Comments
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]
GoofAckYoorsElf t1_iz9uxsj wrote
Isn't proof of stake essentially the opposite of what crypto currency originally wanted to be, a democratic currency without central control? As far as I understand PoS, it means that the rich control the block chain, right? Those who own more currency have more control?
ItsAConspiracy t1_iz9y04c wrote
No more than with mining. Those giant datacenters aren't free.
Some of the older staking protocols are pretty centralized because they use a handful of full staking nodes, with everyone else delegating to those. Ethereum got lucky, there was a breakthrough in cryptography that allowed them to do things in a much more scalable way and support millions of full staking nodes. Currently there are over 400,000.
boife1 t1_izbj8k5 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.
KruppJ t1_iz9y4je wrote
No different from how in proof of work the people that own the most amount of mining power (aka the richest people that can buy the most mining rigs) control the chain the most.
GoofAckYoorsElf t1_izaadkz wrote
Touché. And without burning the planet. PoS wins.
printers_rock t1_izaatrc wrote
The current state of crypto in general is opposite of its goals. Because the natural tendency of any complex system is to centralize, and here we are. 4 Mining pools control ~70% of bitcoin hashrate. Proof of Stake just codifies this inevitability for Ethereum.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Crypto is fucking DUMB.
prodoosh t1_izd46v1 wrote
But why does that matter? People with stake/work don’t have any additional control of the network. It’s still just as decentralized.
99% could be in one pool and it would be no different in terms of centralization
phreakwhensees t1_izaohye wrote
Bitcoin mining pools are not as much of a centralization point as you think they are. First of all, if a pool publishes an invalid block, the non-mining nodes in the network reject the block and it does not get propagated to the rest of the network and the pool never gets the block or the payouts. At most, a nefarious pool could censor transactions or publish empty blocks since those are technically valid blocks. At this point, it is obvious they are acting nefariously and miners can easily switch to another pool or solo mine in a matter of minutes.
Lastly, upgrades to the mining protocols such as Stratum v2 make it so that pools don’t even have the ability to do transaction selection. The only ability they have is to take a proposed block from a miner, publish it, and distribute the rewards.
grinr t1_iz9xokk wrote
Proof-of-stake changes the way blocks are verified using the machines of coin owners, so there doesn't need to be as much computational work done. The owners offer their coins as collateral—staking—for the chance to validate blocks and then become validators.
Validators are selected randomly to confirm transactions and validate block information. This system randomizes who gets to collect fees rather than using a competitive rewards-based mechanism like proof-of-work.
imafraidofmuricans t1_iza3rtt wrote
You've misunderstood the purpose of crypto.
The purpose of crypto is to make more money.
Kinexity t1_izaaclc wrote
*to squeez money out of suckers. Crypto itself isn't and never will be money because of unavoidable built-in flaws and the fact that everyone uses it like a casino.
sagenumen t1_izazofd wrote
I've purchased actual, tangible items with crypto from registered businesses. Your premise is false.
JWarder t1_izb12me wrote
I can trade Pokemon cards for actual, tangible items. Do you count those as money too?
sagenumen t1_izbd9nz wrote
What do you think gives any currency any actual value? You think $100 note is $100 worth of paper and ink?
JWarder t1_izbhley wrote
The fact that I might be able to wheel and deal my way into an exchange of trash or treasure doesn't automatically make any the goods being exchanged "money". If you think "value" is an alias for "money" then that's a you problem.
sagenumen t1_izbnj57 wrote
You avoided the question. And you chose Pokémon cards, not I.
But let’s consider some remote part of the world without access to the means to easily counterfeit these cards. They decide to exchange the various goods and services within their local economy for Pokémon cards. What are the cards, if not “money?”
JWarder t1_izbu8mi wrote
Ha! You avoided the question.
You don't need to imagine remote areas of the world. Back in reality, we do have exchanges where cards are traded. Among collectors they will even directly trade cards for other non-pokemon goods. Some form of value clearly exists, and assessments of that value are (mostly) shared between participants. However, outside of that niche, pokemon cards have no value as "money".
We don't even have to use silly examples like collectable cards, you can also look to stocks and bonds. Stock exchanges are a large participant in modern financial systems. Enormous amounts of exchanges happen in routine and standardized ways with little friction. And yet, despite all the utility have have in the finance system, stocks, bonds, etc have limited utility as a form of "money".
