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.

That's like loaning for future operation. The problem is that after , you still have low rewards, and you've already taken the past loan, so you can't do it again.

Quote from: garlonicon on December 20, 2022, 04:26:18 PM

Because then, you would have 50 BTC in the Genesis Block, then 49.99983496 BTC in the first block, ..., 35.35533905 BTC in the 105,000th block, ..., and 25 BTC in the 210,000th block.

Doesn't seem bad to me. What's an indirect disadvantage with rewarding in that manner?

Quote from: garlonicon on December 20, 2022, 04:26:18 PM

Would you invest in such altcoin today? So, I think those people fully deserve it, because they had very little knowledge about all of those things, and they put their money into it.

I'll be honest, if I had heard of bitcoin in 2009, I wouldn't have given much attention (for the reasons you outlined). But if I had taken a look in 2010-2011, in the golden years, when its source code was available, it had some serious talking, mailing lists were active, I might have had some, just in case it catches on. But that was bitcoin. I wouldn't invest into any altcoin, because it is apparent that it wouldn't have the same impact.

Well said.

When the white house receives a report recommending that PoW be banned/eliminated to the sitting president,
you need someone to connect the dots, when it should literally have slapped you in the face.

I have disrespected no one that has been civil,
the ones that have not been civil , have received what they were due.

CBDC is coming , again if you bothered to read, instead of looking for dots and not comprehending ,
US Banks are already testing CBDC, and the rollout to the public will be middle of 2023, no matter what happens in the rest of crypto.
And that has nothing to do with the instability PoW miners cause on the power grids,
try and strain your brain , and for one second, imagine that all of the news articles stating grid instability and PoW bans, have nothing to do with anything except the danger to the power grids.

Oh and when I warn of the security dangers of allowing the mining pools now down to 3 that can 51% attack,
people have been warning of the pool dangers for years, nothing new except it used to be 5, then 4, now 3, and soon 2 or even 1 pool operator,
because the btc community refuses to apply a simple code update to limit pool % of the hashrate.

You can whine, if I tell you smoke detectors and a fire extinguisher would be good to have in place.
Ignore that info and if your house burns down, you realize how big a fool you are for refusing to take simple precautions.
Same as BTC, I and others tell you that high % of hashrate in the hands of the very few is dangerous and make a 51% easy,
also warn you that the world governments are talking PoW Bans, because of PoW miners causing the grids to be unstable and using up the majority of energy.
Do you prepare for the coming government onslaught by making your miners able to hide or regulate them into compliance or even move them offshore to your own island with your own non-public power source, nope, which is why you are playing the fool.

FYI: Read so you can be educated.
https://cointelegraph.com/news/new-york-governor-signs-pow-mining-moratorium-into-law
https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/14/23206795/bitcoin-crypto-mining-electricity-texas-grid-energy-bills-emissions
https://cryptopotato.com/white-house-report-recommends-banning-bitcoin-mining-to-slash-ghg-emissions/
https://fortune.com/2022/01/05/crypto-blackouts-bitcoin-mining-bans-kosovo-iran-kazakhstan-iceland/
https://fortune.com/2021/11/17/china-bitcoin-mining-ban-crypto-holdouts-ether-solana-price/
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/13/world/europe/eu-carbon-tax-law-imports.html
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/financial-stability/macroprudential-bulletin/html/ecb.mpbu202207_3~d9614ea8e6.en.html

---

For the bitcoin cultists.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201208/why-cults-are-mindless

To hell with Reality,
decentralize, hodl, moon, whenlambo crys the btc PoW cultists,   

To all PoW fools that think btc will last, Enjoy it while you can.
Now spread your nonsense that PoW will endure, while the sane laugh at you from afar while shorting your btc into nothingness.  
Because cult members get so boring, with their inability to recognize their actual surroundings.

PoW supporters have wasted enough of my time.

So I bid you Good Day to await your fate.  

OP It's been discussed here time and time again.

The final conclusion is generally it can't be done without something like the lightning network piggy backpacking it
 to make it more PoS, but its still PoW at the end of the day.

Or something new entirely.

And LegendaryK
POW will be around for a while.
Check out ancillary grid balancing services.
Some of these ancillary grid balancers are necessary for irregular conditions.
You generally have 3 options.

1. Waste (Going to happen Irregardless)

2. Mining for correction
3. Battery banking for correction

Mining looks bad on the surface but compared to battery banking it's a godsend and a lot easier to manage.
https://www.ercot.com/gridmktinfo/dashboards/ancillaryservices

You've mentioned Texas as a example. Based on your post history looks like you live here since its the grid you keep referring to..

A few snowstorms we haven't seen in decades and an unprepared grid are factors in your theory,
what about the new residents moving here, 750,000 new households a year couldn't possibly have anything to do with it, could it?

You're simply ranting on in spite of what? You're trying to connect dots that aren't there.

You've disrespected people here that have simply tried to help educate you?
Seems like you may be going through some stuff, try approaching a little less bitter it's not a bad community.

If bitcoin where to be banned, it would be to make way for CBDC, potentially scapegoated as an energy crisis however saner minds will prevail.
but that's speculative, bitcoins been lobbied pretty hard, probably harder than anything in history.
It's even on programming via NFL crypto.com

“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”
-William Casey, CIA Director 1981-1987



 

Actually Thanos is the World Government threatening the PoW ban.

My role is (Kronos the Time Keeper) telling you naysayers, time is running out, and if don't want PoS, you better come up with another plan.
Confusion about who your real enemy is, is why btc future is dim.

Also confusion about the timeline for fusion to make a difference, is pure fantasy.
Nuclear Fission is the best , you are going to see in your remaining time here.
And that is a 10 year build time.  

