Remarkable-Hall-9478 t1_iz9fbca wrote
Bitcoin is not going to go PoS and anyone that actually thinks it will - or even can - doesn’t understand the most basic elements of bitcoin or crypto in general
igby1 t1_iz9kxu3 wrote
ELI5 why Bitcoin will never go proof of stake?
feelings_arent_facts t1_iza6h1p wrote
The core culture and supporters of Bitcoin are hardline POW believers. It's like saying why won't America try communism.
Njaa t1_izba0mb wrote
Sure, but that's an aspect of their culture, not their tech.
When people say "the basic elements of bitcoin or crypto in general", I would expect that to cover technical aspects, not just what the hivemind is currently thinking.
feelings_arent_facts t1_ize8jrl wrote
Well that's why they won't switch. You can build any system you want. You need consensus of the users in a decentralized system.
Njaa t1_izebmp9 wrote
Yes, we agree on this point - but that's a different claim than what the original commenter was making:
>Bitcoin is not going to go PoS and anyone that actually thinks it will - or even can - doesn’t understand the most basic elements of bitcoin or crypto in general
shadowrun456 t1_izdzfqt wrote
ELI5 style explanation why Proof of Stake is inherently inferior to Proof of Work:
In a Proof of Work based system, it's impossible to permanently take 50%+ control of the network, as it's impossible to prevent new miners from joining the network, even if you have 50%+ of current mining power. In a Proof of Stake based system, it's inevitable that someone will permanently take 50%+ control of the network, as when someone buys up 50%+ of all existing coins, their stake will only get bigger and bigger, and it's impossible for anyone to ever overtake them.
As specifically regarding Bitcoin vs Ethereum:
Based partly on smart decisions and partly on luck, it came to be that there's no "leader" in the Bitcoin community. Satoshi Nakamoto left the project over 10 years ago. Satoshi's "successor" was Gavin Andresen, who, a few years later, managed to completely discredit himself in the eyes of the community and haven't been involved with Bitcoin since 2016.
Ethereum has a very clear leader - Vitalik Buterin. While Vitalik obviously doesn't have any direct control over Ethereum, his word is followed by the Ethereum's community as gospel. That would be bad enough in itself, even if Vitalik Buterin wasn't a Russian guy close to Vladimir Putin, which he is: https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2017/06/05/vladimir-putin-and-vitalik-buterin-discuss-ethereum-opportunities/
Njaa t1_izebbhq wrote
These are all arguments for why you think it's a bad idea, not arguments for why it couldn't be done.
Also, considering how critical Vitalik has been towards Russia's imperialism - to the point where he openly laments not being able to return to the country until after a regime change - I question the sincerity of your attempt to paint him as some sort of agent for Putin.
Niarbeht t1_izb7sr2 wrote
We’ll, syndicalism via the IWW was once fairly popular in America, and a lot of those values got passed down in families, so it’s not impossible, it’s just really difficult.
nameless_pattern t1_iz9ruff wrote
Pos requires more complex features, mainly computation. Bitcoin doesn't do this, this simplicity could make it more secure depending on who you ask.
Edit: how "decentralized" and secure each blockchain is actively debated and is in the realm of semantics, philosophy, computer science and organisational theory.
Anyone who speaks of a clear and simple answer based on only a few metrics is probably very biased and/or ignorant.
If they could prove what they said they would be insanely rich, and not spending time debating on the internet.
eth and btc have different abilities, stated goals, and management structures.
ItsAConspiracy t1_iz9z4wr wrote
There are tradeoffs. On the one hand, PoS is more complicated. On the other, PoS gives you the option of applying penalties instead of just rewards. It's like you can respond to a large attacking miner by burning down their mining rig. This happens in Ethereum's PoS automatically in response to certain specific attacks.
ResoluteClover t1_iza5l2j wrote
Doesn't POS enable those with more to control the whole thing?
