The PoW in Bitcoin has two basic purposes - to secure the chain and to issue BTC. Admittedly, PoW is not the most efficient way to secure a chain, since it requires a lot of electricity and the transactions are dependent on the miners, but any other method would skew the other half of the equation, the issuing of new BTC. All sorts of distribution methods have been tried, but in the end, if it's not PoW-based, it has no base value.
PoS on the other hand is very efficient for securing a chain, but it only rewards the people who already hold coins with more coins. As such, it's more efficient for security, as it is predictable and not reliant on burning a whole lot of energy, but the issuance of new currency only favors holders.
With second layer currencies, we could take a PoS base layer blockchain and build a PoW currency on top of it. This way the second layer currency's security and transactions would be handled by a PoS system, but the issuance of the second layer currency would be controlled by PoW mining. The mining would only count towards the issuance of new currency and the coin could always be securely sent on the PoS base layer, even if no one is mining it. Once the total supply has been distributed, no further mining is necessary and it lives forever on the base network.
Such a currency would combine the security, stability and resourcefulness of PoS and combine it with the uncheatable distribution of PoW mining. What do you think, Jow Forums, could such a system work?
You need a stable system for any rewards to guarantee a return on fiat investment over the long term. PoS is irrelevant because it can only guarantee ROI on token value, while token value will always have a greater volatility than rewards. Just as PoW, PoS also has no base value. But considering only speculative value went in, rather than hardware (which carries more psychological incentives and weight), PoS should theoretically even be less valuable. The only way where PoS is relevant is when you can guarantee beyond certainty that the value in USD will keep rising to make sure long term rewards in fiat keep coming. Possible to some degree but not by PoS neither PoW.
Daniel Murphy
NO, Proof of Work as a means of 'fair distribution' is retarded. There is nothing fair about PoW distribution especially when it doesnt even secure the network.
Actually wait, now Im thinking it might be kind of fair if you limited it to residential IPs and gave everyone the same amount regardless of their hashrate.
There has to be a better way to fairly distribute coins.
Ryan Flores
PoS is not as decentralized as (anti-ASIC) PoW. The consensus mechanism favors the rich, so it creates a sort of oligarchy in which whales control the chain. Just look a steemit, that place is a shithole because the whales just upvote eachother. dPoS is even worse because there are like 21 validators - literally an oligarchy. That's not decentralized.
Jayden Wilson
We know you're gonna shill 0xbtc faggot, do it and get it over with
Caleb James
The value of the PoS baselayer would be irrelevant, it would only serve as security to the PoW-issued currency that is built on top of it. If you think neither PoW nor PoS is viable, then what would you suggest?
There is unfortunately no better distribution system afaik. All other methods involve one person starting out with the total supply of the currency and then distributing it. He might distribute it fairly, but on the blockchain we have no way of verifying that and just have to trust him, which kind of defeats the whole purpose.
How do they exercise this control? Even if one person would acquire 51% of the total coins, it is possible to make PoS systems resistant to up to 99% attacks. If any one entity controls that many tokens, then that blockchain is worthless either way. It obviously does favor the rich somewhat, but I would argue that for a security baselayer it does not matter quite as much if they are not able to exploit their role.
Vitalik's vision is years behind schedule. When casper is eventually implemented I will concede my argument, but until it's been on a testnet (at least) we can't verify that it actually works well.
>If any one entity controls that many tokens, then that blockchain is worthless either way But that's how it's set up - any one entity could own that many tokens by simply purchasing them. This is more difficult in PoW based systems because the amount of computing power one would have to purchase to perform an attack on a real chain defeats the purpose (well, at least, that's the idea). The difficulty to do so scales with the amount of people mining the chain rather than directly related to the price of the coin. Both systems have flaws, I suppose, but I just see an oligarchy much more likely to happen in a PoS system.
David Fisher
>All of these posts just to try to and shill 0xBTC without actually saying it How desperate are you faggots?