FYI: Also sound like you're more in favor of Doge than btc.
https://cointelegraph.com/dogecoin-for-beginners/dogecoin-transition-from-proof-of-work-to-proof-of-stake-why-is-it-important
BTC $64K-$17K = a loss of $47000 ,
What was that about waste money again.  


If the Navy could have made tor work, they would not have released it into open source.  
They would have kept it for the military.

You know why the Navy did not give you a Battleship, it's because the battleships they build work.  

So how many hours per day is your power off now, NotATether.

---

And you be wrong,
Ethereum is moving toward 100000 transactions per second and takes 1½ minutes to complete.
Visa cards can only process   24000 transactions per second and take 48 hours to complete.
Read more, spew bad info less.  



Reading comprehension is really not your strong suit.
https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2020/07/20/whale-alert-identifies-1125-million-btc-as-satoshis-stash/

Are you really so clueless, that you don't know ethereum only switched to PoS this year.
So you should have said:
For example buterin's PoW scamcoin suffers from a gigantic premine and early mining.
By switching to PoS, he repents for the earlier mistake in using Proof of Waste.
FYI:Proof of Stake coins Stake only crappy Proof of Waste networks mine.
No worries, PoW coins are dying so fast , it won't be a problem for much longer.
Doge evolves to PoS to survive and thrive, while ltc and btc crash and burn at the worldwide PoW ban.
And Energy Efficient Life goes on and those very few PoW coins that refuse to adapt to their environment die.  

Personally, I see pos as a ridiculously outdated design. Visa is faster, cheaper, more efficient than any pos scamcoin can ever be.



You pulled that lie from your ass. No such address exists.




Premined pos scamcoins don't solve the early mining problem. For example buterin's pos scamcoin suffers from a gigantic premine and early mining.

1. It is possible to increase future block rewards by sending coins to " OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY OP_DROP OP_TRUE". Because the whole system is about proportions, there is no need to touch 21 million coins limit, it is a matter of distributing existing coins in whatever way it is needed. And that means, formulas from point 2 and 3 can be rewritten to leave that limit intact.
2. Using constant block reward, and halving it every four years, is way easier than inventing some formula for every block. Also, if it would be "50*(2^(-(blockNumber/210000)))", it would be much harder to calculate. Because then, you would have 50 BTC in the Genesis Block, then 49.99983496 BTC in the first block, ..., 35.35533905 BTC in the 105,000th block, ..., and 25 BTC in the 210,000th block.
3. You can have a constant inflation rate of p%, if you introduce "(p/100)*currentSupply" coins in every block. So, if you want to have 1% inflation rate, then you would have 50 BTC in the Genesis Block (then, because it is unspendable, you will avoid a huge drop from 100% to p%), then 0.5 BTC in the first block, then 0.505 BTC in the second block, and so on. Basically, it would be just a geometric progression with "1+p/100" ratio.

Quote

You might find it unfair to have halvings, because the future users have less chances to acquire the same as today.

They invested in hard times. After financial crisis from 2008. And when many different (centralized) electronical currencies failed, so people were very skeptical from the very beginning. During those times, people were very happy to sell 10k BTC for a pizza. Also note that there were no tools, and people had no idea that what they can see in version 0.1.0 in the GUI, is not everything. They didn't know about block explorers, and about checking other transactions than their own. They had to use Windows. They had no idea about the Script. Imagine that you see some altcoin, and it looks like version 0.1.0, you have no source code on January 3rd 2009, and you can get any after few days (and it takes some time to compile it properly, to understand it, to start making any changes, so it is a black box for days or even months). Would you invest in such altcoin today? So, I think those people fully deserve it, because they had very little knowledge about all of those things, and they put their money into it.

Also, Proof of Work was something entirely new, that makes things tick. You cannot get rid of PoW and reach the same system, because humans don't know, how to create a better proof. Staking means you can overwrite the whole chain with signatures, so there is no work behind it. Burning means you have the same case as with staking, but you cannot unstake anything (and it is what ETH currently has, as a "de facto consensus", as long as people cannot unfreeze coins). Checking other things like hard disk capacity is just moving the same problem into different field, so it is just "obscured PoW". So far, we don't have any better proof than Proof of Work, and it is part of the whole success, if there would be some different consensus, then there could be no such thing as "a cryptocurrency", we would have another centralized systems instead, similar to the old Chaumian mint.

The whole decentralization that comes from Proof of Work is so strong, that we still cannot remove testnet3, and switch entirely to some signet, just because signet mining is too centralized, and then we couldn't test easily, what would happen after many halvings. And even in signet, we still need some Proof of Work, just to keep some properties, like "the history that is hard to overwrite". That means, if we want to make a better system, we should think more about reusing Proof of Work, than about replacing it. Merged Mining is one option, experimenting with second layers, with PoW on the first layer, is another. As long as we don't have better proofs, we need Proof of Work on the first layer, to protect that system from collapsing.

You're a confused, pro-authoritarian, brainwashed, altcoin shiller, and I think I'll just stop talking to you, because you're an actual energy waste.

"Ask 10 people what's fairness, and you get 11 responses". I don't find Proof-of-Work neither fair nor unfair for coin distribution, but if I were to choose, I'd go with fair. But, that's just me. You might find it unfair to have halvings, because the future users have less chances to acquire the same as today. I personally find unfair to have premined coins, because I only find fair to have zero economic sources during the beginning of a currency, and pre-miners have an irrational economic advantage.

By the same reasoning, bitcoin would be even fairer than that, if in each block the subsidy was slightly increased (50, 50.01..., 50.02...), to maintain inflation rate constant.

