Topic: Why btc cannot move pow to pos - page 4. (Read 972 times)

This question comes, Do btc network can move to pow to pos?
I am just asking and there is a issue that electricitybill too. Enery problem

Bitcoin can easily move to PoS. This code is already has that implemented.
The problem is not technical. The problem is that moving to PoS is stupid. Moving to PoS will make bitcoin centralized, hence pretty much useless.
Maybe you should read a bit into https://bitcoincleanup.com/

I think bitcoin can move to POS just like ETH did. But POS is centralized, moving bitcoin to POS will be the end of bitcoin's decentralization and then bitcoin will be no different from existing assets, which will be controlled by the government. It is a bad idea and I believe that if this proposal is made, it will be strongly opposed by miners and the community. Until now, apart from the limited supply leading to the price increase, decentralization is the biggest beauty of bitcoin that no other asset class has.

This question comes, Do btc network can move to pow to pos?

I am just asking and there is a issue that electricitybill too. Enery problem

Bitcoin can easily move to PoS. This code is already has that implemented.

This question comes, Do btc network can move to pow to pos?
I am just asking and there is a issue that electricitybill too. Enery problem

The reason why reasonable people don't want it to switch to Proof-of-Stake is because they're reasonable. Proof-of-Stake, if you didn't know, comes with significant downsides.

Proof-of-Work

 1. Entrance of new voters can't be forbidden. All that's needed is energy and machines that are capable of calculating hashes. Therefore, a miner who once owned 1% of the hash rate, can't make sure he'll maintain his percentage forever.
 2. You can't try to cheat without being punished, because you're spending energy. For example, if a malicious miner, who owns 10% of the hash rate, tries to reverse a transaction 6 blocks deep, and fails, his real cost is equal with the income he could have had if he had chosen to mine bitcoin; he spent energy for nothing.
 3. It's very difficult to steal the units that contribute to the security of the network (e.g., ASICs, GPUs etc.)

Proof-of-Stake

 1. Entrance of new voters is down to the stakers' permission. A staker who owns 1% of the total coins in circulation (presuming the total supply is fixed) can retain the same voting power overtime, if he just chooses to hold them.
 2. You can cheat without being punished. That's known as Nothing-at-stake problem[1].
 3. It's much easier, compared to Proof-of-Work, to steal the units that contribute to the security of the network. For instance, say an attacker hacked an exchange. He'd instantly gain a lot of voting power.

One more core difference is that Proof-of-Stake doesn't give a solution to the Byzantine Generals' problem[2]. That's why it suffers from producing consensus, and that's why it's commonly referred to as "subjective mechanism"[3]; not objective as Proof-of-Work.


  [1]: https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/2402/what-exactly-is-the-nothing-at-stake-problem
  [2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20090309175840/http://www.bitcoin.org/byzantine.html
  [3]: https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/11/25/proof-stake-learned-love-weak-subjectivity