Joseph Morales
fucking lmao
Cooper Cooper
And 'by simply purchasing them' I mean purchasing them before the price becomes high and holding, i.e. being an early adopter. If you check Bitcoin, for example, 83% of all the coins are owned by 0.7% of all addresses. That's incredibly skewed, and if bitcoin decided to adopt PoS today it would be run entirely by whales (probably like 10 of them).
Nathan Morgan
If you don't care about privacy, then second-layer solutions for anything are okay, but second-layer solutions for privacy are a death sentence. If you aren't doing everything on-chain, you're just giving more opportunities for hackers to break your network.
POW is the only one that counts POS is a complete scam
Robert Brown
> then what would you suggest?
Not to base valuation of any system solely on technological advancements with no economical backing. I am not even sure if those both things can even work hand in hand. For valuation, a design needs to be in place targeting only valuation mechanics. Right now the only example here are stable-coins and decentralized derivative and lending contracts. Glue them all together utilizing a PoW or PoS chain and you could guarantee long term dollar ROI with eco-systems growth; in absence of speculation.
Elijah Green
This
Jackson Mitchell
Do you really think that enough coins will be put up for sale on the market that one entity would be able to purchase 99% or even 51% of the supply? One would suffer massive slippage trying to do this and it would not make sense to waste this much money on a small market cap project hoping that it gets big, since if one whale has the whole supply, it will never be used.
but would it matter that 0.7% of the owners hold 83% of the coins if 1) it would require 99% to attack the network and 2) they would not know who the others that belong to the 0.7% are. It would not be like EOS where the 21 BPs simply sit in a single chat and decide whatever they want.
What is the benefit of PoW besides the fact that the issuance of it can not be gamed since it requires the input of scarce resources? It is not more efficient than PoS for actually running the chain, since you would have to burn an ever-increasing amount of energy forever
Joshua Perez
>in abscence of speculation Building your theories on such assumptions pretty much dooms them to fail. I see no reason why the dollar-valued ROI would be negative if an asset gains widespread use in a global economy and actually provides a service of value. This, of course, assumes that blockchain tech ever does attain such a level, but if there ever was a use case for it, then smart contracts are probably it.
Leo James
>Do you really think that enough coins will be put up for sale on the market that one entity would be able to purchase 99% or even 51% of the supply? You underestimate whales. They accumulate for years, not all at once, and certainly not when the price gets high - by that time they have finished accumulating (like BTC and ETH).
>1) it would require 99% to attack the network I have trouble believing this to be true, so I suppose we can agree to disagree. If 99% of actors in a network are faulty or malicious, they should not be faulty or malicious. BFT consensus mechanisms like tendermint can get up to 80% fault tolerant but that's only in consortium/permissioned blockchains. It looks like he's saying that observers could help check blocks/validate the chain, but this opens up other problems like a sybil attack - besides, a double spend is not the only problem a chain can have. EOS validators can decide to freeze accounts at will, which is good if the accounts are performing illegal activities like scamming people, but what if they're just whistleblowers?
>2) they would not know who the others that belong to the 0.7% are That isn't difficult, all you have to do is sign a tx or message with the private key of your wallet to prove you're a whale. Whales find each other, that's how they're able to manipulate the BTC market price so dramatically.
Angel Peterson
>You underestimate whales. They accumulate for years, not all at once, and certainly not when the price gets high - by that time they have finished accumulating (like BTC and ETH). I understand that they would try to buy as low as possible, but the percentage of the total supply they would need to attack the network is simply insane. Even if the necessary amount makes it to the market, then the slippage they would suffer buying it all up would be massive.
>I have trouble believing this to be true, so I suppose we can agree to disagree. Sure, we can use the 80% marker instead. Even then, the amount of money you would have to pour in to attain such a level would be very high, assuming there even are enough people willing to sell their coins. And after spending such an amount of money to obtain the coins, why would they then proceed to attack the network which would render their massive investment totally worthless?