Doge did have big reward reductions throughout its first year.
Current rewards (fixed since year 2) are 50x less than at launch.

Only one coin had a fixed reward from launch, 1 coin per second forever [1].

[1] https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/recipe-for-simple-money-5429497

Actually Doge has no 1/2ings and has a slow steady descending rate of inflation and has the best POW solution to be in alignment with long term development of Fusion power.

year 1 x coins
year 2 2x coins 100% inflation
...
year 10 10x coins
year 11 11x coins 10% inflation
...
year 20 20x coins
year 21 21x coins 5% inflation
...
year 50 50x coins
year 51 51x coins 2% inflation           
...
year 100 100x coins
year 101 101x coins 1% inflation



Your entire argument is pinned on shrinkage.

you are much like the marvel villain Thanos lets ½ the universes entire population to save resources


and the moron had a  perfect  solution all he need to did is copy antman and shrink all the universe people 1/10 size far bette method with no killing.

We now have our antman moment  in that fusion works and you are running around and saying lets kill off pow.

meanwhile all the power pow mining uses is under the city of Tehran power use.

check it out.  So lets kill off POW which uses less power than Tehran does is a typical Thanos move over kill when better solutions are already available.

How about Christmas lighting we should ban that right.

while we are at it lets ban every movie theater that is not 80% filled.

I could go on an on and on.

Lets throttle every ac to 78f. you do not need to be cooler than that. BTW this alone fixes the power used by POW

Oh I know ban fucking for 2 years.  Just blow jobs and muff diving  no babies born for 2 years saves tons of power.

Should I go on.


SO Doge fixes your unfair distribution issues

and I have endless power saving that are better than pow getting killed off.

Just because you can waste money doesn't mean you should.

[in case you did not get the point, depositing $13 with a high-risk staker is essentially yield farming. An industry that has been hammered during the past 6 months.]



If the Navy could break it, nobody would use it.
If they can't, then that point is irrelevant.

Fair distribution *requires* PoW. But PoW is not enough. Premines reduce fairness. 100% premines as in PoS reduce it to nothing. As you noticed, reward halvings also reduce fairness.
If Bitcoin didn't have any halvings, it would be as fair as can be expected.
It would no longer have a hard supply cap. But that is not as big a deal as people think [1].

[1] https://john-tromp.medium.com/a-case-for-using-soft-total-supply-1169a188d153

So buying Cardano at less that 30 cents, offends your sense of fair play.

But paying $64K to greedy PoW miners causing global energy problems, that is good with you.  
Please don't pretend that the entire world knew of btc so they could all start mining at the same time,
if that were true satoshi mining address would not have 1,125,150 bitcoins in it and that is just the one we know of.
Like he did not have others, where he profited greatly.  
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-public-address-key-of-Sathoshi-Nakamoto

I have seen plenty of new PoW coins created in 2012, and the one thing I noticed is that none had a fair distribution.
Look at all of the people now, they can't even afford to mine btc , so spare me your moral outrage, you have no high ground to stand on.
More like you are standing in quicksand.

At least with a premine, they are informing you up front.
Another thing I noticed, the majority of those 2012 PoW coins died.
So PoW is not the savior you think it is.

Normal people can afford to stake and participate in a PoS network,
Normal people can't afford to lose money mining in a PoW network.

FYI:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/five-reasons-why-bitcoin-wealth-155752613.html
Thinking PoW promoted fair distribution of coins, is just pure bullshit.

Wrong; they were created by grift.

Cardano just greedily assigned themselves 100% of all coins and started selling some portion to the gullible.

A major part of being decentralized is to decentralize ownership. Premines run counter to that.

PoS further runs counter to that since it lets everyone just hang on to their share.

@n0nce,

Dude ,
you live in a parallel universe to the one, that I and the majority here live in,
where the laws of physics and economics are mirrored version,
In your universe , PoW will be just fine.    
Sarcasm

---

If you can get a working commercial fusion reactor within 2 years then you can keep your proof of waste,
however fusion is 50 to 70 years from being useful to the global populace.
I say 2 years, because that is maybe how much time is left before the Global PoW bans.
Good Luck to you on it.

You like to say bitcoin is based on energy, an insanely large wasted amount of energy , but energy at it's core.
Let's take ethereum for example, the majority of it's coins were also created by wasteful PoW,
so it is also based on energy, it has just moved to a more efficient network model that does not waste energy.
Now let's take cardano, it's coins were also created by energy, except the energy used to create it coins was infinitesimal compared to a PoW coin.
And yet the energy efficient coins have greater onchain transaction capacity and lower network costs and smart contract capabilities, of which your btc PoW lacks.
So here is the shocker for you a PoS coin was created with energy, so therefore that coin is also backed by energy, just not enough wasted energy that could have powered 47000 homes.  

---

Pop!
That was me bursting your bubble, $13 and less of PoS coins can stake, depending on the coin you may need to pool with others.
Now how many millions of dollars of asics are required so that a PoW miner does not need to pool?
How many PoW coin holders don't have custody, the majority.


Nope , you're just playing stupid, or maybe you not playing.  

I listed technical reasons why the Myth called N@S can't actually occur,
there are no technical reasons why BTC can't suffer from a PoW 51% pool attack because 3 mining operators decide to collude and make more money crashing the btc ecosystem.