Kinexity t1_izb5qv2 wrote
This doesn't prove that it's money - only that someone agreed to exchange something else. Real money has economy in which it circulates as a means of exchanging work (putting aside things like speculation for the sake of simplicity). You only made the exchange you made because the other party had a way to sell crypto you gave them.
sagenumen t1_izbcb5w wrote
I exchanged it for goods with a party that could then exchange it further for other goods. How, exactly, does that not fit your description?
Kinexity t1_izbfzvm wrote
You did something more of a barter trade. This crypto isn't going to be spent by the next party but sold on the exchange. No circulation in the economy.
sagenumen t1_izbmxai wrote
There’s already an economy around crypto. You may not be a part of it, but it’s there.
Further, exchanging one currency for another is still circulation.
Kinexity t1_izbp8v9 wrote
Do you get paid in crypto? Do you buy food in crypto? Could you live for the rest of your life without touching money because you can buy every product in crypto? If an answer to any of those questions is yes - are you actually using crypto or is there an intermediary which actually converts it and gives you a false sense of existence of crypto economy?
It is circulation but it's not currency circulation in the economy when most of it is buying and selling the damn thing because of speculation.
sagenumen t1_izbqg6j wrote
Don’t hurt yourself running those goalposts all over the place.
OP said it’s not money. That’s false. People use it every day to pay for things. You might not be a part of that economy, but it exists. I can’t live my life with the stack of Colombian Pesos on my desk, either. It’s still money.
Anposter t1_izbt23e wrote
That is not definition of money and you are trying to argue about semantics. It could fall under fiat money definition but it's not issued by government so it doesn't. It is not representative money which you think when you think about pesos, because it has no intrinsic value. You can consider it as a salt back in the day which was used as means of trading, which is not money by any modern definition.
[deleted] t1_iza9e1m wrote
[removed]
Wikilicious t1_iza38qs wrote
POW has economics of scale… the bigger you are the more discounts you get. In PoS you don’t get discounts.
GoofAckYoorsElf t1_iza9pp3 wrote
True. PoS does not need this additional step. Your power in the block chain is directly connected to your size, not just indirectly through discounts.
IsThereAnythingLeft- t1_izawqdu wrote
Not it doesn’t vacate as it scales the price would go up so would the mining reward and hence the energy wasted
prodoosh t1_izd4lly wrote
Not really? In POW it’s: whoever has more computational power gets to collect fees. In POS it’s whoever has a larger stake gets to collect fees.
POS works just how interest works. It’s basically replacing pointless computation (work) for a system of collateralized debt.
You stake your crypto to validate transactions. You get paid to validate transactions. If you’re found falsifying transactions (essentially impossible to hide) your crypto is gone and you lose your entire investment.
GoofAckYoorsElf t1_izdawef wrote
What is a larger stake? More invested money. So it's the same old the few rich rule the system and get richer. That's not particularly democratic, is it?
prodoosh t1_izeut06 wrote
No it’s pretty much how the current system works. It’s the time value of money. Nothing we can change about that. It’s just more efficient to be decentralized an digital than a huge legacy financial system.
You can’t argue that interest; the single biggest invention of financial history, is a bad thing.
TheGrumpyre t1_iza4ejo wrote
The headline makes me feel the same way as if I'd read "Here's how I managed to save thousands of dollars on my weekly grocery bill."
Hotel_Arrakis t1_izaelh5 wrote
I saved thousands of dollars on my weekly grocery bill by not adding "Hookers and blow".
Naked_Lunge t1_izan10i wrote
Why even go out for groceries if not to get hookers and blow?
Alkans_bookshelf t1_izb3ufw wrote
Oh cool. Some useless thing now does nothing with less of an environmental footprint.
mr_doppertunity t1_izbs07o wrote
Not everything useless for you is useless in general.
prodoosh t1_izd40wk wrote
How is it useless? It literally, when implemented correctly, will have a lower environmental impact than the current financial system that we currently use.
xnxkq t1_iz9qtq6 wrote
Huge amount of energy to be wasting on your pyramid scheme either way….
ItsAConspiracy t1_iz9ydt0 wrote
Total energy used by the Ethereum network now is about the same as a hundred average American households. I wouldn't call that a huge amount.
imafraidofmuricans t1_iza460v wrote
One hundred average American households use that energy to keep hundreds of humans alive and comfortable.
What utility does eth provide?
Because what it sounds like to me is that we could cut ethereum and provide power to hundreds of people.
