Topic: POW, POS, dBFT, dPOS, POA, POP, much protocols, very proof (Read 673 times)

Have you guys heard about CDCA? It consists of BFT and DPOS and helps to solve scalability, decentralization and security problems without compromising any of these points. Check it out - https://credits.com/Content/Docs/CDCA.pdf

I'm the FUD account? Haha. You must be eating too many crayons.

Of course there was a loss in hashing power/miners during the crash. But check the hashing power today. It made up for the loss and gained more, https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-hashrate.html

Maybe you should read your own quotes, considering you contradicted yourself.
1st , you say no loss of miners
2nd, you agree their were mining closures.

Now you realize why no one takes you serious.
You can't even agree with yourself.  

Only fud account is you.  

That's contradictory to your own FUD. ASIC improvements would be more efficiency. More power for less electricity, then where's the "exponential energy drain"?


What energy drain? It was the crash in price that caused mining closures. Read your own quotes.

Don't choke on those crayons on your way out.

You know, you're so stupid , it is a wonder you can breathe.

Hash rate is up , because of the ASIC improvements.
So their is an effect there.

However energy usage is just starting to draw the same amount as before many miners went bankrupt and shut down completely.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/bitcoin-price-crash-cryptocurrency-mining-bankrupt-china-bitmain-giga-watt-a8646821.html


The above closures caused a short term decrease in bitcoin energy drain on the global energy supply,
it is now almost back at the same energy draining as it was before the price crash and miners dropping out.

https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption

Loss of miners? You are wrong again. Bitcoin's hashing power has never been higher before, https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-hashrate.html

I believe you should chew your crayons better next time.

So far the only thing that slowed bitcoin exponential energy drain was a loss of miners due to Bankruptcy,
due to the price drop below miner solvency.

Aside from that none of the above items you mentioned has had a major effect.

Proof of your transaction
Cryptocurrencies can save, populizirovat and make really decentralized introduction (along with the commission) of the priority right to each doing the transaction to calculate the hash of its block in the p2p pool with other users whose transactions are included in this block independently.
Each user of cryptocurrency should have the right to calculate the hash of its transactions with its own capacities (both to provide capacity in advance, as if to accumulate settlements for future transactions, and after sending money).
This would make the network really decentralized and would involve huge idle distributed power in the calculations, which would make it possible not to increase the complexity, it would be obvious that they are calculating really different devices, and in fact for carrying out their own transaction. T e the right to calculate the share of the hash of your transaction in the block should be a priority before paying the commission.
Or, for example, if you keep an open node for some time, you can also save for a transaction.
How much can you tolerate this chaos and the dominance of Asiki? We must demand a refinement of the mechanism.
- The main mistake of the blockchain and all sorts of crypts on it is the deprivation of the opportunity to mine everybody at least a little bit, even if it’s just when the wallet is turned on. There should have been a limit on the power of mining (maintaining hash) by one user. Then there would be no need to increase the complexity, and the protection would be of the same high impenetrable level. The cost of maintaining the system should not be disproportionately high, ideally, the ideal system would have to work stably on the world's equipment that people already have. T e enough all the resources of all users when they idle a little work. Then it is cost-effective. And the unprofitable system will collapse in any way.
Now Bitcoin simply decided to ignore a huge amount of idle power, which was indeed distributed, but devoted itself to centralized power, against the logic of its main postulate. This already suggests that it was cleaned one way or another.
- the second major mistake (or intentionally) is to allow any non-p2pol and stock exchanges with unlimited commissions and the possibility of fraud. Mining should have remained only solo (albeit for a little bit) or a common single distributed pool of currency.
Let's achieve this and make cryptocurrencies a real working tool, independent, and decentralized.
This can be implemented as a separate currency for transactions of any other currencies, for example.
And this is the only way to maintain decentralization. The purse should offer the primary right to remember for its transaction on the most low complexity without making any profit, and only the second option is to pay the commission to miners of profits to recipients ..
Increasing the complexity (difficulty) of mining allows you to restrain users, not allowing them to receive coins in unlimited quantities.
And if you need to mine only your transaction, then there will be no rush and there is no need to increase the complexity. There will be a surplus of miners. Coins in general can not be mined, it's just a bone thrown such. The value of the blockchain is not in the "mining" of some kind of currency, but in the sequence of records with keys that cannot be changed. Coins themselves in general could immediately create everything and everyone (as does the state). Real work is needed to the extent necessary to create the keys of the transaction chain and store the blockchain archive. That's all. That's what you have to pay for. Really free miners are needed only in the case (and topics) if someone urgently wants to make a transaction, but there is no computational power at hand to search for the key and to include entries in the general blockchain. That's when they can turn to free miners, exactly in the amount of calculations that is necessary and sufficient to maintain the system.
Mining in the understanding of the average person is simple (as he was presented) was needed only to somehow distribute the money. They could be simply scattered to people in principle, equally to all, and that would be more correct, and people would simply start to calculate by them, meyna keys for the blocks of their transactions.
Gov principle - "Proof of your transaction" - mining only for the sake of a transaction (no more)

I heard Christmas lights are a wasteful use of electricity that drains the world's energy supply too. What do you want to do? Stop Christmas?

