Topic: Why BTC POW is technically moving towards an dead end - page 2. (Read 513 times)

Shrug, it's been said 10,000 times before 10,000 different ways. But we all have to keep saying it.
I am starting to think the only people who are really pushing POS are people who either don't want to deal with mining or really just want to pump their shitcoin / token for some reason.
POW is not going anywhere and the hash rate keeps going up as more and more miners come online.
The big people get the newer better more efficient ones and we keep buying the other stuff and it just keeps growing.

-Dave

The difference I was trying (and failed miserably at it) to point out is that unlike POS in order to get more votes you don't have to make the other guys rich by doing so nor do you have to force them to give you a share of it in a redistribution of wealth.
They will keep accumulating wealth (coins) while you're going to keep losing as you will never afford to put aside as much money as they do.

In POS you miraculously have to come up with those 100 billion votes, in POW a huge mining farm can be brought down by poeple hobby mining, each losing 1$ a day on electricity but making the guys behind Foundry bankrupt, in POS you can't do that.
And, now I wonder why I haven't said this in the first place.

You mean a relation?

This is an invalid argument. It's true, but so is in PoW too. It's obvious that those with more money can have greater share. This is not why PoS brings centralisation; it's because those who want to secure the network need those who are securing the network. In PoW, anyone's free to setup their hardware and start securing, but in PoS, it's down to those entities' judgment if new people can enter.

It's not a technical limit it's a physical limit.
Then there is the investment cost per amount of work done, this while decreasing during the previous years can't go to zero.
You can't have a 100 times faster computer that costs 100 times less, not in this life.


Indeed it has.
The price of coins dictates the daily reward for miners, if the price goes down so does the reward, at one point miners will turn unprofitable and switch off. It's not the case now, even as we speak with this decline in prices you're still making profits with lower than 8c/kwh electricity, for an s19 is around and nobody mines with those prices.
Besides, there is a lot of gear on order that will be plugged in so things will evolve in different directions for a while because of a delay, but in the end, it will still keep the balance, even if the price would go to 300 million tomorrow there is simply no gear available to put in to match that rise, it will take years for it to be manufactured.


POS comes with centralization.
The ones that have enough coins to stake will get more coins, the ones that afford to leave tons of money on stake without touching them are the ones who will get more coins to get more % in staking share. Simple as that!

Imagine voting based on the value of your assets, where Musk has 100 billion votes and 30 millions have zero since they only have debts.

I'm sorry, but I don't make any sense.

The guy in your blog says its not invented. It IS invented already 
So why BTC does not copy paste to make a start 

What's the point? What will I prove if I accumulate the 250 million dollars equivalent of ADA? Have you read the 7th paragraph of the article? You have to either sacrifice decentralization or consensus if it's a proof of stake mechanism. Since the former is not meant to, it's the latter.

We're talking about Bitcoin.

So the "nothing to stake problem" and others are so often mentioned that it makes POS unsecure.  If POS so easy go hack ADA and get  at least 1% of the 25 Billion USD.

And some more interesting part in your article: he favorites a combination of POW and POS/Proof of Service. So what exactly is DASH, even when many say the current value of it its not good 

And same things were said prior the third halving; that in 2020, the difficulty would have risen so much, that the energy consumption would exceed an entire nation. Also, for such variations in consumption, the price must skyrocket every four years in an economically infeasible manner.

Not only does it brings centralisation, but it can't even reach consensus.

1) So at first we talk of long term. I dont say its a problem tommorow to have the energy that is demanded by the rising energy consumtion

2) When miners opt out and difficulity decreases, the network gets lower safety. Its a solve for the moment but dont solve the problem long term

3)accourding to sources: I can only look what has happend the last years and as always the Bitcoin maxis say: "Everything will continue the same as before .." like S2F and so on

The matter of pollution has been discussed many times, and there's enough info online (including fact-checking services) that show it's not a real ecological threat, and, on top of it, it's all a matter of sources of electricity, which need to become cleaner, rather than of consumption. Now, regarding the dead end, I don't understand the argument. You mean it's a problem because energy consumption is rising? It's still far from the levels that pose a problem of the lack of electricity, not to mention that miners can choose to opt out, difficulty would decrease and so would consumption. Not to mention that your calculations don't match those of franky1, so providing sources with estimates would be nice.

sorry off topic :-)

I dont believe POS makes more centralisation. You can run it with Pools same POW and when you get 4% ROI a year, the rich get not as far richer then with investing in estates.