Sitting_WOLF t1_izab1lg wrote
You forget that Americans are amongst the greatest consumers on Earth with major saturation and most of the world's resources being funneled there. Electricity usage for 100 avg. households in the US is worth a lot more than you think, compared to 100 avg. households in Kenya for example. Even climate makes a difference to consumption patterns.
Not to mention we're comparing 100 households to a network that has global reach and involvement.
chrisdh79 OP t1_iz9e8vh wrote
From the article: Ethereum, the world's second-largest crypto asset by market cap, has drastically changed its energy usage, saving a country-size proportion of power consumption.
This radical update most likely reduced the power consumption of the crypto network by 99.84 percent to 9.99 percent, according to a paper published by peer-reviewed data-science journal Patterns on Tuesday.
"This perspective highlights how Ethereum, the second largest crypto asset by market capitalization, likely succeeded in significantly reducing its power demand through an event called The Merge," read the study.
"This event occurred on September 15, 2022, and consisted of Ethereum's proof-of-work mining mechanism being replaced with an alternative known as proof of stake."
The decrease in energy use might be enough to meet Austria's or Ireland's national electrical needs.
The success of The Merge may now serve as a roadmap to enable a switch from Proof of Work to Proof of Stake in Bitcoin and other crypto assets still utilizing Proof of Work, as per the study.
However, it would still be premature for the Ethereum community to declare a "complete victory" over the sustainability concerns facing crypto assets.
Blockchain was traditionally upheld and validated by a Proof of Work mechanism employed by various cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin.
A blockchain is a massive, dynamic database that records every transaction and underpins Ethereum, just like it does with all other cryptocurrencies.
In return, companies and volunteers who contributed their computers to the network's operation received new cryptocurrency coins. The likelihood of producing new coins increased as they performed more labor.
Encid t1_iza94ni wrote
Whoever thinks this is a good idea for bitcoin is dim witted.
Also this si futurology, I am shocked that 7/8 of the people in here are not informed on a 14 year old tech.
IsThereAnythingLeft- t1_izawxcy wrote
Anyone who thinks that level of energy wastage is anything but bad is dim witted
Encid t1_izbl59d wrote
Have you ever thought about the energy waste of regular money? How often it needs to be replaced? Shipped? The millions of unnecessary intermediaries taking a small %? What QE does to peoples wages? or how the current system dilapidates your savings savings every month?
You are sadly simply parroting a talking point you saw of the corner of your eye on your way to McDonald’s.
My advise to you is, develop critical thinking skills, READ as much as you can and think for yourself.
HoagiesDad t1_izbq84j wrote
I already have card from my bank that negates the need of actual cash. This pretty much negates your argument.
Encid t1_izby1jq wrote
OMG! I don’t even know where to begin, look up QE and QT, function of central banks, friction in the financial system, what inflation does to people’s savings, then look up the actual energy use of bitcoin and at that point we can engage meaningfully.
Good luck til then.
HoagiesDad t1_izc4qup wrote
What has Owning Bitcoin done to anyone who invested at $69k and is still holding at $17k. My savings has certainly taken a hit but HOLY SHIT, I’m so happy it wasn’t in any of these other options.
Encid t1_izcbbp5 wrote
Dear god, you understand that bitcoin has appreciated 17000% in 14 years right? While the dollar devalued 28% and increasing by the month, that means that a dollar only buys 72.244% of what it could buy back then.
Sure it is a new asset and there is volatility, but guess what, that volatility has consistently for 14 years trended upwards! And news to you, but any investment, a house, a business, gold, a god damn pokemon card will have ups and downs based on demand.
You have Financial myopia, honestly read a financial book and understand the system you play in, your family will benefit .
HoagiesDad t1_izcfoxn wrote
Ha. Nice try. The number is 5k percent from zero. I just checked . It’s actually down 15% from this day 5 years ago and 67% from one year ago. Your comment is as good as your facts. Bullshit
Encid t1_izckjg2 wrote
Hahahah did you finish elementary school? 0 to 17k is not 5k% gain, again no critical thinking, also you are focused on cherry picking and forget the bigger picture, what you should look at is the over all trend, same as the with the stock market, if you look at the last year yeah sure bad, then zoom out and look at the past 10 year in the s&p 500 trend, last year is nothing less than a blip and nothing to be worried about.
In 10 years you will look back and think the same and never understand the impact bitcoin already has had.