ItsAConspiracy t1_iza8ju5 wrote
No more than big miners control Bitcoin.
lxer t1_izd1gka wrote
False, miners do not control bitcoin. That is the whole point. Ofc you are playing a semantic trick by saying Big miners, but what you really mean is a 51% attack, which requires in practise an even larger percentage to maintain the longest chain (about 70% hashpower), so that is not going to happen.
ResoluteClover t1_iza8r2c wrote
Just very directly.
ItsAConspiracy t1_iza99c7 wrote
Ethereum's stakers play exactly the role that Bitcoin's miners play. They have no special governance rights or abilities. Some other blockchains do give stakers special governance rights but Ethereum does not.
BassmanBiff t1_izaz2hn wrote
Most of cryptocurrency is this way: responding to the problems of modern financial systems by streamlining them and labeling it a feature.
ResoluteClover t1_izaz9fo wrote
Stream lining the problems? Completely agree. Also: Lie about it and then claim you just don't understand when you're called out.
shadowrun456 t1_izdz98f wrote
ELI5 style explanation why Proof of Stake is inherently inferior to Proof of Work:
In a Proof of Work based system, it's impossible to permanently take 50%+ control of the network, as it's impossible to prevent new miners from joining the network, even if you have 50%+ of current mining power. In a Proof of Stake based system, it's inevitable that someone will permanently take 50%+ control of the network, as when someone buys up 50%+ of all existing coins, their stake will only get bigger and bigger, and it's impossible for anyone to ever overtake them.
As specifically regarding Bitcoin vs Ethereum:
Based partly on smart decisions and partly on luck, it came to be that there's no "leader" in the Bitcoin community. Satoshi Nakamoto left the project over 10 years ago. Satoshi's "successor" was Gavin Andresen, who, a few years later, managed to completely discredit himself in the eyes of the community and haven't been involved with Bitcoin since 2016.
Ethereum has a very clear leader - Vitalik Buterin. While Vitalik obviously doesn't have any direct control over Ethereum, his word is followed by the Ethereum's community as gospel. That would be bad enough in itself, even if Vitalik Buterin wasn't a Russian guy close to Vladimir Putin, which he is: https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2017/06/05/vladimir-putin-and-vitalik-buterin-discuss-ethereum-opportunities/
[deleted] t1_izes6rd wrote
[removed]
0mniiii t1_izd6dgj wrote
PoS is quite literally the already current broken, mal-incentivized monetary system we currently find ourselves in via fiat. It’s the digital panopticon version of the cantillionaire-fueled nightmare situation we should be desperately trying to move away from. All wrapped up in the word “Blockchain”, at an attempt to ride on the coat tails of the issues Bitcoin already solved - because - of the consensus mechanism specifically being Proof of Work.
Also noticed there’s almost zero talk in this thread of how laughably compromised Ethereum has become post merge to 2.0 - nearly every block is now OFAC compliant, leading itself further down a road of total censorship.
Bitcoin will - 100% - never change its consensus mechanism. It is what makes it a currency backed by physical energy, and what makes the incentives of the entire system work. It bridges the literal physical world into digital space, and back again - which means it can also incentivize the bolstering of our grids as well as also incentivizing massive, MASSIVE amounts of funding flowing into renewable energy. Ethereum does none of these things.
Which adds to the absurd irony of the energy consumption numbers being thrown about this thread - Bitcoin will be carbon negative within 5 years, actually reducing the worlds carbon and Methane output via the conversion of literal atmospheric poison (methane), and carbon, into energy, that then is converted into an open source value protocol for the human race.
Ethereum, on the contrary, only consumes energy. It incentivizes nothing, and solves nothing. It has zero idea of what it actually is - at first it was “faster”, which is now a dead narrative. Then it would “tokenize everything!”, another dead narrative once people realized that a blockchain and its ledger is awful at nearly everything compared to a more centralized database, unless it’s a ledger for money (something Bitcoin has solved and no other centralized, unsecured clone will surpass due to network effects). This recent cycle, it’s play was “DeFi!”, which was legitimately just taking the ICO s-show from 2017 and enabling the ability to cross collateralize every worthless token pumped out into ETH’s ecosystem with one another, all with the hope that with the “magic of blockchain!”…it would return a huge yield.
