Topic: Why btc cannot move pow to pos (Read 972 times)

It looks like they disagree with you about the capacity. 

http://nouvelles.hydroquebec.com/fr/communiques-de-presse/1884/la-croissance-de-la-demande-delectricite-se-poursuivra-au-quebec/

quebec has more hydroelectric power then just about anybody(thank a taxpayer)(james bay project)  and they sell a large amount of it to the states since they have waaay more capacity then load. 

simple easy explanation.


Centralization is in fact more efficient. 

Centralization is a massive fail/control point for any network from sovereign actors.  corrupted humans tend to work toward and in centralized institutions.  small groups of people should not have that much control over your value.

Decentralization is in fact less efficient.

Decentralization makes attacks on the network much harder to achieve ..  yes sections can be attacked and controlled the rest of the network stays up and or forks.  and bitcoin carries on.   and your value remains outside control of a small group of humans.  corrupted or not.

With a lot of mind power, and painstaking work, the process has to be determined, resulting in a solution to the problem.
Bit coin should fulfill critical demand, not demand fat pow. When creating a block chain or creating a pos you need to show money to get any activity or eam, originally pos businesses thought 360.

That is why they are seeking Government approval 1st.

I suggest you look up
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_majeure

There are three important keys I learnt from Certik, they are Decentralization, Speed and Security. Bitcoin has Decentralization and Security but lacks speed which has been the number priority of Satoshi with proof of work and so far, there has never been any of that too that has been comprised, we have only been battling with speed which developers have been trying to improve but in all honesty, bitcoin cannot have the speeds compare to proof of stake because it will break the decentralization and security.

In all of that three, one must be given up, that is why you see most proof of stake has speed but they are prone to hacking and too centralized by a few groups of people, bitcoin cannot be proof of stake if they want to retain its security and decentralization.

Theoretically bitcoin can move to POS, but the most important point that makes bitcoin go with POW is that it is more decentralized, more secure and stable network, it is difficult to get the hashrate needed to hack the bitcoin network because it costs a lot of money which makes the attack worthless, while it can be obtained On the quota required in the POS or the agreement of a group of validators to do network penetration, the only drawback of POW is the increased power consumption and this problem can be solved in the future by alternative energy or making chip miners that do not consume much power.

You are forgetting that most miners have long-term contract agreements with the utilities and they can't just shut off the power like that without breaching the contract and open them up to lawsuits from the miner.

The Justice Department does not drink anti-PoW Kool-Aid.

Don't worry about the coming PoW ban,
Worry about the utilities just cutting off power to the miners.  
A reasonable person might recognize the security implications of wasting so much energy.
Luckily their are no reasonable people supporting bitcoin.  

https://cointelegraph.com/news/quebec-s-energy-manager-to-seek-government-approval-to-stop-powering-crypto-miners


Canada Winters are only 6 months, that mining will be cut in Canada.
So much for those ASICS earning back their purchase cost.
Better get on the phone to see if their are enough stupid Venture Capitalist left to float those PoW operation until spring.  

 

Yes, It is important for a project not to be built on someone's reputation or invest in it based on a human current reputation because humans will always be human but unfortunately this is what some crypto enthusiasts care about most of the time and this is the reason why a project that has a team of influence in crypto space easily get the attention of the general public.
I am never a fan of BNB and I am even one of the people that said there was not much use case for the coin some years ago before Vitalik messed up with ETH which is what paves way for BNB, SOL, etc.

It actually can, many people are against it so they are saying it can't, but it actually can move there. How would that work? Well, first of all we have way too much transactions in bitcoin, more than anything else, only rivalled by ETH on a good day, which means we need to figure out a way where POS would make sure that all of those transactions are covered in a timely manner, secondly we need to make sure security is tight, the whole point of miners are to make it double check and make sure it’s all good and there is no double spending or any other risky things going on, and lastly we need to make sure that everyone agrees to move to this new one, just like how we moved from legacy to segwit, that would be the key here.

A POS Bitcoin would not be Bitcoin. It would be a POS version of the real Bitcoin. Throughout all these years POW Bitcoin has proven time and time again to be completely decentralized and fair. A POS version would become exactly the opposite. Right now the POS Ethereum has shown everyone how quickly this change will happen. ETH was basically centralized by a few addresses within the first few days of it switching to POS. I do not know the short term or long term real world consequences of this but I do not want to experiment on Bitcoin. Lets see what happens to Eth.

And what happens if the reputation of CZ goes down like (and I'm not asserting similarity to) Donald Trump?

Then the entire Binance Smart Chain would go down with him. That's why it is important NOT to tie a brand to any particular person.

