Topic: Replacement for POW (Read 2182 times)

I've talked with those too. To me, what makes a cryptocurrency is its mechanism, apart from its monetary policy. I clearly don't comprehend a Proof-of-Staked Bitcoin as the original. It's just another fork, whose software I'm never going to be running.

No reason to do that, and make all Ethereum users dissatisfied. They can do the same more effectively and cunningly by messing with the inflation schedule a-la fiat.

What do you mean "on the line"? Do you need a manual approval by Vitalik to set up an ETH validator?

And you don't get to do much if you have 32 coins on the line. There is no talk of those so called small node investors.

32 ETH was already quite the chunck - at the time much more than what was required to get into Bitcoin mining. This 64x proposal is just disgusting. Even the thought of it.
It clearly brings EXTREME centralisation issues, every staking node would cost millions. And only the really rich can get richer and more powerful. - The opposite of a true cryptocurrency.

Ethereum is clearly moving into a terrible direction. The POS experiment may be interesting, but I'm just glad it happened on another huge chain that's not Bitcoin.

It's going to encourage staking pools, like how Bitcoin mining evolved from solo-mining to the implementation of mining pools because competition between miners is too high and the activity itself has become more specialzed.

Perhaps the Ethereum developers are trying to mimic the evolution of Bitcoin mining by increasing the minimum amount to stake?


Relax and be patient. If they stay long enough they too shall understand how everything in the network sticks together, and that POW is in the center of it all.

It always comes down to the purpose of the project. Bitcoin's purpose was financial sovereignty whereas ethereum's purpose has always been to create a platform where people can make money out of thin air by scamming others.

This is why you can't pull the same thing in bitcoin while you can easily do it in ethereum. Nobody cares about ethereum being a scam itself or being very centralized or raising the stake threshold 64 times as long as everyone has the "potential to make profit", some more than others like the creators holding the ginormous premine. They just keep changing the name of the "dog poop in pretty bags" (ICO, IDO, IBO, IEO, ITO, STO, DeFi, NFT) every now and then and keep selling it to brainless newbies, making a lot of money in the process.

So why shouldn't the creators of this scam platform get a piece of the pie? To be honest I wouldn't even be surprised if some day they added a new rule where every token sale or even every transaction on ethereum platform had to pay them some money in addition to the network fees!

They simply change the rules over and over.

Woah thats crazy that they are actually thinking about doing that. I don't even get why they made the 32 ETH thing in the first place. Lots of other PoS coins don't have a minimum size to stake at all, or if they do it's a lot less than that amount of money. Ethereum seems to be the most complicated and centralized version of PoS out there.

If they changed it to 2048 ETH lol literally you'd probably only have a few dozen stakers. Centralized ones like liquid staking pools and exchanges, plus the ETH founders and initial investors, and anyone who was lucky enough to buy a bunch of ETH before 2017 and hold onto it. Basically the ETH network would be validated by a few very wealthy people plus centralized services.

It's funny when people who don't know what they are talking about try to say that Bitcoin should move to PoS like Ethereum lol. I actually saw some rant online a week or two ago where someone was arguing that Bitcoin is bad because even though Bitcoiners say they will eventually move to PoS they won't really do it. All I could think was who in the heck was this guy talking to who said Bitcoin would move to PoS lol, no Bitcoiners talk about switching away from PoW, he must have been talking to some people who were pranking him haha. Only the people who don't know the value of Bitcoin would say such a thing.

Plus does Proof Of Stake truly work as a consensus mechanism? Or is it merely consenus where a Cabal is really making the rules?

If the SEC wanted to go after some cryptocurrencies for being unlicensed securities, I believe they should be going after those coins that are built with too much technical complexity that determining if they truly work as documented is impossible. Ethereum would be one of those networks. I don't want to be cynical, but there might be some developers who know that what they're building actually doesn't work.

Overall, my conclusion is that people lack critical thinking and don't appreciate the benefit of Bitcoin or any other normal cryptocurrency. Bitcoin, that was created in order to prevent 3rd parties during payment, ironically become a 3rd party dependent payment method because a lot of people use Coinbase or similar payment gateway instead of BTCPayserver where the user is independent.
Now, the ETH is going to move into a very capitalistic level and the richest ones are going to earn reward, i.e. making things very centralized and I bet people won't stop support of ETH. This makes me crazy because people either don't appreciate the benefits they are getting and think it should be normal or don't really give a shit.

To be honest, PoW is not the best method today because of the development of technology, especially after the development of ASIC miners but the problem is that there aren't really good, actually competitive alternatives, suitable for bitcoin.

Proof of shit (stake) in Ethereum requires you to have at least 32 ethers somewhere that you are ready to lock up for a period of time. For reference this is about $50K in today's prices. But as you can see, they are doing the rugpull on decentraliztation, with plans to make the requirement at least 2048 ethers. $50K times 64. Is about $3.2 million dollars, subject to the wildly volatile price of ETH, which can double or triple or even half at particular times of the year.

Do you know who has $3.2 million worth of ETH? Exchanges, and rich crypto bosses. And Vitalik Buterin and other OGs. These will basically be the only people who will be able to solo stake from now on, and everyone else will have to use a pool which runs risk of going bankrupt, Celsius style.

This is why POW is the best method even if it uses a lot of energy - you can't buy fraud in the network.

The cost of the coins.  Which for the premined coins was about 25 cents a coin. Ie 96 x .25 = 24 dollars.