No one, of course, asked where the yield comes from.
The yield was you. Ask Do Kwon, or Kyle Davies, Zac Prince, or SBF.
And in Ethereum - you’ve always been the yield, and you always will be. It’s recreating power structures with bad incentives and unsound, irresponsible motivations. It using Proof of Work was the only aspect of the entire protocol that incentivized good behavior. That is now gone.
This is an extremely un-researched, cliche, “to the moon bros!” thread, and to be honest, I cannot believe it was actually posted to the internet in the year 2022.
There are near infinite resources to self-educate, now. There is really no excuse, OP.
christwists t1_izdn2m8 wrote
Can you explain more on how Bitcoin is going carbon-negative?
0mniiii t1_izf4e76 wrote
Surface level: Mining operations are the energy consumer of last resort. To remain solvent and profitable during the vast majority of it's operation (see: not during hyper-parabolic moves upward), they need to consume energy using the cheapest solutions possible, to keep costs down. This includes:
- Utilizing stranded Methane as energy
- Utilizing stranded oil and gas as energy
As is well documented, both of the above are terrible for the atmosphere, and rapidly accelerate the compounding negative affects on our planet's climate stability. In this way, Bitcoin acts as a Methane and Carbon capture mechanism - it quite literally prevents these gases from entering our atmosphere.
If that wasn't valuable enough, as is, it also then takes that captured Methane (or Carbon), and turns it into an open source value transfer protocol for humanity to access.
Combine all of this, with the previously stated fact that mining operations - MUST - operate at the cheapest margins possible to remain in business during any other period of time aside from hyper-parabolic, upward moves in price (where simply having a machine plugged in "prints" money), the are required to seek out solutions that provide the cheapest energy possible. This means that not only are they incentivized (and during sideways price chop or down moves - REQUIRED) to seek out methane and carbon capturing operations, but also to implement large scale renewable operating mechanisms, such as Solar, Wind, Hydro Electric, Ocean/Wave energy, etc.
This keeps margins low over time and allows the operation costs to utilize "free" energy. It also incentivizes Bitcoin mining operations to invest heavily into renewable energy solutions - making renewables profitable on a large scale for the first time in human existence, while also furthering the development and expanse of energy solutions we so desperately need.
Here are other resources I highly recommend, as it comes to Bitcoin becoming carbon negative, and utilizing renewable energy at large scale:
Bitcoin projected to become first monetary to hit net-zero emissions by 2024 - https://finbold.com/bitcoin-projected-to-become-first-monetary-system-to-hit-net-zero-emissions-by-2024/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20study%2C%20the,newly%20announced%20carbon%2Dnegative%20projects.
​
A conversation with environmental scientist Nate Harmon, on utilizing our oceans as giant solar panels to produce value via Bitcoin's network - https://www.whatbitcoindid.com/podcast/bitcoin-unleashing-an-ocean-of-energy
A conversation with Troy Cross, on Bitcoin's positive environmental significance for humanity - https://www.whatbitcoindid.com/podcast/fighting-the-bitcoin-mining-fud
ESG Analyst Daniel Batten on twitter, with impressive data (I recommend anyone interested in the environment follow him) - https://twitter.com/DSBatten/status/1600643653466492929
​
Good luck in your research.