I am not the only one warning about the dangers of allowing pools to gain a high  % of the hashrate that make collusion so easy.
But if you want PoW to have a closer equivalent of protection from 51% pool attacks as PoS has from the N@S BS.
Have the BTC PoW programmers get off their lazy asses and update the code, so that no PoW mining pool can have over 1% of the total hashrate,
this would insure that you would need at least 51 people to collude to 51% pool attack , which is a hell of a lot better than the current 3.
FYI: Cardano PoS Network already have program code which prevents pooling attacks and they have over 3000 pools.



Please don't tell me you are one of the clueless, that believe you are safe behind Tor (created by the US Navy for dumb people to feel hidden.)
Your IP is traceable as long as you are running any type of node software, PoS or PoW or mining with an ASIC.

In your pretend world where Tor and VPN are untraceable, why no one can find you or your ip.  More Sarcasm.  

Lol. Tell them to stake then. Oh wait, they can't. That requires you to have a shitload amount of money; you hand over custody otherwise.  

You can't sleep at night, knowing that people use energy in manners you disapprove of, can you?

And a 51% has yet to occur, but you're the one who's asserted that it will sometime. You're contradicting yourself.

Not in Legendary's fantastic, not dystopian at all world where the government knows the best for every individual. Privacy is just an illusion. You think you need it. You don't. Period.

You are an amazing gaslighter.  I will actually merit your post for its brilliance in gaslighting.

"It is dependent on the people ability to adapt to a changing environment."


The above quote is is perfectly true.

The problem is you are not stating this below:

and the adaption will be the development of fusion supplemented by solar driven by the need for power to mine pow.

You are trying to prevent invasion.

POS = piece of shit

it is simple an unregulated bond backed by nothing.

First of all, please learn using proper quotes.
Secondly; you can't be this stupid. I'll answer these questions one last time, but I do feel like wasting my time already. This has been answered to you enough times. You seem proper brainwashed.

It's beyond me how you can think something being expensive is the same as being forbidden. Does this mean you believe it's forbidden to buy luxury cars or what?
Also, I said this already: someone making $13 per day can't afford native / solo staking. If they're going to put their money in someone else's hands, they can actually also 'stake' BTC on some platforms just the same or rent hashrate.

This is way too vague and incorrect to even be considered an argument. We explained the basically non-issue of pools many times before; and you even advocate for staking pools yourself. In fact, pool staking drives centralization, towards fewer large pools, more than pool mining. I hope it's obvious, why. Mining BTC doesn't give you more ASICs out of thin air

Only because it's been done, doesn't mean it's easier to accomplish. A call to Vitalik suffices to freeze your millions of staked Ether, meanwhile the effort to tear down someone's business and steal their hardware needs at least some high-level court orders.

Let's put it this way: if the police is able / allowed to steal a whole mining operation, they're also allowed to get your PoS coins frozen.

How does this respond to the criticism that 'Entrance of new voters is down to the stakers' permission' at all?

Destroying someone's investment if they do something wrong is a huge risk; I can definitely see some investors preferring to buy ASICs; where if they misconfigure something, run old code etc., they only lose electricity but nobody comes to steal their ASIC installation. So I don't see slashing as a very positive point for PoS.

Did you just admit that your preferred PoS coins not only aren't usable without leaking your IP address (terrible for privacy) and that you can just blacklist addresses? These are terrible features for a decentralized digital currency!
   
Wrong. Pool operators can disappear; it's literally no problem, there are many more pools which we can switch to in a matter of seconds and we can even create our own pools at any time. You're totally overestimating the importance and risks of pooled mining, meanwhile have no concerns leaving your actual keys with a pooled staker.
If I remember correctly, some mining software even allowed you to enter multiple pools' details and it would switch by itself if a pool had some downtime.

Meanwhile un-staking and re-staking PoS coins is a whole ordeal, involving existing stakers having to approve you.

Absolutely wrong. How do you think pool operators can screw us? Care to elaborate? In my book, they're completely dependent on the miners, so they have to do their best to keep miners with them, in terms of performance, fees and customer support.

Meanwhile, PoS staking pools literally own users' coins and can just run with them. No mining pool can take away our hardware.

Only because they work fine (for now), doesn't mean they have a working decentralized consensus mechanism. Banks, PayPal and WeChat also allow you to transfer funds without working decentralized consensus algorithm.
Proving that an algorithm works is an academic / scientific task; it's proven by cryptography and not by 'it works' or 'it runs smooth'.

Why so? And why are you so in a hurry? I don't see anything that would make a switch more urgent right now than anytime in the past.

Let me put it this way: If Bitcoin were to go bust, Ethereum and Cardano would cease to exist. Watch market trends; beyond your altcoin bubbles and especially beyond the cryptocurrency bubble as a whole. People see this whole space as risky assets for investment.
Any time there was a crypto bear market, altcoins as a whole crashed much harder than Bitcoin. Some people take out their crypto investment completely back into fiat, and others shift from alt to Bitcoin.

As a matter of fact, the world doesn't fucking care about crypto algorithms in a bear market. Why do you think all the spotlight is on FTX and not on "the latest botched attempt by the EU to ban proof-of-work mining" (which by the way was scrapped after fierce opposition to it)?

Expect a state of irrelevance to debates like these until at least 2024.

That's not comparable, though. When you pool mine, your hardware stays in your custody at all times, meanwhile if you do pooled staking, you don't have custody of your coins. It also doesn't solve the problem that in PoS, existing validators can deny access to a new (pooled or not) staker.

It can't be superior and it never will, because it doesn't work. PoS is not a decentralized consensus mechanism, therefore it cannot be a replacement for PoW, and it definitely can't be better.

I don't understand the purpose of this thread; we have 13 pages of [Megathread] The long-known PoW vs. PoS debate.

There is also: 'Why btc cannot move pow to pos?'.