Ethereum developers --who by the way pre-mined a 70% of the ETH corp.-- suddenly realize that they can make about 64 times greater yield if they simply mess with their "validator limit".

Someone please guide me, because I honestly have lost some brain cells since they "merged" (lol, more like split) with the Proof-of-Stake mechanism. What prevented someone from pretending they have had like 2-3 Ethereum accounts, each of which staked 32 ETH?

I will sound like a broken record, but the Ethereum core developers threw the best component of their system out of the window, which is Proof Of Work.

They replaced a consensus/security mechanism that's independent of the network with a mechanism that's within its own network where the richest token holders are in charge, a kind of rule of an Oligarchy.

 Dragging up this thread. eth is discussing staking at 2048 coins not 32

https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2023/06/19/ethereum-developers-propose-raising-validator-limit-to-2048-ether-from-32-ether/


and that is why POS is piece of shit

the very idea they have the balls to talk about doing that shows how fucked up staking can be.

You're comparing what visa can do now to what buterin claims his scamcoin might be able to do in the future. Centralized ledgers pretending to be decentralized can do as many tps as their scam founder wants it to do. The only thing holding them back is the decentralization theater needed to differentiate their scam from ledgers that are honest about their centralization like visa.

You're doubling down on your bullshit lie. You said "address". An address is singular. No address with 1,125,150 bitcoin exists.

You have no idea how many coins buterin mined after he premined 72,000,000 a gigantic 60% of the current supply.

It is literally impossible for coins to be distributed fairly without pow. Starting with pos requires a 100% premine. The only place where proof of 100% premined stake is decentralized is in the scammer decentralization theater.

You can represent some irrational numbers in the base-10 and base-2 system exactly, by using a floating-point configuration with a different base, which would allow you to write it as an integer for example.

Because a number of satoshis is an integer. And because you have halvings every 210,000 blocks, so in the 105,000th block, you would need sqrt(2) to do that properly. Even worse, you would need 2^(-1/210000) as your multiplier, which means representing 0.999996699305... precisely enough for each block, and rounding that down correctly. Currently, we have floating-point value called "difficulty", and it is recalculated every 2016 blocks. It is far from perfect, and has three bytes of precision (plus one byte for offset), for amounts we have eight bytes. Doing such calculation for every block could lead to more errors.

Everyone can do that, it is standard, as long as it is wrapped in P2WSH or P2TR. But yes, it could be raw script, then it would be clearly visible by everyone, and spendable only by miners.

It depends if you want to change the current system or not. Because if you want that, and you want that on BTC, then it can be only done in some backward-compatible way, as a soft-fork, or a no-fork. Because if you want to start a new system, then you should reuse existing coins, and rely only on coins explicitly moved by users, in other case you will reach an altcoin, that will have no peg with BTC.

Also note that miners in the past accepted new rules, where minimal fees were lower, and they reached 1000 satoshis per kilobyte. In the same way, they can prefer including a transaction with minimal fees, that sends some coins to some timelocked-only address, than other transaction, with the same fee and size, that does not include anything like that.

But that's a miner task, because money sent to such script is money that is sooner or later acquired by a miner. Therefore such action of locking coins to future blocks should be done by miners, for their future operation. My question is: why would miners loan money to themselves, when they can individually earn more?

I might have not understood you. You're proposing to have less reward now, and more in the future, right?

Why should you represent a double as int?

You can. It is possible to lock coins for a block 1000000, then 1000001, then 1000002, and so on. Also note that non-upgraded nodes won't pick it, so that kind of locktime means "this block or later", and this "or later" part is quite important, because if there are rules to always lock something, then it may be endlessly moved. Also, you can look at RSK, and see, that it is possible to distribute fees more smoothly.

It is difficult to code it properly, and to understand from the start, how it should look like. Also, it means there could be some problems related to floating point numbers, and to rounding them correctly. Because of course it is possible to use integers, and calculate everything in satoshis, but it is not obvious. When you see 0x5a827999, you don't recognize it instantly as sqrt(2), written as uint32.

Also, when you look at SHA-256 implementation, you won't see k-values that are computed on-the-fly every time. You see a huge table of constants. And miners would then need such tables for block rewards, because they don't want to take risk that their block will be invalid, because they took one more satoshi than they should.

Exactly, there were some signals that it might catch on. And now, there are no signals that something else than Proof of Work may catch on. It is the opposite: there are signs of weaknesses in Proof of Stake, which is why ETH has "de facto Proof of Burn". If people could unstake coins now, it would be a disaster. But now, that cure can be worse than the illness, because burning means that after reaching 51%, there will be no way to unstake those coins, and fix the situation, so they will be forced to use another hard-fork.

And imagine that there could be some altcoin, that would have Bitcoin-compatible mining, so you could mine both at the same time. What then? It is hard to know upfront, what will be successful or not. Because NameCoin did it wrong, and the path for Merged Mining is not closed, as long as "Instead of fragmentation, networks share and augment each other's total CPU power" is still not true. As long as each network has its own difficulty, instead of following the strongest difficulty, and changing amount of coins, it is very hard to trace all attacks and react to them correctly. So, I think people deserve those gains, because it was like investing in altcoins today: there were some positive signs, but nobody knew the future. Not to mention about testnet3, that is better at allocating names than NameCoin, because test coins are considered worthless, so they can only be used for sharing public information, like names and some test results.