SirSteelBuns t1_izds2pa wrote
Thank you so much for posting this. What a joke this thread is. I hope all the Eth crypto bros here lost their life savings. I only ever mined Eth to swap out to Btc, the writing was on the wall from the get-go. I am so glad people are realising how worthless the entire Eth ecosystem is.
boife1 t1_izbj9v9 wrote
Bitcoin is limited supply if it goes POS then someone or a group can buy 51% and control every aspect of it. With pow anyone can setup miners so it cannot be monopolized the same way. BTC should never and will never go proof of stake.
mr_doppertunity t1_izbrpkl wrote
Given how much effort and energy does it take to mine Bitcoin nowadays, mining is pretty much centralized. No, not “anyone” can setup Bitcoin miners.
boife1 t1_izddgng wrote
Enough people can setup individual miners with the same objective or setup a DAO to mine. But still once you got 51% of ether it’s game over not the case with btc pow.
mr_doppertunity t1_izejw0d wrote
If a single person setups a CPU miner, they have a negligible chance to mine a block. A single GPU slightly increases the chance. An ASIC - even more. But anyway the chance is so small you won’t even cover electricity bill. Because the complexity of “work” that needs to be done is insane.
So you’re proposing for individuals to organize a pool, I wonder why no one did that to try to compete with people that occupy abandoned mines with ASICs.
ItsAConspiracy t1_izc8oz2 wrote
And if a big bitcoin miner manages a 51% attack, they can just keep doing doublespends until someone else manages to set up more mining machines. If a 51% Ethereum staker does a doublespend, they immediately lose all their stake.
Anposter t1_izbrs5m wrote
So you just ignore that the same problem was always in BTC widely known as 51% Attack.
Koshakas t1_izd2wyy wrote
Because then it will fork to another coin. POW version will not dissapear and will still be used
[deleted] t1_izd3laz wrote
[removed]
shadowrun456 t1_izdz3bp wrote
ELI5 style explanation why Proof of Stake is inherently inferior to Proof of Work:
In a Proof of Work based system, it's impossible to permanently take 50%+ control of the network, as it's impossible to prevent new miners from joining the network, even if you have 50%+ of current mining power. In a Proof of Stake based system, it's inevitable that someone will permanently take 50%+ control of the network, as when someone buys up 50%+ of all existing coins, their stake will only get bigger and bigger, and it's impossible for anyone to ever overtake them.
As specifically regarding Bitcoin vs Ethereum:
Based partly on smart decisions and partly on luck, it came to be that there's no "leader" in the Bitcoin community. Satoshi Nakamoto left the project over 10 years ago. Satoshi's "successor" was Gavin Andresen, who, a few years later, managed to completely discredit himself in the eyes of the community and haven't been involved with Bitcoin since 2016.
Ethereum has a very clear leader - Vitalik Buterin. While Vitalik obviously doesn't have any direct control over Ethereum, his word is followed by the Ethereum's community as gospel. That would be bad enough in itself, even if Vitalik Buterin wasn't a Russian guy close to Vladimir Putin, which he is: https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2017/06/05/vladimir-putin-and-vitalik-buterin-discuss-ethereum-opportunities/
Godielvs t1_iz9n9c9 wrote
The reason Bitcoin is special is because nobody knows the creator for certain, and nobody knows if he's alive too. So nobody can work on the network, unlike Ethereum, which has a lot of developers and Vitalik Buterin behind it.
ItsAConspiracy t1_iz9ogoo wrote
Contrary to popular belief, Bitcoin actually does have developers who work on upgrades. Taproot for example was a recent Bitcoin upgrade.
Godielvs t1_iz9olgp wrote
You guys are right. My bad.
M_u_l_t_i_p_a_s_s t1_izan9uh wrote
Glad to see people on Reddit willing to admit being incorrect and it being no biggie because *checks notes* oh yea we’re human
TheOnlyOrko t1_iz9nnsb wrote
Lul, thats bullshit. BC as decentralised Network can be updated/forked when mayorities want to. The key is widespread adaptation.
thisischemistry t1_iz9oqsd wrote
You know what saves even more? No crypto.
ItsAConspiracy t1_iz9oyas wrote
No reddit would save a lot more than Ethereum's remaining energy usage, but here you are.
TomSwirly t1_izalm7n wrote
> No reddit would save a lot more than Ethereum's remaining energy usage,
It would be nice to occasionally get a citation for some of these claims made by cryptopeople...
