Replacement for POW - page 4. | Bitcointalksearch.org

NotATether

legendary

Activity: 1568

Merit: 6660

bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org

Quote from: LegendaryK on December 16, 2022, 07:08:11 AM

Interesting how two btc supporters are only able to talk about ethereum.

Maybe start a new topic and quit derailing this one.

Topic is Replacement for POW in BTC.

Try and focus.

I am still waiting for frozen(TM) European countries to ban Proof of Work mining, by the way.

LegendaryK

member

Activity: 280

Merit: 30

Interesting how two btc supporters are only able to talk about ethereum.

Maybe start a new topic and quit derailing this one.

Topic is Replacement for POW in BTC.

Try and focus.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: pooya87 on December 15, 2022, 08:42:13 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on December 15, 2022, 06:46:49 AM

I don't know why there are many people who remain to follow that charlatan.

One word: profit.

Although it is a little more complicated than that. It is one of humanity's traits that they don't want to accept they were wrong.

Nobody can deny the big pumps that ethereum had in the past which has given a lot of profit to many people and worst of all has given hope of future profits to a lot more who are now bag holders. They do not want to accept that they were wrong about this whole thing being a sham even though ETH has gotten dumped so much in the past 5 years without being capable of seeing its ATH against bitcoin ever again.

We also don't know why, like OP, many people also remain to look for a "Replacement for POW". Bitcoin is proven hard money because it set, and made sure that no entity can "print"/issue the money of the system for free. But because Ethereum developers threw away POW, the most important part of their network, they might have broken they're incentive structure by allowing their network to print money for free. I truly thought Ethereum would also be a multi-generational blockchain before the transition to POS.

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

Quote from: Wind_FURY on December 15, 2022, 06:46:49 AM

I don't know why there are many people who remain to follow that charlatan.

One word: profit.

Although it is a little more complicated than that. It is one of humanity's traits that they don't want to accept they were wrong.
Nobody can deny the big pumps that ethereum had in the past which has given a lot of profit to many people and worst of all has given hope of future profits to a lot more who are now bag holders. They do not want to accept that they were wrong about this whole thing being a sham even though ETH has gotten dumped so much in the past 5 years without being capable of seeing its ATH against bitcoin ever again.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: pooya87 on December 13, 2022, 11:10:55 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on December 13, 2022, 12:58:47 AM

Plus replacing POW would be very stupid. Ethereum might learn from this, the hard way.

Shower thought. If Ethereum POS wouldn't be enough to secure the billions in their blockchain, and not enough to secure it as a global base layer for tokens, I believe they will probably need Bitcoin to secure their blockchain, and that probably creates more and more demand for Bitcoin transactions when block rewards become less and less after each halving. Cool

When you analyze an altcoin like Ethereum you should have one eye on all of its aspects instead of just focusing on the algorithm that changed from PoW to PoS. In this case the most important attribute to consider is Ethereum's centralization. That has helped this shitcoin survive a lot of things and the only reason why they switched to PoS and has been able to keep this mutable blockchain alive is because it is centralized and they have a lot of control on it.
In other words if a decentralized coin does the same, the effects won't be the same at all.

You're right! Haha.

I believe Vitalik Buterin is starting to pivot when he posted this tweet.

Quote

People continue to underrate how often cryptocurrency payments are superior not even because of censorship resistance but just because they're so much more convenient.

Big boost to international business and charity, and sometimes even payments within countries.

https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/1562542183562878976

I don't know why there are many people who remain to follow that charlatan.

But because Ethereum is centralized doesn't actually suggest that the billions of value in that blockchain is safe/secure. Every pleb knows, centralized = single point of failure. A government-entity can attack it. If there's a probability that Ethereum's POS, consensus through committee, is not enough to secure it, how high is the probability that it will need Bitcoin POW to secure it?

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

Quote from: Wind_FURY on December 13, 2022, 12:58:47 AM

Plus replacing POW would be very stupid. Ethereum might learn from this, the hard way.