It matter not what type of energy it is drawing,
it matters that it pulls from a total global energy supply that is NOT able to keep up with exponential growth.

It seems extreme, but when the bitcoin miner uses so much electricity that their is none for your home or business,
it will be apparent to all the environmental damage of unrestrained PoW.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/17/bitcoin-electricity-usage-huge-climate-cryptocurrency

FUD. A large part of Bitcoin mining is already from renewable energy sources. Mining is in fact 74% from renewable energy. You can search for it, and do a fact-check while eating your crayons.

Depends on your goals,

If trading for a profit is your goal,
then you focus on coins that are usually manipulated higher, such as coins in the top 10 of the marketcaps.
Consensus is irrelevant, as price manipulation occurs outside of consensus method.

If you are looking to be part of a coins security, PoW is outside of the majority ability to enter mining,
due to the elite already dominating it.
PoS is the only one that most people can afford to be part of the stakers that secure the coin.

PoS networks energy efficiently makes it the definite long term choice
as PoW coins continued growing exponentially draining of the world's energy supply
has a finite time limit before it becomes intolerable to the world's populace.
At that time , PoW Coins price will crash and PoS coins price will soar, that time frame is within the next 3 to 8 years.  

It's very simple PoW > the rest. For the altcoins you might want to ask for input in the altcoin section. However, you are very likely just going to receive shill responses by bagholders. DYOR.

Unproven and lacks incentives. It's way overhyped to the point that I'd almost call it worthless.

Because of that, POS stakers can also willingly take some of the costs to censor the network through bribing fellow stakers, without much monetary risks.

Not only PoW is the most secure and the only way in which "a coin" can run in a way that isn't just unadulterated insanity, but it has to be spawned without no expectatives. As in, it has to be spawned when cryptocurrencies weren't a thing, by someone anonymous, and it has to have the longest PoW of any competitors. In other words, all altcoins are by default inferior by definition, and the conditions for "another Bitcoin" cannot be replicated.

Seems like that, but perhaps OP has been trapped in crypto trading and investment by reading a word: crypto

This approach is good generally to define the Basis Sales Cost, but for gold is not only that way. There is some kind of "consensus" among people that gold is one of precious metal regardless of how to get it.
Recently, people know that the amount of gold on earth is limited. So, there are demand by a precious consensus and supply is limited by amount consensus. The way to get the gold could be various.....not only mining even the huge amount is coming from mining. 

Regarding algorithm consensus, I heard there is another as PoT (Proof of Transaction).....let's see how it works later.....

im assuming the OP is mainly a trader, looking for info on the algo's to make better judgments on projects/tokens for trading.

in short if an algo literally costs nothing/risks nothing to form a block, then the blocks reward has no underlying value.

take for instance gold. if everyone could mine gold in their backyard using a dinner spoon and a coffee filter, then the cost of  getting gold would be cheap, meaning people would be happy to sell it cheap and so gold would not be near the $1,000 an ounce area but more the $1 an ounce area.

this is one of the reasons PoW has high underlying value because alot of asics are used(equipment cost) all processing using electric(energy cost) which means those making blocks will refuse to sell their rewards dirt cheap.

algo's like PoS just reserve peoples funds, but dont really cost people anything when its their turn to sign a block. so when they get a reward they get their stack back too so they can sell the rewards dirt cheap if the price dropped and still make profit. thus if all reward recipients just sold off the price can tank.

PoW vs PoS you will find that PoS has a heck of a more chance to tank to zero than PoW does.

so look for the algo's that actually have a upfront mining cost if your looking for projects that can have 'value' even if the project isnt a success.

people thought that PoS was more 'decentralised' because it didnt need pools. but even now we are seeing some coins where people syndicate their stake to get a higher threshold to get more chance of reward wins.
same goes for other algos. many people fill up their garages/basements with multiple systems for things like PoC(proof of capacity(hard drive space))

the algo's themselves are not that important. but how popular/valuable the coin/token is. as the more valuable it is the more tempted people will get to sybill/syndicate/pool efforts. which if centralised enough can make it unfair on others that cant match the same thresholds

as for security. PoW has a great security where it becomes more difficult to hash/solve a block the more popular the block creation gets. some other algos dont change their security level if higher thresholds are met. which leaves those coins weak

A 'professor' criticized them heavily[1], but Algorand responded it[2]. You might want to discuss or scroll up chat on @cryptocodereviews if you're interested with the tech side of blockchain. Just be careful as some ico lover will try to shill and then attack anyone who disagrees with them here. Just find the review/articles that are shared there, lots of good info imo.

[1] https://hackernoon.com/a-fatal-flaw-in-algorand-professor-yongge-wang-takes-apart-their-renown-consensus-agreement-4c111286cdbb
[2] https://medium.com/algorand/various-questions-about-the-algorand-blockchain-ef8bf719f1f

What do you guys think about the Algorand solution based on a two rounds lottery for self elected leaders ?

https://www.algorand.com/resources/white-papers

isn't Nakamoto's consensus - PoW? and PoS is an opposition of PoW, where you centralize new coins around bigger bags?