Funny thing, the ability of people to survive is
not dependent on strength
not dependent on speed
not even dependent on intellect,

It is dependent on the people ability to adapt to a changing environment.

You are stating as a matter of fact , that BTC network is unable and unwilling to adapt to a world where energy resources are strained.
You're basically predicting BTC death.

Personally , I see PoW as a ridiculous outdated design , that should be thrown out as soon as possible.
Even I would point out , if you wanted to keep the outdated PoW design,
your options are only.
1.  Worldwide Regulation limiting who is allowed to mine and a limit on how much energy they can draw.

Hardly a solution about freedom, but if you wanted freedom BTC would evolve to the superior Proof of Stake design.
Due to BTC supporters desire to keep the old proof of waste design, regulation and control , is BTC network only survival option.
Either that or just wait for the government bans to kill the PoW networks.
 

Let say this as simply as possible.

There is no replacement for pow for btc.

so lock the thread and call it a day.

BTW I would argue that the pressure on energy use caused by pow is yet one more reason we are a step closer to boundless energy in the form of fusion.

Pay attention to this old quote

"necessity is the mother of invention"


POW is one more example of humanity's war on entropy.

So to restrict POW is to sit in the fucking corner with your face to the wall and wait for death.

Get your chatGPT autogenerated post out of this thread.

Your suggestion for an alternative method for distributing new bitcoins is an interesting one. One potential issue with this approach is that it relies on a central list of eligible nodes and a process for selecting them to receive new bitcoins. This could potentially lead to problems such as centralization, where a small group of nodes is disproportionately selected to receive new bitcoins, or manipulation of the selection process by node owners.

Another alternative approach that has been proposed is to use a proof of stake (PoS) system, in which new bitcoins are distributed based on the amount of bitcoin that a user holds, rather than the amount of computing power they contribute to the network. This can potentially be more energy efficient than proof of work, as it does not require miners to perform resource-intensive calculations in order to earn new bitcoins. However, PoS systems can also have their own set of challenges and trade-offs, such as the potential for users with large amounts of bitcoin to dominate the validation process and increase their control over the network.

Ultimately, the choice of which method to use for distributing new bitcoins is a complex one, and there are pros and cons to each approach. It is important to carefully consider the potential impacts and trade-offs of each approach in order to determine which one is the most suitable for a particular cryptocurrency.

there are 210,000 blocks per ~4 years
so 420k=8year
so 525k blocks for 10 years.... b'coz, math

also there are 1765275 coins left.
meaning 3.36 coins per block to share over 10 years


ID registration in a pseudonymous world.. um. not gonna work.
and you cant just use a nodes user agent or IP. as thats just going to get cloned/spoofed.. change over time naturally thus untrackable reliably. unless you use some at worse  ID registration (or at best.. staked address)


removing a cost mechanism for coin creation makes a coin no longer a value asset. but a lottery

if you want random payments based on length of staying in a system. go play the PoS lotto
bitcoin has already forked many PoS variants. so you already have systems that offer what you want.


people can 'pool' stake...
.. just like PoW no longer functions with solo-mining.. just saying

The downside of private sector is that they work like any other capitalist, when global price goes up they increase local price as well and there is not much the government can do about that. See US for example, they increased domestic gas price in accordance with the global price surge without hesitation.

The government makes their profit by exporting energy at ridiculously high prices to others. The downside of that is that they get addicted to easy money and if that export is disrupted for any reason (eg. sanctions or price fall) they have no clue what to do about budget deficits so they print money and increase inflation (hence the terrible exchange rate).

The wages are low if you convert it to $ due to exchange rate but not when it is compared to cost of living. For example the total of all utility bills I paid last month is barely 1% of what minimum wage salary is. The cost of my bimonthly electric bill was the cost of a small bag of chips.

There are a lot of factors affecting that but being "accessible" is not one of them. For example Iranians usually go for altcoin mining with GPU rigs not so much bitcoin mining with ASICs after bitcoin-GPU-mining stopped being possible.

There has also been a lot of ups and downs over the years. For example when GPU mining was replaced by ASIC mining, many gave up mining altogether. Or two or three years ago when mining started being regulated and many foreigners were kicked out of the country for having illegal mining farms that stole electricity and never paid any taxes; that decreased our total hashrate. Or last year when had a weird electricity crisis for 2-3 months it slowed down the industry's growth.
But the industry is still growing every day, it just takes time for farms to build up.
Additionally the real statistics about Iran's economy is never going to be known, just like nobody knows how much oil we sell and how. Since mined bitcoins are also used officially as one of the currencies for international trades, the official hashrate will definitely not be made public.

My estimate is somewhere around 10% at this point and the mining community is working with the energy ministry to increase their capacity for example by building facilities that could use wasted gas flares for electricity generation, installing more solar panels, etc. and in the next 4-5 years we could easily be looking at a quarter of total hashrate.

Just as proof of waste miners join pools to earn more,
Proof of Stake users join staking pools, where even as little as $50 of ethereum earns.
Right now the ethereum is earning about every ~4 days, with some pools.

No energy fees and no worries of bankruptcy like PoW miners.  

The tradeoff is there are sanctions against Iran. Cheap energy is one thing, but wages are low too.
The fact that Iran doesn't have the most Bitcoin miners shows it's not as accessible as other countries.

Where I live, we've always had high taxes on energy, even when it came from our own soil. Got to love the taxes!
Only a few countries have very cheap energy, but the top 5 (Venezuela, Libya, Iran, Angola, Algeria) all have their own problems.

yeah, it's not like the Avengers haven't landed on this thread yet to take on Loki.

I am surprised. Usually public sector is more inefficient than private. What's the tradeoff?