Shower thought. If Ethereum POS wouldn't be enough to secure the billions in their blockchain, and not enough to secure it as a global base layer for tokens, I believe they will probably need Bitcoin to secure their blockchain, and that probably creates more and more demand for Bitcoin transactions when block rewards become less and less after each halving. Cool

When you analyze an altcoin like Ethereum you should have one eye on all of its aspects instead of just focusing on the algorithm that changed from PoW to PoS. In this case the most important attribute to consider is Ethereum's centralization. That has helped this shitcoin survive a lot of things and the only reason why they switched to PoS and has been able to keep this mutable blockchain alive is because it is centralized and they have a lot of control on it.
In other words if a decentralized coin does the same, the effects won't be the same at all.

LoyceV

legendary

Activity: 3290

Merit: 16489

Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021

Quote from: hZti on December 12, 2022, 03:18:41 PM

maybe at some point we can not see higher hash rates, but higher efficiency.

Can you explain how this would work? Currently, miners earn about $15 million per day. If hardware gets more efficient, they'll buy more hardware. Satoshi's old computer could mine all Bitcoin blocks if he was the only one doing it.
Decentralisation makes Bitcoin mining the ultimate free market: anyone who can make a profit can join.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: pooya87 on December 09, 2022, 12:41:45 AM

Quote from: bkelly13 on December 08, 2022, 11:39:56 PM

Create and maintain a list of all the bitcoin nodes that have been active for some period of time, maybe a year or some other time period. Node owners must have a certain amount of time invested before becoming eligible for payments.

Impossible to do in a decentralized way. For starters all the full nodes can not know about all other full nodes ever, they also can't continuously check whether all the candidates in that list are active at all times.

Most importantly how are you going to distinguish a fake full node with a real one? It is actually very easy to fake being a full node without actually running one. If you provide the incentive, the network could be flooded with them.

It's not just about running a "fake node". It could also be a user/group of users who are running multiple nodes and performing a Sybil Attack/51% Attack on the the network. It's easier to do at low cost, without POW to secure the network from such attacks.

I believe to learn more, Bitcoin.org's documentation is a good place to start, https://developer.bitcoin.org/devguide/block_chain.html

Plus replacing POW would be very stupid. Ethereum might learn from this, the hard way.

Shower thought. If Ethereum POS wouldn't be enough to secure the billions in their blockchain, and not enough to secure it as a global base layer for tokens, I believe they will probably need Bitcoin to secure their blockchain, and that probably creates more and more demand for Bitcoin transactions when block rewards become less and less after each halving. Cool

n0nce

hero member

Activity: 882

Merit: 5834

not your keys, not your coins!

Quote from: bkelly13 on December 10, 2022, 11:38:43 PM

Quote from: pooya87 on December 10, 2022, 11:13:10 PM

Quote from: bkelly13 on December 10, 2022, 12:41:49 PM

That means that the energy spent mining is wasted for all but one mining rig. Again, the energy consumed by mining is quite significant.

What bitcoin offers is a lot more significant than the energy that is being consumed to provide that. It is not a small thing to offer a global censorship resistance payment system that works 24/7 with high security.

Completely agree. Still, the amount of energy can be reduced significantly. It will take significant thought.

Let's start from the beginning: Why do you believe the current amount of energy usage has to be reduced in the first place?

Most people bring up environmental impact; however that argument is nonexistent, since Bitcoin mining encourages using otherwise wasted energy, in locations where excess energy exists, as well as building new renewable energy plants, since that's the cheapest form of electricity. In my book, these are all great things and it may do more harm to the environment getting rid of PoW instead of keeping it.

Besides, the energy footprint of Bitcoin mining is miniscule on a global scale, and especially in relation to what it provides. Compare it to the energy footprint of a big fiat payment provider; where all the energy used doesn't even directly secure people's money. Double the energy use in Bitcoin makes Bitcoin twice as secure. More energy use by Paypal servers or banks, does not make those services more secure.

We could even come to the conclusion that Bitcoin is extremely energy efficient.

bkelly13

member

Activity: 76

Merit: 35

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on December 11, 2022, 02:49:28 PM

Quote from: bkelly13 on December 10, 2022, 11:38:43 PM

Completely agree. Still, the amount of energy can be reduced significantly. It will take significant thought.

