Topic: Proof of Stake Bitcoin? (Read 15932 times)

PoS on bitcoin is an interesting idea, but it will be very ambiguously perceived by the community. I think, serious work should be done to implement PoS.

Yet Ethereum was planning on implementing it later this year. But nobody knows exactly when this is going to happen but it has been discussed by the inventor and creator of Ethereum already.
So it is going to happen no matter what eventually.
They do not hide they are going to do this so to monopolize it cause it is targeted towards the business sector and the big banks was its core intention from the very start.

Costs from real world must be saved in bitcoin system, like costs of energy because it's real money. For example Proof of Stake can be use in Lightning Network.

Even if it would happen we would have a whole bunch of miners who would be staying on the "old" chain.

  you mean like only the bankers/miners having the BTC to finance the channels even if no money is moved in the account ledger?

Well, yes I guess you could call it proof of stake if Alice is not the Queen of England and Bob's is not even on the map
anymore https://lnmainnet.gaben.win/ and if the Lightning Network looks like this with just $55m washing around as they
test it then what will it look like when real customers move in.

PoW mining is attractive for people, whose goal is to manipulate the market. Pools, 51%+ of capacities are belonged to, have opportunities to dictate their own pricings and terms to another playes. While, if you are a whale of PoS-mining coin, you will be never interested in dumping market to set your rules, cause you would be the main investor with 51% of all the coins, and in case of network attack you would loose money as much as nobody. So, if we are talking about really decentralized economy model, where common people wouldnt depend on capacities manufacturers or market monopolists, prevalence of PoS-mining coins is just a matter of time 

Proof of Stake has been here for few years now, I can't really understand why Bitcoin didn't move away from mining to POS. Instead of paying the miners fees for doing transactions the fees could have been distributed among the bitcoin users through the means of staking. Also it would have helped Bitcoin become more decentralized.

I don't think Proof of Stake will work with something that's main purpose is to function as a currency or payment network. If you are talking about some other type of network simply trying to protect against DoS it could work very well and efficiently, but not for BTC blockchain.

Yes why would you even want this? I can't comprehend.

I don't know why people think about this when it's clearly stated that bitcoin is using POW instead of POS ahahaha 

Well if you want to see your stakes or bounty you can see the signature campaign, facebook campaign or ther campaign you joining you see in the spreedshet to that campaign so thaay is the proof of stakes in bitcoin

No it's not. PoS sacrifices security and decentralization which are the core values of Btc.

This is exactly my point that the reply above yours didn't take into account, as far as I can see (I read the whole reply slowly, but it got be a bit confused at the end).

PoW, other then higher security (this is indisputable I think, it is definitely higher), also provides a safe way of acquiring bitcoins. With PoS eventually it is possible for governments and other big players to hoard the coins, like some did with gold back when it was used as currency. This isn't an issue with the price, price would get even higher, the issue is that people will not be able to have any money, unless they follow the exact rules set by the government and these other big actors.

PoW provides a way to always enter the system, no matter what the state of it is. PoS would allow for many possible problems, including early adopters to revert blockchain to a state where they had a lot of money.

In my evaluation, PoS defeats the whole purpose of a blockchain and I would never accept it as a Bitcoin. It is the exact same problem that we already have with the current fiat system. There is no such thing as a fair distribution or a good government, there will always be corruption, the only way to battle this is remove power from them to do anything with our money and only PoW allows that in the most reasonable way possible. The one that brings the work is the one that decides, that is the idea.

For the situation right now, i don't really think so i think that would really not fair specially for the new miners specially those not holder
Of bitcoins yet. It will be more favorable for the old time miners perhaps.

I have actually bought up the question of PoW limitations in another thread on this forum. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/pow-heavy-computation-is-a-feature-not-a-bug-please-critique-2976071

I think first and foremost, the security of a protocol needs to be considered, a protocol is being susceptible to attacks or not is a binary measure of success.  I think we can all agree the PoW is a successful protocol on that front. PoS is yet to pass these tests with different permutations of attack that are possible (long-range attacks, etc.) [I have a feeling though, like PoW, PoS will become more secure as the ecosystem grows]. Secondary reasoning needs to consider how the protocol forms emergent behavior of all players in the game.

PoS and other solutions have risen in the wake of perceived issues with PoW in secondary reasoning. The perceived issue of PoW is that the computational demand scales with the hashing power of the network and becomes labor intensive. If there is any other issue with it, please tell me, because i have not considered it yet. But looking at this point, lets make an observation of the implications PoW has to the emergent behavior of players in the ecosystem.

the hashing power provided from the network is a choice of the miners who are all playing with game theoretic like behavior. They mine for profit they obtain from mining a block. the function for block profit can be described in the following function:

netProfit BTC = (block_reward + transaction_fees) - (electricity + misc_overheads)

there are two ways the block profit can scale:

• The value of BTC can increase
• The transaction fees become higher
• reduction of electricty cost via more efficient ASICS & reduction of misc_overheads

as per the bitcoin protocol, the block_reward will halve until the amount of circulating coins asymptotes to the maximum amount of possible BTC. at which point the function is: netProfit BTC =  (transaction_fees) - (electricity + misc_overheads)

As the profit they obtain from the block goes up, miners have more capability to invest and place more hashing power on the network (with the expected outcome being a higher probability that they will solve future blocks). From my observations, the miner's behavior is directly influenced by the profit of the block. Currently the bitcoin protocol is supplying the bitcoin ecosystem with BTC (12.5 supplied as a reward per block). This increases the block profit significantly, and therefore skews the behavior of the miner to increase hashing power. This is intentional from the Bitcoin protocol because it wants to incentivize the development of the infrastructure.

When the price determination of the market set BTC to $20,000USD, miners became more competitive to mine the block, I assume more ASIC machines were employed to provide huge amounts of hashing power (which was feasible with a BTC price of 20k given the winner is getting BTC12.5 + transaction fees). The large computational burden is actually a regulatory factor against the block netProfit function in a highly speculative market. The Bitcoin protocol wants steady progressive growth and development of the ecosystem and services.

So is this an issue for PoW? I would like to think, we are all here discussing this new technology because we are in it for the long run. Imagine a time when all the coins are effectively in circulation. the grossProfit would only consist of transactions_fees. This means a miner would only be able to place a feasible amount of hashing power based on the transaction_fees (this greatly simplifying the situation, but for explanation purposes, it will suffice). The transaction_fee value will be another game, played by the end users (people placing tx in the mempool).

the transaction_fee game:
choice: How much to put down as transaction fee
expected outcome: my transaction is on the next generated block

all end users playing this game will regulate the transaction_fee value with volume and demand. So this will govern the computational burden of the PoW approach. Unless I have missed something. At this point, I think PoW is working quite well in relevance to this topic.

I am up for critique on this observation. But i think we need to consider what are the reasons for saying PoW is inferior as i have seen in this thread. Its okay to say it, if we have all come to the same consensus. But until then we need to discuss it.

Isn't Proof of Stake the literal implementation of the rich get richer though? I suppose Proof of Work is the same, but it's a shame that it can't be implemented another way. Every public consensus algorithm seems to collapse to rich get richer by necessity :/

I think Bitcoin won't change.

Maybe later there will be strong arguments for proof of stake in bitcoin. But for now we still need research and experience with current PoS coins. PoW is the safest way to have the confirmations at the moment.

Bitcoin won't change. It doesn't have consensus among miners

I do not think BTC will ever move to POS ... There will be different kinds of currency and Bitcoin Core / Bitcoin Cash will always stay proof of work where there will be other alternatives with different implementations.