In that long term things have changed so much that Bitcoin itself may be obsolete because cryptography has significantly changed. Just the cryptography we use today is nothing like what was used during WWI.
What's important is that so far over the past 13 years fees have gone down and despite reward going down from 50BTC to 6.25BTC there was no need for WAY higher fees!

Iran. But don't be surprised, that is what happens when a country has the most amount of resources in the world and the energy sector (basically all utility bills) is owned by the government not the private sector.

So cheap?

Which country is that, if I may ask?

Well, you also addressed 'the prime supporters' as a whole; therefore such broad statements can never be right. And indeed I proved to you that we have 'prime supporters' of PoW that do mine themselves, and even at home.

That's absolutely wrong. Me and every other reasonable miner would switch pool immediately if we knew something was off with our pool operator. It's an easy and quick thing to do, literally doable in a few minutes. That's one of the reasons for pool operators not to do sketchy stuff like colluding to censor transactions and the like.
They are financially incentivized; they have to play by the rules, because it's so easy for people to switch that they could go bankrupt literally overnight if everyone left their pool. Miners have no obligation whatsoever to stick with their current pool if there's something cooking.

Exactly. Because there's no buyer for excess energy in the day / summertime, they can't overbuild infrastructure to a point where there's enough energy in winter and at night, when the sun shines weaker and the wind doesn't blow.
Bitcoin mining is the only use case for periodic excess energy and the only business that can use it whenever it's available; buying off the 'peaks' of otherwise wasted electricity.
Large-scale mining operations in Europe would massively aid the energy transition.

It's not true though, that 'they all move to Texas'. Some miners did, sure, but the hashrate is definitely spread out. And again, I don't know why you don't understand that increasing demand for something drives development of that something to meet those demands, which is always a good thing. Why do you want to stop development and improvement of infrastructure, in this case?

It's as if you are a supporter of governmental crackdowns on cryptocurrency (that's what it is, by the way - PoW is only an excuse; they will find other reasons to go after Ethereum et al.) and freedom of using your electricity however you want.
Pretty anti-Bitcoin, pro-totalitarianism and kind of weird to see in such a forum.

---

Oh you're so wrong about this, though!
In Ethereum PoS at least, you first of all need 32ETH and be approved by the current group of stakers. They can just decide not to let new people stake if they want.
Also: 32ETH is roughly $35,000 USD; if you can afford that, you can also afford 10 (!) latest-gen Bitcoin ASICs.

The narrative that you can stake your little $50 investment meanwhile Bitcoin mining has such a high barrier to entry, is completely backwards.
You can get home miners for $200-$600, meanwhile staking costs much more and you can even be refused access. Meanwhile nobody can stop your submitted valid blocks.

It's 3 entities, but indeed, that's a reasonable concern. My answer to this is that decisions proposed by a pool need to be approved by each of their miners individually. If pool wants to double-spend, miners must disapprove it. There have been decentralized proposals, such as P2Pool, but perhaps they weren't recognized enough due to better offers from centralized pools? In the end, it's a free market, and miners' goal is to maximize profit.

If you think that a Proof-of-Stake algorithm gives solution to this problem you're gravely mistaken. Not only does it not, but it makes things worse. Can you imagine what can an exchange do with all that liquidity? Or, what a hacker can do if they rip them off (which is a usual phenomenon, see FTX)? Preminers, billionaires, exchanges. You suddenly have to trust their technical competence, otherwise your network's integrity is in question. On the other hand, you can't realistically steal a billion dollars worth of ASICs.

If you can't tax users with block subsidy, you can't force them pay transaction fees. Their activity is what determines low and high transaction fees. Yes, there might be security traded, but transaction fees are determined exclusively by supply and demand.

Bitcoin, by design of its disappearing block subsidy, will eventually require WAY higher fees than that in order to remain the least bit secure.

So long term, low bitcoin fees are just wishful thinking. It was not designed for that.

How do you stay so clueless?
Ethereum current transaction fee is 63 cents ~ ½ of the current btc fee, according to Ycharts.  
Also while ethereum processes ~4x the transaction volume of btc on a daily basis.  

But even that is still to high for mass adoption in Poor Countries,
using a Proof of Stake design opens the potential to remove or reduce transaction fees in a PoS network to 1 penny or less,
Plus in a PoS design anyone can stake to cover the fees. 
Proof of Waste Bitcoin network can never achieve transaction fees that is needed for mass adoption due to it's inferior design.
Bitcoin PoW miners are going bankrupt all over the place right now, because of PoW defective design.
Anyone on a grid where a btc miners goes bankrupt sees an increase in their energy bills to cover the electric utility losses to the asshat btc miners.

https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/energy_bomb_bitcoin_white_paper_101322.pdf

Altcoins have always been an experimentation ground for bitcoin. A shitcoin that has copied majority of its protocol from bitcoin changed part of it to a different algorithm. It is a valid discussion to talk about that change.

You still haven't learned that bitcoin is not for one or two countries or a region. It is a global currency and for every country that has some issues or bans bitcoin there are dozens that don't.
For example we have no blackouts here and the electricity price is about $0.002 per KWH. Geographically speaking most EU countries are only as big as one of our average size cities and the whole country is as big as more than half of Europe combined. So even if half of EU were dark (which it isn't since there are only small number of blackouts) it is negated by one country alone. There are a lot of other cases like this.

Bitcoin "transactions" don't go through exchanges. Bitcoin trades to! There is already a hefty tax on trades which has nothing to do with mining algorithm of the coins.