HoagiesDad t1_izcld34 wrote
You don’t like being fact checked and looking like an idiot. You also don’t understand trends, obviously. Someone can come out with Butthole coin tomorrow. If it gets the hype it makes Bitcoin worthless. The $ has proven durability and is backed by the most powerful nation in the world. You suck BTW
Encid t1_izcmn2t wrote
Dude! Go back and read your replies you have no idea what you are talking about.
I love to engage and have productive discussion and fact checking is important, but you are not equipped for it.
Just drop it and look back in 10 years. I would love to see your face when you realize you could not see the forrest for the trees, that might be the story of your life already.
Good luck.
HoagiesDad t1_izcnj6i wrote
The vast majority of people see it as a PONZI scheme but you, you are the smartest guy in the room. You are equipped with the insults and all the facts because you understand blockchain technology. You think those invested in Bitcoin are the future and the US Government can’t squash it at any moment. So naive.
The party was over the moment it crashed.
Blockchain technology may be the future but any form of investment that uses it now will be the AOL of the future.
Encid t1_izcp65h wrote
Hahah the best part Bitcoin doesn’t care what US does, Bitcoin is like gold as long as people tread it has value, scarcity is an added bonus.
Also look up Ponzi scheme dude, Bitcoin does not even match the description. Comparing apples to water.
Crazy how entrenched you are in your opinion with so little knowledge, normal people read and understand before they form opinions, give it a try.
HoagiesDad t1_izcpon9 wrote
Ouch. True believers in this one also
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/feathercoin/
There are 90 pages of crypto currency’s and I’m not gonna bother counting how many per page. Bitcoin is number #1 through hype. That can change in a day.
Encid t1_izctntg wrote
Bitcoin is #1 due to POW, nobody controls it and there can only be 21m no dilution ever that is why it is proposed as a store of value, like gold.
Any other cryptocurrency has developers behind it, POS and unlimited amounts of coins become available if the devs want it, Bitcoin and all the others are not in the same realm.
after having read and research many coins perhaps there is one nobel technology idea that may have real applications the rest are bad investments/scams.
HoagiesDad t1_izcvt8l wrote
Listen kid. Take some advice and invest in what Warren Buffet says. Your get rich quick schemes are stupid. Berkshire Hathaway has set me up for a nice retirement.
Encid t1_izcwxk7 wrote
Hahah I’m probably older than you think and in track to retire in 9-10 years, Bitcoin is 3% of my well diversified portfolio.
I understand a technological advancement when I see it, you sound like the people that thought the internet was for chatting in the early 90s.
No rich quick scheme here, compound interest and hard work pal.
HoagiesDad t1_izcztnh wrote
I’m 57, retired at 55. I put my money in real estate and Berkshire Hathaway and my partner is a nerd computer guy. Trust me when I says he’s smarter than you. My partner and I aren’t really risk takers but we certainly have done very well. He’s still working because he loves his job. He plans to retire in two years and we are off to live in Palm Springs. My partner before him was a stock broker so I do know a thing or two about investment.
So, while I may not fully understand blockchain technology, I know it’s still in its infancy and will take possibly decades to fully implement. Investing in early technology is risky as fuck. It’s not for people who have money to lose. Stop trying to sell Bitcoin. If it’s going to emerge it needs to be stable. That, it certainly is not the case now.
Encid t1_izd2lly wrote
I think you lost track, this was a conversation on energy use, POS vs POW, I’m not selling anything I’m expressing my educated opinion on a matter you seem to not understand, and blockchain has nothing to do with it, the benefits to the financial system are endless but you don’t see because you don’t understand the friction in the financial system.
Imagine Bitcoin as the rails of a public train own but people all over the world with nodes, and anybody can then transfer money in a frictionless manner. Visa built the same using billions of dollars and it cost retailers 2-3% per transaction, western ion built the same and they charge up to 13% per transaction that paired up with no inflation and store of value is the technological advancement.
Parroting BRK talking points shows how little you understand of the financial system, it is honestly sad, lastly did you know BRK was a textile company? Companies/tech needs to evolve or they will slowly wither.
What worked for you at 55, is not going to work for younger people just think about that for a second.
HoagiesDad t1_izd32hz wrote
Meh. You just seem like a dick. You don’t have to restate you think I’m an idiot. I’m just happy I didn’t buy bitcoin in the last year. You can’t even admit it was a good move on my part.