The only way for a party to reduce the energy used in Bitcoin mining is by force, i.e. to take somebody machine's, impose taxes, make bitcoin illegal etc. As a person involved into bitcoin, I'll have to reject this proposal, because every person has every right to do as they please with their energy.
...

I don't agree with that by force concept in the slightest. No one's property need be taken. It might be the case that all the mining hardware becomes useless, but that does not meet the concept expressed of "... by force,..."

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

Quote from: hZti on December 12, 2022, 03:18:41 PM

But where is the limit then. Is bitcoin doomed to use more and more energy every year forever?

No. LoyceV pointed out an important part of the ingeniousness of this innovation: if a country does nonsense, the rest have advantage. And even if that isn't considered nonsense for the elected party of the country, it doesn't have their desired outcome unless all elected parties (from all around the world) act likewise. Bitcoin mining is borderless. If you have power over certain people, you might limit their energy spending, but free market makes impossible to limit the total energy that's spent for Bitcoin mining.

As long as it's profitable to mine bitcoin, there will be mining, and the state cannot do a thing about it, because --unlike other products-- the cost to produce is likely to remain the same with state intervention.

hZti

hero member

Activity: 1036

Merit: 642

Magic

Quote from: LoyceV on December 12, 2022, 07:04:08 AM

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on December 11, 2022, 02:49:28 PM

The only way for a party to reduce the energy used in Bitcoin mining is by force, i.e. to take somebody machine's, impose taxes, make bitcoin illegal etc.

That won't matter on a global scale: if mining on location X becomes unprofitable, miners in other locations make more profit. That means they'll buy more gear, and all you've accomplished is that someone outside of country X now does the same mining.

But where is the limit then. Is bitcoin doomed to use more and more energy every year forever? I dont think this is true, because maybe at some point we can not see higher hash rates, but higher efficiency. This will become more interesting as we approach more and more the end of block reward, and only see fees as block payments.

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

Quote from: philipma1957 on December 11, 2022, 03:00:29 PM

Time is not inflation.

I'm not sure where does this respond to. Time isn't inflation, but arbitrarily altered monetary policy can lead to arbitrary inflation rate.

Quote from: philipma1957 on December 11, 2022, 03:00:29 PM

In fact coins are released slower with this method see other thread.

That is kinda my point. You introduce a change that alters monetary policy. I don't say that the change is bad or good for the most part. I'm just saying that your tendency for such change is bad, because bitcoin is an alternative to monetarism. People who're into bitcoin consider it superior money for mostly that part.

LoyceV

legendary

Activity: 3290

Merit: 16489

Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on December 11, 2022, 02:49:28 PM

The only way for a party to reduce the energy used in Bitcoin mining is by force, i.e. to take somebody machine's, impose taxes, make bitcoin illegal etc.

That won't matter on a global scale: if mining on location X becomes unprofitable, miners in other locations make more profit. That means they'll buy more gear, and all you've accomplished is that someone outside of country X now does the same mining.

philipma1957

legendary

Activity: 4326

Merit: 8914

'The right to privacy matters'

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on December 11, 2022, 02:49:28 PM

Quote from: bkelly13 on December 10, 2022, 11:38:43 PM

Completely agree. Still, the amount of energy can be reduced significantly. It will take significant thought.

The only way for a party to reduce the energy used in Bitcoin mining is by force, i.e. to take somebody machine's, impose taxes, make bitcoin illegal etc. As a person involved into bitcoin, I'll have to reject this proposal, because every person has every right to do as they please with their energy.

Quote from: philipma1957 on December 11, 2022, 02:39:30 PM

I do wonder if we altered block speed in 2024 making 1/2 ings be every 8 years more movement to LN

That would infringe principle, that is resistance to arbitrary inflation.

new thread

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--5427871

If LN network is allowed and it was, technically it is already a hybrid of what it was.

Also no coins are added same 21 million coins.

Time is not inflation.

In fact coins are released slower with this method see other thread.