Bitcoin's Proof of Work is the most energy efficient algorithm that exists and it is taken seriously which is evident from the adoption around the world with multiple countries adopting it as legal tender, more as legal currency and the billions of dollars of businesses that are built on top of bitcoin and millions of dollars that is transferred using bitcoin on daily basis.

This is why a centralized shitcoin like ETH that is using PoS and has fees that are above $5 is not useful while bitcoin that has a transaction fee of less than $0.10 is.

Because he told me.  

I was referring to the person (NotATether), I was talking too.
Did you forget your meds today, as you are slower than normal.


But it does mean only 3 people are securing the network, or don't you know how pools work.
The dangers of pooling :
https://modernconsensus.com/cryptocurrencies/bitcoin/report-mining-pool-consolidation-threatens-bitcoin-security/

And here is where you prove you don't understand energy infrastructure.
The real reason Europe is short on energy now is trying to move to carbon free energy,
Carbon Free Energy like solar, wind, & hydro are proving to be unreliable for 24x7 baseload needs.
Nuclear Fusion is 50 to 70 years away from commercial utility.
No one needs to change your mind, you can be clueless forever and it won't change the inevitable outcome.


The Reason China banned PoW, is that while BTC may only use a small % of the entire world energy.
No single grid has access to all the world energy, and your miners for greed's sake like to suck up as much as possible in as few locations as possible.
So when they all move to Texas , they cause grid instability , which causes blackouts, until the miners are banned.
You don't have to believe any of it, the PoW bans are coming whether you grasp it or not.  

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rosemariemiller/2022/12/07/crypto-mining-ban-makes-new-york-potential-model-for-other-states/?sh=4e47794940e1
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/business/white-house-condemns-energy-use-of-mining-bitcoin

Who are you referring to and how do you know which country they live in? And how do you get from 'there are energy blackouts' to 'we have to stop PoW' and not 'we have to build better infrastructure'?
To my knowledge, societies fared much better if they improved infrastructure to meet new demands instead of reducing demands to meet old infrastructure.

Imagine: the industrial revolution is starting, and countries refuse to build railroad infrastructure. They instead reduce demands and production to be able to handle it with horse-drawn carriages and such antiquated means of transport. Such a country would have failed completely, economically speaking, and have been crushed by all the other countries, which all adapted to new demand.

Again: who are you referring to? Some people in these threads mine at home, some rent hashrate and some don't mine. You can't give such broad, generalized statements and expect to be taken seriously, because generalized statements are always wrong. There is always at least one exception, automatically destroying arguments like 'no Bitcoin supporter mines'.

Even if that were the case, it doesn't mean that there are only 3 miners. We explained this to you multiple times. A pool could theoretically consist of thousands of individual Bitcointalk home miners and achieve 1/3 of global hashrate. That would be the complete opposite of 'centralization' that you seem to suggest.

Cool; so facilitating mining in Europe would increase the demand for carbon-free electricity, flooding more money into the carbon-free electricity business, allowing the field to evolve faster, carbon-free energy to become more popular, cheaper and more stable. Net profit for everyone.
Bitcoin mining would massively help the transition to 100% renewable electricity. Change my mind.

'Switching to PoS' is because of 3 reasons:
(1) Bigger profits for project creators (main reason): basically the equivalent to giving satoshi a huge ASIC mining installation for free, and updating it (for free) every year to the latest gear, with free electricity, forever. ^{[that would be hilarious, right]}
(2) Easy to sell to gullible newbies who've already been half-brainwashed by PoW FUD (e.g. from Greenpeace)
(3) Don't have to compete with Bitcoin, just with the other shitcoins.

Are you aware that Bitcoin mining is the least of your worries if you believe energy usage is too high? Look around you; wasted energy everywhere. Focus on the important stuff, don't let FUDsters distract you from the bigger picture.
Bitcoin is a smaaaall fish my dude.

You also still experience Energy Blackouts on a daily basis in your country.
So how many bitcoins do you mine per year?   None.  
* When the prime supporters of a product , can't afford to actually mine it, proves you have no decentralization.*
* Currently only 3 mining pool operators control over 51% of btc PoW hashrate daily. *

Since you mention Europe, they are starting a carbon tax.
Since according to BTC supporters their is not yet a viable replacement to PoW.  (Everyone one else just evolves to PoS)

How long before they place that carbon tax on btc transactions in Europe BTC exchanges.
This could end all PoW mining in Europe, and cause all Europe Exchange to drop all PoW coins to avoid the added carbon taxes.

BTC needs an energy efficient alternative to current PoW, if it wants to be taken seriously.
Also any new alternative needs to be able to survive with none or extremely low onchain transaction fees.
The reason btc is failing in El Salvador, is the average daily wage is ~$13 US, so a $1.82 transaction fee eats up 14% of a day wages.
In the US , it would be like someone earning $200 US daily would have to spend $28 as a transaction fee, no one is stupid enough to waste 14% of their daily wages on transaction fee, when cash has a 0% transaction fee. Now you know why bitcoin PoW will fail at adoption in poor countries.
So transaction fees also need to be fixed in any PoW alternative.

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

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.

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.

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.

You're right! Haha.

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


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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,..."

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

---

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.

Actually it would just be a fork and some other coin entirely.

My argument is the opposite from op would be just 2x block time. Would make mining incentives last longer.

And give more time to scale to LN.

Do the next ½ ing with ten minute blocks.
Then go to 20 minute blocks.

Changes cycle 2024 then 2028 then 2032

becomes 2024 - 2032 - 2040 - 2048

Has anyone ever posted this idea?

I could do a new thread if it is new.

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.

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.