ItsAConspiracy t1_izaox6h wrote
For Ethereum's energy usage, there's a peer-reviewed [paper](https://www.cell.com/patterns/fulltext/S2666-3899(22)00265-3) linked right from the article OP posted. It puts Ethereum's worst-case power demand at 675 kW, and best-case only 36 kW.
I haven't been able to track down how much Reddit's datacenter uses, but I'm guessing it's more than that. Reddit is one of the world's largest sites, and some large datacenters use more than 100 MW.
thisischemistry t1_iz9p4vj wrote
I agree, let’s stop entirely.
Practical-Mix-4332 t1_iz9wcwu wrote
u/thisischemistry’s last post ever
contact t1_iz9xr25 wrote
Not holding my breath, but one can wish.
kidicarus89 t1_iz9zda0 wrote
I’d get so much more done!
sushisection t1_izc6lcg wrote
thats cool and all, until the economy collapses and you try to pull money out of the bank and the bank says "sorry, no more access to your money".
its a very entitled and privileged perspective to think that nobody should have access to a decentralized, global currency to store some of their wealth in case their country's economy takes a downturn. or in case their nation's leader starts a war and the world sanctions the central bank, locking millions of people out of their money like what happened to russia.
thisischemistry t1_izc858v wrote
You do realize that you don't need crypto for that purpose, right? In fact, crypto is a very bad asset to hold in that manner because its value is so unstable. You're much better off holding on to some durable goods that have value even when society collapses rather than a few bits of data which can collapse right along with society.
prodoosh t1_izd4y4j wrote
But I don’t get interest or the ability to take a loan against the gold in my house.
thisischemistry t1_izd5rdt wrote
You get those with crypto?
[deleted] t1_izeuij0 wrote
[removed]
prodoosh t1_izd4v6l wrote
Not actually true. A crypto based financial system run properly would use less energy than our current centralized financial system.
IsThereAnythingLeft- t1_izaw3vl wrote
Yes because it’s too old and slow to change, that’s why mining should just be banned
ItsAConspiracy t1_iz9lic1 wrote
Bitcoiners won't do it but they absolutely could, just like Ethereum did.
Njaa t1_izbaenu wrote
The downvotes confuse me. How is this not an accurate statement?
SirSteelBuns t1_izdsae0 wrote
Btc cannot physically ever "change" over to proof of stake. Please go read the Btc white paper. smh
Njaa t1_izdsk20 wrote
I'm actually very familiar with the document titled "a peer-to-peer electronic cash system". It doesn't contain any reason why this would be impossible.
Ethereum just made the change from PoW to PoS. Why would it be harder for Bitcoin?
SirSteelBuns t1_izdt0hn wrote
There is no active development, the person claiming to have come up with Bitcoin long gone. All we have are decentralised nodes, that anyone can spin up on a hard drive at home, and miners running the blockchain and completing transactions. You buy/trade Btc, it is processed by miners on the blockchain. As of now, it is essentially a driverless train, with tracks that will only end if every miner stopped mining. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but this is my understanding of Btc currently.
Njaa t1_izdtglb wrote
>There is no active development
The client is still being updated regularly, and the most recent consensus change happened way after Satoshi left the project. The latest hardfork was in 2017, and the latest intentional compatibility breaking consensus change was in 2013.
It's true that there hasn't been significant changes in the past years, but this is a matter of lacking motivation from the community. It would still be entirely possible if they wanted to do it, which is what the poster above said in the first place.
SirSteelBuns t1_izdtsnd wrote
I wouldn't say a fork in 2017 is active development. Why would anyone with any stake in Bitcoin be interested in proof of work? It is as much of a joke as the original post.
Njaa t1_izdtwxk wrote
>Bitcoiners won't do it but they absolutely could, just like Ethereum did.
This was the original claim that you reacted to. We all agree that Bitcoiners won't do it.
It seems that we now agree that they could do it.
Your last question is why they would do it.
These are all vastly different topics, but if you wanna talk about the merits of PoS, we can change the topic.
[deleted] t1_iz9nb66 wrote
[deleted]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments