% of all Bitcoins will be mined - doesn't that mean that the number of crypto miners will decrease, and with it, energy consumption?

sidenote from your question.. lets deal with them numbers you quote.. you might like what i say..

take the network hashrate of 230exa(one of its high points)

take some normal asic of this generation (not the old stuff of 2018)

like the 140thash at 3kwh
the 110thash at 3.25kwh
the 95thash at 3.25kwh

call it a 115thash for 3.16kwh average for easy math

and express that as a number.. like if the network for a full year was constantly running at 230exahash it would be USING just 6,320,000kw per hour (6.32gw/h = 55,363.2GW a year  (55.36TW)

oh by the way the network has never been at a constant 230exahash so that number i shown (being 3x less) the real number for the network is even less then the one i just shown.. because the network hasnt always been working at those top speeds constantly

yep bitcoin mining uses less then the 180 number they say it does..
.. reason i believe and in my opinion why they would say a silly benchmark of 180TW+..
so that next year they can come up with a truer number of nearer the 55, without actually having to physically change mining, and say to regulators "look we got greener, pat us on the back"

like how businesses hide profits one year. purposefully to show and claim bad results to set a bad benchmark, just so they can make next years results have 2x profit and make all report readers happy

Why do i already know that cringe/ debunked/ uninformed reasons will follow, without knowing what you said?



That youre using the word puzzle already shows that you dont even understanding what mining is, but im glad that you did homework to appeal to some 0 iq authorities.


Sure, it just magically produces security and decentralization without having to adhere to any software engineering principles, just because its cool to use less energy, theres no downsides here.


I forgot that capital doesnt concentrate way harder than energy.

Didnt you just disprove your own point?

The amount of people that made some low quality media articles their new brain is ridiculous.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I would like you to explain how POW in the context of Bitcoin is destroying the planet we live on? The amount of energy consumed by Bitcoin is less than 200 TWh, which is only 0.1% of the total energy produced annually. If we consider that even 50 000 TWh are lost every year, tell me where you see the problem in all this?


The idea of switching to POS would destroy everything that Bitcoin actually is, but that is obviously also the idea of those who advocate such a change. Take a good look at the picture and tell me you still think POW is a problem for planet Earth?

(this is not a rebuttal/opposition, this is adding detail/context/proof that we already have "looked into it" and found a way, as proof of and agreement of what you are saying)

we already found it the answer to the "energy waste"
.. imagine if we wanted the 200exahash security level we have now.. but were still stuck on wasteful CPU hashing..(like many silly altcoins)
the energy wastage of that would be hundreds of millions of PC's..

we found the solution. .. GPU's,, and then found a better solution again.. ASICS.
the watts per hash efficiency is super efficient

back just 12 years ago

a 100watt PC draw = 10mhash
today a 100watt draw = 4,600,000mhash (3kw for 140thash = 100w for 4.6thash)

that is 460millionx more efficient than a PC CPU

the metal hardware production saving alone is another efficiency too..for asics

worded the other way: 30 PC's of equivalent 3KW draw only gets 300mhash compared to 1 asic of 140thash

..
as for the decentralisation of the blockchain data.
asics have no hard drive(they dont touch chain data) so the hashrate and electric rate do no affect the decentralised archiving.
changing the hashing speed or the electric used for mining does not impact the blockchain decentralisation so mining again has no affect on the "centralisation" of block data..  

asics can move pools and distribute themselves in 5 seconds. so even the 'pool' centralisation factor is not an issue. they are not fixed or stuck only operating within one pool

If energy is being used to provide security, it is not being wasted.  Proof-of-Stake may use less energy, but it's a bigger waste of energy in that the energy used doesn't provide comparable levels of security.  In other words, there's zero point in having it if it doesn't serve the purpose it is meant to serve.  In no way, shape or form is that "better".  The word you're looking for is "useless".

If there were a way to provide that level of security without sacrificing decentralisation and without using that much energy, we'd look into it.  But until people grasp the importance of security and decentralisation, your "arguments" will fall on deaf ears.  If you would compromise the fundamental premise of Bitcoin in order to "fix it", you don't understand Bitcoin.

I would guess that POS proved itself as better in the sense that it is not spending any energy. That should be good enough to think that it is quite good and understandable. I personally believe that the best thing about the world is that we have only one, and if we keep ruining the world then we are not going to end up with making a recovery, it is not the crypto market, it is not going to get better.

So, with POS at least we are staking and not using energy and that means we are going to end up saving the world from all that excess energy that mining causes. Sure there are other stuff as well but we shouldn't really be focusing on anything like that at any given time soon. So, just go with staking.

there are hundreds of altcoins that are forks of bitcoin due to changing the hashing algo.. many of them changed to PoS.

so go check them out and go see how great they are.. hint. if you didnt realise bitcoin already forked to many PoS altcoins a few times, it just shows that it didnt take off

There was enough time for POS to prove itself as something better, but I don't see any cryptocurrency using it that is better in any way, especially if we take into account the security provided by POW. People who advocate this transformation are mostly those who believe that Bitcoin consumes too much energy with an emphasis on dirty energy, and actually do not want Bitcoin to become greener, but to gradually destroy it.

I hope that reason will prevail and that this will never happen, because there would be no end to radical changes - I'm sure that after that the max supply change would follow, because there are a lot of people who think that 21 million Bitcoin is not enough for Bitcoin to be successful...

Let alone the advantage or disadvantage, I will not support Bitcoin if it ever goes into Proof of Stake.
Proof of work is a working mechanism and is far way better than just staking your asset to gain more power.
It requires you to run a mining machine or machines if you really want to support the network, instead of just keep buying it.

In the end, it's just going to be PoW forever, so no need for this discussion.

It has nothing to do with safety, it is all about centralization. For example PayPal is considered safe too but it is 100% centralized. ETH is already pretty centralized and when it moves to PoS, that is another step in the direction of more centralization of it. I double there would be any traditional kind of attacks on ETH PoS considering they hold 72 million of its supply so they practically would have complete control over the network. The only attacks are going to continue to be exploiting the existing flaws in the protocol like DAO and dozen other projects have been doing.

Proof of stake is also proven dude  you can see that altcoin nowadays using proof of stake although there is some model like masternode, Delegeate POs and so much more. i think if bitcoin gonna move from the PoW to PoS is still fine nothing gonna take effect. the miner in the other hand will take a deep efect

There is a huge difference between being "banned" from doing something and being unable to do it.  

It is the difference between locked in a country and prohibited from leaving - e.g. China for some people, eastern Europe under the USSR etc - and being unable to afford a plane ticket to fly somewhere else.  You can alway do something to earn the money to buy one.

PoS is (Techno)Feudalism 2.0

I guess the Dark/Medieval Ages have taught us nothing... that's why WEF's Great Reset agenda (abolition of ownership/freedom) has been very successful so far.

PoW will lead us to energy innovation (think of Dyson Sphere) long-term wise.

Bitcoin (thanks to PoW's increasing energy demands) will lead us to the next-next level of civilization (Type II). Silicon is abundant on Earth, so we could manufacture an unlimited amount of chips for ASICs and whatnot.

Humanity will be immensely grateful to Bitcoin, even though currently they wish it should die/go to zero. Historians of the future might even quote this post (assuming this forum exists somehow by then ).

There's no scarcity of energy, unless you only think in coal/oil terms (narrow-minded mindset).

The only reason globalists are so keen to reduce energy consumption, is because they want to reduce the population (because there's not enough food/land for everyone, electricity could have already been abundant thanks to nuclear energy). There's no other logical/mathematical explanation (as the graph indicates).

im sure there are many coins where people can pull numbers and build charts for and combine numbers and such. i just gave one example for "simples" sake as it was an example that was close to the topic of a PoW to PoS switchover scenario. that being ethereum.. i personally dont care or use it myself but for topic sake of a scenario ethereum seemed closest to use as a reference for, for demo sake of a PoW to PoS value comparison of change

as for math of other/all PoS altcoins usage of PC's .. well yes it all adds up.

the comedy moments i seen in the past was the elon speeches of him preferring DOGE because he thought the % of green vs dirty energy was greener in DOGE.. he was wrong
(though on a non % bases but a KWH bases. small useless, less popular altnets/coins use less power)