You think there will be a technically limit how fast to solve the SHA 256 function. Dont believe so.

What I have learned in my years here in Crypto: As beginner I thought Hashrate and price has a function. But it has not because people speculate (see point 3)

Yesterday it was 202 exa so 30% more then you stated.

Even if thats true it does only prolong the problem and doesnt solve it

Thats exactly what I told about new maschines lowering the network safety when the whole network keeps the same energy consumtion

to add to this.
gold uses 100% dirty fuel (diesel for excavators and sluice machines)

at a cost of $900 per ounce
mining 97003000 ounces a year
= $87,302,700,000 of dirty energy spend

lets go with a low average rate of non renewable energy spend on bitcoin mining of 50%(its between 10%-35% dirty, but lets highball it)
well it costs about $183,746.45 an hour in electric at $0.04/hwh
=$1,609,618,902
so thats $800m bitcoin dirty spend vs $87bill gold dirty spend

gold mining is 109x more dirty than even a conservative estimate of mining bitcoin.(more like 150x-500x)
but do you hear environmentalists complain about the fumes from diesel excavators as they rip up land and dig holes in the environment 109x louder than they shout about bitcoin?

That's wrong with your whole scenario.
There is a limit on the efficiency of those machines, just like with every other chip we have right now, it can't go and double efficiency every year, pretty soon it won't be happening even every 4 years, the S7 was using 28nm chips, the S19 7nm, there is a limit to how much you can get out of it.
Moore's law is dead and buried and has already been exorcised after turning in a ghost.


The energy consumption has grown because the reward has grown, miners shave more money as income they can afford to spend more as the cost to get a larger share of that. If the price will stay the same for a year, once the new gear that was ordered is finally delivered and the revenue per TH goes down the drain you will see no spike in consumption.
If the profitability of mining is in a lower one-digit number there will also be no more gear sales as the difference in efficiency will not be able to make the difference from the cost of a new gear ordered, thus lowering both the demand and incentive to develop new miners.

Revenue per TH/s is around 16 cents right now, just like 3 years ago when Bitmain was launching the S17, but the S17 was 2200$ with 56TH, the S19 is 10k for 104TH. Exponential growth can't happen!

POS is a shit way of running your blockchain and it moves against the most important factor of a legitimate cryptocurrency and that is decentralization.  So where's that leave us? With POW.  The energy consumption is way overblown.  I'm not saying it's not an issues, but it's overblown and much of it has been debunked.  Also, you provide a bunch of conjecture here, instead of concrete facts to show that POW is truly moving towards a dead end.  I will take the word of cypherpunks and they largely agree POW is the best solution right now.

REALLY?!

hmmm
lets just see about that

the actual hashrate for the year is 155exa(155477763.7thash) average
using the current gen asics of 110thash at 3.25kwh

is 1,413,434.215 asics
using 4,593,661.199KW per hour(4.6gw/h)
110gw/day = 40,296GW/y
so its actually 40TWH not 200

thus not even a 3x in the last 5 years

heck if the network was still using the 14thash asics of 2017 generation at 1.4kwh
is 11,105,554.55 asics
using 15,547,776.37KW per hour (15.5gw/h)
373gw/day=136,198GW/y
so even that is actually 136THW not 200

the 200 number is a far off fabrication by itself.
but as you can see ASIC efficiency has changed in 5 years to be 3x more efficient

Yes you are right Bitcoin will stay POW so you can estimate my opinion of Bitcoins Future in 10-15 years.