>Whales find each other, that's how they're able to manipulate the BTC market price so dramatically. I'm sure some whales find eachother, but the 0.7% of BTC holders we're talking about here are over 100k people. Can you imagine 100k people all coming together in a Discord and unanimously deciding on a course of action to attack the network which gives their investment any value in the first place? I see it to be far less likely possibility than a 51% attack happening against a PoW coin.
Henry Ross
> Building your theories on such assumptions pretty much dooms them to fail.
Let them fail, only that way we can build something sustaining for the long term. We have both MakerDAO and Augur as contracts which are leading us. I am sure with time someone will glue together something amazing.
> I see no reason why the dollar-valued ROI would be negative if an asset gains widespread use in a global economy and actually provides a service of value. This, of course, assumes that blockchain tech ever does attain such a level, but if there ever was a use case for it, then smart contracts are probably it.
For valuation to work through PoS you would have to assume that even those buying their amount to stake at the very top of the bubble, will break even at some point. The chance for that to happen every single time is somewhat slim. There will always be asymmetries and large disparities within a speculative market; and so there will also be losses from staking POS (USD loss may be greater than USD gain ++ POS rewards for a given cycle). The only way to not have losses, would be as a stable system within the network where valuation is actually defined. MakerDAO on Ethereum defines both ETH and DAI for example. You can go a lot further than that, just nobody has taken the time do so or is busy working out the details as we speak.
Anthony Ramirez
>we can make security cheaper without being less secure
tell us more about how money grows on trees, OP and your other schemes for getting something for nothing
Jayden Williams
It’s already here? 0xBTC uses PoW purely for issuance, not for chain security. It’s an ERC20 toke and relies on ETH for its security. With ETH going PoS soon this means your causing is already been made, I’ve been accumulating for four months now. All the shilling threads here drive me nuts, I want this gem to myself.
Logan Howard
Oh shit haha I’m actually retarder and only read OP, so apparently a cool new concept has to be shill? Fuck you Jow Forums you’re all so autistic and fucked, but I love you all
Liam Allen
I don't see why you assume that absolutely everyone, even the top buyers, have to profit from a PoS system. I do not believe something like that has been or ever will be built, someone's gain is someone else's loss.
>we can make security cheaper without being less secure >tell us more about how money grows on trees Sure, I'd be happy to. It's all rather simple once you get down to it. Let's take PoW and PoS and compare the methods and incentives of attacking each system.
With PoW, you need a whole lot of hardware and the electricity to power them for an attack. If you succeed, you will have wasted electricity for a possible monetary gain if you manage to realize those gains fast enough before someone thwarts your attempts. If you fail, you will still have wasted electricity, but will have nothing to show for it. In both cases, you get to keep your principal investment - the hardware.
With PoS, you need a whole lot of coins for an attack. If you succeed, the value of the coins that you have spent a bunch of money to amass will rapidly plummet due to the network being exposed as insecure. If you fail, you will lose all of the coins. And keep in mind, the amount of coins you would need to attack the network is very, very large, so you would be putting tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, with very little to gain.
As you see, the incentives, costs and rewards of a potential attack clearly show that PoS is a more secure system than PoW.
Andrew Collins
Wait does this board browser make me look like a new person each time I post or am I retarded?
Jason Johnson
Well I think the main issue here is that everyone on this board is autistic and just wants to make mad gainz. Discussing actual things that have technological relevancy to cryptocurrencies doesn’t happen here.
PoW vs. PoS is a stupid conversation, they are both good at different things. They both have downsides as well as upsides. That’s why when used in conjunction it means they create something amazing. People will ignore 0xBTC until they can’t, you can take my word on that.
>huurrrr duuurrr it copies BTC’s name >muh pajeet scam
Honestly fuck this board. All the smart people are already bought into 0xBTC and holding it with iron hands.
Colton Campbell
it shows the same ID for each post, so you can make your own conclusions
David Robinson
Now this is how all you motherfuckers should be shilling your projects. With coherent and well thought out posts. Well done user, I may look into this pajeet coin after all.