I understand your point and this is the reason why I said for Bitcoin to maintain its credibility we won't change from POW to POS due to the possible abuse of power by the protector or elite groups.
Having said that, every aspect of cryptocurrency has its own Cons and Pros but in the end, it all depends on how each investor chooses their Cons and Pros. Despite the BNB network being a POS, a lot of crypto investors still choose it above other dApps due to the reputation of CZ.

That is the dumbest idea I have ever heard (from him).

Bitcoin that wraps what? Cardano?

I mean, that would give ADA an actual use case and maybe Cardano bosses would sleep bettter at night knowing that they are not going to run out of investors in the long run.

Proof of Stakes is a centralized system, giving more to the rich and power, POS can seize your money while staking with a validator by just a single proposal and they tell you it's the people's will "democracy". POW is a decentralized structure and am happy bitcoin won't be switching to POS.

Not stupid enough to do it, fits it better.

Make the first step.

P2P, decentralization, censorship resistance, soundest money in circulation, europe & us aren’t the center of the world & Europe is more than just the EU & The EU is not a homogeneous place, where everything gets followed everywhere & Europeans and Americans that understand Bitcoin won’t bitch down to governments. Maybe go out in the world and meet people instead of crying in your room about fear of your grid collapsing and the world going under, because the only actually decentralized global sound money out there that can use power sources that are inaccessible for most other applications¹ uses as much electricity as fridges in the US².

¹ https://hbr.org/2021/05/how-much-energy-does-bitcoin-actually-consume Read this article and get your hormones together.
² https://ccaf.io/cbeci/index/comparisons

Translation: you’ve admitted that you’re a fud spreading troll that can’t even participate in discussion, because after every single argument of you has been debunked for months, you don’t have any left.

@franky1

You did get the part where, I said the btc dev community was incapable of conversion from PoW to PoS.
right?

Why don't you end all of this PoS topics questions.
Because they are all happening, because people are worried about the coming US & Europe PoW bans.

So just explain to everyone why PoW will be able to survive the US & Europe ban and how they will still be able to trade PoW coins, even if the PoW bans include banning trading PoW coins on exchanges, and the price not collapse.
I won't even comment after your post, to leave that explanation post unsullied.  

I'll consider it a fairly tale to help me sleep, but the rest might believe you.

Leg-End
i know you are a ether fan girl
we get it. no need to self promote all the time

the thing is although ether allows many pennny pinchers to tokenise an eth. and convert that eth to genesis a new network where they can then sell pennies for obsscene prices

but you are ignoring the security of the underlying networks you adore. you only want to make bitcoin a network where you can lazily invest nothing but get passive income for free..

you forget that that energy is not wasted.
when energy is produced. it doesnt live for ever. once its done a lap around the grid it does not return to base to be put back into a box. once produced its used

energy companies want customers. they want people buying their energy. they even have to upgrade their production to cater to the future meaning the more customers they can get now the faster they can upgrade

when building a new 2GW power plant. they are not building to demand of today. they are planning ahead to build for the demand of 50+ years time
meaning the current demand today is 1GW to be ready to also cater to the the community of 2070 2GW estimate

but with population demand today of 1GW they are not fully utilising their capacity and only getting 50% of potential income now. thus they end up double charging customers.

where as if they can sell 0.2gw to bitcoin asic farms they can get more income and not have to charge the other 1GW as much

bitcoiners can buy up long term contracts to assure power companies of long term income and give then alot of money to start expanding more sooner rather than waiting decades for population growth to finally 'buy in' to the capacity

..
as for ethereums transition to PoS
what you are not realising is springs $1500 market price was backed by $700 of underlying mining costs that helped support its 'non zero' bottom market price from going to double digit prices

but now that underlying cost is less than $40 meaning that ethereum market price is more speculative bubble amount which can shrink down to double digit amounts

..
as for the security of bitcoin vs ethereum
when so much stake is stacked in coinbase.. if coinbase wanted to change some policy/rule.. thousands of users staked in coinbase will NOT vote against coinbase no matter the maliciousness of the new policy. because voting against coinbase does not hurt coinbase. it hurts the users who lose their stake. thus coinbase has a no-risk ability to change rules but users have a 100% risk of coinbase changing rules if rejected. and so coinbase ends up having more power to change the rules without resistance

bitcoin however. the mining investment vs code policy change does not harm users. users can just reject blocks . miners can easily pool jump in seconds without risk of that value but effectively protecting the network

bitcoins security model is better for all.. PoS is not

I suggest you look at the following
Ethereum
Cardano

Both easily out-scale the pathetic proof of waste network btc uses.