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

Quote from: bkelly13 on December 10, 2022, 11:38:43 PM

Completely agree. Still, the amount of energy can be reduced significantly. It will take significant thought.

The only way for a party to reduce the energy used in Bitcoin mining is by force, i.e. to take somebody machine's, impose taxes, make bitcoin illegal etc. As a person involved into bitcoin, I'll have to reject this proposal, because every person has every right to do as they please with their energy.

Quote from: philipma1957 on December 11, 2022, 02:39:30 PM

I do wonder if we altered block speed in 2024 making 1/2 ings be every 8 years more movement to LN

That would infringe principle, that is resistance to arbitrary inflation.

philipma1957

legendary

Activity: 4326

Merit: 8914

'The right to privacy matters'

Quote from: LoyceV on December 11, 2022, 03:57:10 AM

Quote from: philipma1957 on December 10, 2022, 11:28:51 PM

My argument is the opposite from op would be just 2x block time. Would make mining incentives last longer.
~
Has anyone ever posted this idea?

I've only seen suggestions for the opposite: more and faster blocks.

Quote from: ?? on ??

Completely agree. Still, the amount of energy can be reduced significantly.

It's good to realize why that energy is being consumed: because it's profitable. One way to reduce it, is a lower Bitcoin price. Another way is lower transaction fees, and very important: the block halving. Until now, the price went up more than block rewards went down, but at some point in the (near) future that won't work anymore. So I kinda expect Bitcoin energy consumption to have peaked. And of course higher energy prices lead to lower energy consumption, unless miners can move to a different area.

yeah lite coin and doge covered that direction.

LN is supposed to make the scaling issue go away.
I do wonder if we altered block speed in 2024 making 1/2 ings be every 8 years more movement to LN
and more fees to miners would happen.

3.125 >>>>>> 2024
1.5625 >>>>> 2032
0.78125 >>>> 2040

could be an improvement.

LoyceV

legendary

Activity: 3290

Merit: 16489

Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021

Quote from: philipma1957 on December 10, 2022, 11:28:51 PM

My argument is the opposite from op would be just 2x block time. Would make mining incentives last longer.
~
Has anyone ever posted this idea?

I've only seen suggestions for the opposite: more and faster blocks.

Quote from: ?? on ??

Completely agree. Still, the amount of energy can be reduced significantly.

It's good to realize why that energy is being consumed: because it's profitable. One way to reduce it, is a lower Bitcoin price. Another way is lower transaction fees, and very important: the block halving. Until now, the price went up more than block rewards went down, but at some point in the (near) future that won't work anymore. So I kinda expect Bitcoin energy consumption to have peaked. And of course higher energy prices lead to lower energy consumption, unless miners can move to a different area.

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

Quote from: ?? on ??

~
Completely agree. Still, the amount of energy can be reduced significantly. It will take significant thought.

Keep working on it but know that you shouldn't only focus on reducing the energy cost but you should expand your view and pay attention to what the alternative solution you suggest costs the system. That cost should not be harming the decentralization, security, max supply and other important principles of Bitcoin.

bkelly13

member

Activity: 76

Merit: 35

Quote from: pooya87 on December 10, 2022, 11:13:10 PM

Quote from: bkelly13 on December 10, 2022, 12:41:49 PM

That means that the energy spent mining is wasted for all but one mining rig. Again, the energy consumed by mining is quite significant.

What bitcoin offers is a lot more significant than the energy that is being consumed to provide that. It is not a small thing to offer a global censorship resistance payment system that works 24/7 with high security.

Completely agree. Still, the amount of energy can be reduced significantly. It will take significant thought.

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on December 10, 2022, 03:54:42 PM

Quote from: bkelly13 on December 10, 2022, 01:59:11 PM

Consider the future when all the coins have been mined. There is no further mining.

But, there is further securing the network. Mining isn't just about inflating the supply. It's about rewarding the miner, and that will sooner or later come mainly from transaction fees.
...

I don't see anything there, and so far anywhere, that explains how Bitcoin is more secure because there is mining. Well, acknowledging my lack of mathematic skills, at least not that I recognize.

Topic: Replacement for POW - page 4. (Read 2182 times)