If you're concerned about the network's security overtime, I suggest you reading this: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/surprisingly-tail-emission-is-not-inflationary-a-post-by-peter-todd-5405755. My TL;DR is: if there's demand for bitcoin, there will be transactions done on-chain, which will incidentally continue encouraging network protection. If there's no demand for bitcoin (or very little), then the network doesn't have to have sufficient security.

I visited the site, and do not agree with everything.  Consider the future when all the coins have been mined.  There is no further mining.  If mining is what makes Bitcoin secure, then when there is no further mining, Bitcoin will no longer be secure.

I am reasonably confident that the mining of the last coin, and the complete lack of additional mining, will not make Bitcoin insecure.  If not then, then it will not now.

That energy is used to make Bitcoin as secure as it currently is. You may want to read BitcoinCleanup.com.

Tromp: Not only is that next-to-impossible for nodes to come to agreement on right now (you need a concensus algorithm for that in turn), but it's utterly impossible to verify current uptimes in the future when nodes must verify the history from scratch.

Bitcoin already has a consensus algorithm, to verify each block as it is written to the chain.  Its already there, another instance is not at all impossible.

NotATether: This is almost like Proof of Stake except it rewards nodes for doing no work at all and without locking up an incentive such as crypto. In other words, block mining abuse will be rampant with such a model.

Yes, it is almost POS.  But no, its not a matter of doing no work.  The node must be up and online for some minimum period of time.  Block mining will be gone so there is no abuse of it.  Remember, I suggested that the nodes be monitored as being on line for some period of time before making the eligible for new BTCs.

ETFbitcoin:  I don’t know how to respond to this post.

LoyceV: The problem I am concerned with is the energy being spent to mine coins. Other than earning some coins, it provides no advantage.  From my readings there are thousands of mining rigs running 24/7 and only one of them gets a coin reward for each block.  That means that the energy spent mining is wasted for all but one mining rig.  Again, the energy consumed by mining is quite significant.

Mocacinno:  Your proposal would make mining completely unprofitable, …

Yes, it would do that. It would make mining obsolete.  It would stop the consumption of all that energy.

… completely wipe out the security of the chain. 

I don’t see why.  There is a consensus algorithm for verifying blocks.  Use the same “concept” for determining the rewards for being a node.

Look to the future.  Eventually all the coins will be mined.  There will be no further mining.  Nodes will be profitably only for transaction fees.  My basic suggestion is simple:  Move that concept closer in the future and stop spending huge amounts of energy on mining.

And yes, I am sure my concept has some holes and weaknesses.  However, the problems have already been solved in the current system.  Use the same concepts for distributing the new coins until the list of new coins have been exhausted.

Climate change is real. It is here right now.  It is causing disasters, right now. It is caused by humans.  Put it into the equation.

Next to the things that were already listed, you'd completely wipe out the security of the chain...

Your proposal would make mining completely unprofitable, since the coinbase reward would go to a random node owner (which is a problem by itself, as discussed above). Why would somebody mine if he doesn't get payed (it seems like your method doesn't touches the POW algo, it's just a completely different proposal for the reward distribution) ? The hashrate would drop making us vulnerable to a 51% attack in a matter of hours.

Don't get me wrong... It's OK to discuss technical improvements here... This one just isn't tought all the way trough i'm afraid. It lacks sollutions for the most basic of problems that'll certainly pop up if this was ever implemented (even in a low diff altcoin).

Why? Mining the last Bitcoin faster is not a necessity.

The list of nodes is an estimate. There is no official list of all Bitcoin nodes.

Personally i consider 14671 reachable nodes[1] & 82454 all nodes[2] is long. And to verify the list is true from another node, a node must connect to 82K node.

[1] https://bitnodes.io/
[2] https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/software.html

This is almost like Proof of Stake except it rewards nodes for doing no work at all and without locking up an incentive such as crypto. In other words, block mining abuse will be rampant with such a model.

Not only is that next-to-impossible for nodes to come to agreement on right now (you need a concensus algorithm for that in turn), but it's utterly impossible to verify current uptimes in the future when nodes must verify the history from scratch.

I don't see why.  The list of nodes is not that long.  When a neighbor pops up, note its identity, add it to the list, along with something about when it is active, and tell the remainder of the network about it.  When a node is acknowledged by N other nodes, it gets verified and added to the list of known nodes.  If its uptime is greater than X%, for Y days/months, it becomes eligible for a reward. 

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.

This sounds like changing (increasing?) the total supply which is not something that the community would accept.
The same problem with decentralization exists here too. In PoW we have an easy way for anybody to verify the work done on that block. Here when you say "random" there is no reproducible way to verify its fairness anymore.

I have read moderately on POW and read about the huge amount of energy required to earn each BTC.  There are other ways to distribute new coins and I find it a bit concerning as to how few are suggested.  The time of 120 years to mine the remaining 2.4 million Bitcoins is a bit absurd. Here is just one possible method.

Let’s say 10 years for the remainder. At 144 blocks per day that is 6,307,200 blocks in 10 years.  Divide 2.4 million BTC by that many blocks to get about 0.38 BTC per block.

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.   

As each block is completed, select one node, maybe at random, and the owner of the node gets 0.38 BTC.  Take that node off the list to received block rewards for some period of time to allow for sharing the wealth.

After the last BTC has been distributed, profits are derived from the work needed to certify each block.  Each of the, for example, first 32 nodes that are involved in the original certification of a block gets some percentage of the fees for that block.  Maybe provide a sliding scale based upon the time the node has been active.  Those on online for longer periods get a bit more.  When a node receives a transaction fee, maybe take it off the distribution list for some period of time, share the wealth.

This is just a suggestion and can certainly be refined for fairness.  Any thoughts?