Encid t1_izejx6z wrote
You just don’t like people probing that you have lack of critical Thinking and that you play in a financial system you know nothing about.
And I do think not buying bitcoin and balancing your risk portfolio and using it is a huge mistake. Your sort term thinking is beyond belief. Look back in 10 years and tell me if buying bitcoin at 60k was a mistake. Also most people buy bitcoin DCAing same as the stock market, buying all at once at an all time high is not even advised your BKR.
Sad that a 55 year old is so closed up and ignorant.
Encid t1_izcof1k wrote
To find the appreciation percentage, you divide the change in value (bitcoin at $17000) by the original value (bitcoin at $1 even though it started at 0 just for comparison sake) which equates to 17000. If you multiplying this number by 100, we can determine the price bitcoin has appreciated by 1,700,000% yeah that is right 1.7m
I made a mistake with my mental math and missed 3 zeros. Again if you had critical thinking you would know 5k% does not make sense when your read on google.
Don’t believe me? do it on your house, it might be easier for you to understand how appreciation works mathematically, you certainly have given me a good laugh…. 5k hahaha.
HoagiesDad t1_izcoki9 wrote
Ha, you accused me of cherry-picking. This is hilarious. I can explain that 5k number, but I won’t. If you are so smart. Tell me how I arrived at that number….genius.
Also, I’m so happy for you that you have something to focus on other than anything else I’ve said.
Encid t1_izcpahn wrote
I did, I responded to your message with the actual math.
IsThereAnythingLeft- t1_izbs145 wrote
Lol critical thinking. Practice that yourself, btc is magnitudes less efficient per Tx than fiat. You are the parrot who doesn’t even understand the lies you are repeating. You probably think an economy can function without an inflationary currency, grow up and learn how the world actual works
Encid t1_izbz4ob wrote
Wow, not a single cohesive thought of your own in that word vomit, Bitcoin is mostly frictionless, and your stament on inflation is evidence of your ignorance,
You are seriously saying that the eroding of purchasing power is the right direction? Wow! Look up QE dude, and read a book or two on the financial system, before your next word vomit. SHAME!
IsThereAnythingLeft- t1_izdpdy1 wrote
You are to ignorant to even be aware what you don’t know. You talk about eroding purchasing power but that is only one part of inflation. Done correctly it drives the economy. Rich you talking about having my own thoughts you are repeating the same lies I see here over and over. Tell me how many more millions would have died during Covid without government money…. yeah thought so
Encid t1_izeqe1i wrote
Man you are thick! And have no idea what you are talking about, it is incredible. You probably also believe trickle down economics actually works right? You are not even worth explaining, live your sad ignorant life and know you know nothing about the financial system you play in.
IsThereAnythingLeft- t1_izetz2g wrote
Lol you are lit describing yourself there. More crap repeated. You can’t even argue against the fact I set out. But I agree on one thing it’s not worth my time arguing with you, I’d have more chance a child understanding
printers_rock t1_izaba82 wrote
Well, to be fair this is a subreddit that is largely devoted to things that are unrealistic and will never actually happen because of that gosh darn "reality"
MeasurementGrand879 t1_izaodjm wrote
What a weird way to compare energy usage or savings. I use a lot of energy. Oh? Do you use as much as Ireland? Is that common knowledge? Would even the average Irishman or Irishwoman know how much energy that is?
Taxoro t1_izcdohy wrote
hows this, about 0.2% of the worlds energy usage.
Taxoro t1_izcdz9i wrote
Right because miners are just gonna pack it up, sell their hardware and never mine crypto again?
​
Or are they all switching to bitcoin or some other coin where they can mine and make approximately the same of it, and thus absolutely nothing has changed. And until no coin at all is worth mining, nothing will change.
rogue_binary t1_ize0ks4 wrote
Surprised this isn't higher up. ETH energy usage goes down, other coins will go up.
oiseauvert989 t1_izegcws wrote
Yeh the whole coin mining thing just needs to end. We let it go way to far in terms of it's energy requirements.
csandazoltan t1_izdd176 wrote
Miners are gonna just switch to another, not that much power was saved.
Only a small portion would actually dismantle their minig rig
FuturologyBot t1_iz9ht0u wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/chrisdh79:
From the article: Ethereum, the world's second-largest crypto asset by market cap, has drastically changed its energy usage, saving a country-size proportion of power consumption.
This radical update most likely reduced the power consumption of the crypto network by 99.84 percent to 9.99 percent, according to a paper published by peer-reviewed data-science journal Patterns on Tuesday.
"This perspective highlights how Ethereum, the second largest crypto asset by market capitalization, likely succeeded in significantly reducing its power demand through an event called The Merge," read the study.
"This event occurred on September 15, 2022, and consisted of Ethereum's proof-of-work mining mechanism being replaced with an alternative known as proof of stake."
The decrease in energy use might be enough to meet Austria's or Ireland's national electrical needs.
The success of The Merge may now serve as a roadmap to enable a switch from Proof of Work to Proof of Stake in Bitcoin and other crypto assets still utilizing Proof of Work, as per the study.
However, it would still be premature for the Ethereum community to declare a "complete victory" over the sustainability concerns facing crypto assets.
Blockchain was traditionally upheld and validated by a Proof of Work mechanism employed by various cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin.
A blockchain is a massive, dynamic database that records every transaction and underpins Ethereum, just like it does with all other cryptocurrencies.
In return, companies and volunteers who contributed their computers to the network's operation received new cryptocurrency coins. The likelihood of producing new coins increased as they performed more labor.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/zf10n3/ethereums_energy_switch_saves_as_much_electricity/iz9e8vh/
[deleted] t1_iz9y30e wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_iza0mn1 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iza4r5j wrote
[removed]
nenoman t1_iza92i6 wrote
So like fiat currency, the rich has more control, but without pesky government regulations. Sounds like a libertarian dream come true.
Njaa t1_izbbpuz wrote
That depends on what you mean by "control".
Regardless of your stake, you cannot take money that isn't yours. At best, you can lose your entire stake in order to rewrite the ledger history if - and only if - you control more than two thirds of the entire total stake.
IsThereAnythingLeft- t1_izax3c2 wrote
That’s nothing but maxi lies
nbearableus t1_izaeqdy wrote
Doing that would totally negate bitcoins purpose, at that point you'd use dlt and save all the energy.
IsThereAnythingLeft- t1_izax6q1 wrote
Purpose lol Bitcoin doesn’t have a purpose
nbearableus t1_izbamrq wrote
Bitcoins purpose is to send value via blockchain, across the Internet, without central control
POS essentially centralises it to a number of large holders.
Like it or not, blockchain is here to stay and will be the fulcrum of the new monetary system ie. CBDCs
IsThereAnythingLeft- t1_izbfvuw wrote
It was supposed to be a peer to peer payment system, it has openly failed at that and most admit it. 5 tps isn’t a global payment system. The large holders of PoS networks is no different than large mining pools for PoW
nbearableus t1_izbisyx wrote
So it has a purpose. It absolutely has failed, now treated as speculative asset.
Yes there is essentially no difference except I can mine but I don't have enough eth to be of use in pos.
Dehuser t1_izamh34 wrote
Check Algorand POS solution. Solves for concentration.
[deleted] t1_izax9d2 wrote
[removed]
HoagiesDad t1_izbrmt0 wrote
Bitcoin would be useless if it still wasn’t able to sucker people into thinking they can get rich. The people who own it should sell before the value goes to $0….Where it belongs. My ATM card has almost eliminated the use of actual cash. I could live without any item that requires it now.
Tay_Tay86 t1_izby28a wrote
And it still provides nothing useful. Just speculation. All of that waste for nothing, even if it was in the past. I don't forget about garbage just because it was thrown on my lawn yesterday.
Fuck crypto
UniversalMomentum t1_izdsvrc wrote
I still don’t see a practical use other than tax dodging and money-laundering because otherwise it’s way too much effort just for an alternative to Western Union. Like currency that is resilient against government and central bank and corruption, seems like an OK idea, even though it’s probably more dangerous than usual, but the fact that it’s completely relied on the Internet makes the entire idea a joke.
shadowrun456 t1_izdyj3x 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/
Edit: typo.
beef-medallions t1_iz9xnuk wrote
Ethereum is centralized, making it inherently worthless. It is the king of the shitcoins.
kidicarus89 t1_iz9zkv6 wrote
Or maybe all crypto is shite and just put your money in a 401k and not worry about this bullshit.
imafraidofmuricans t1_iza3yax wrote
So what you are saying is that the ones that don't use up the power of an entire country while providing little to no value are worthless.
What does that say about all the ones that do?!
IsThereAnythingLeft- t1_izawuck wrote
Stupid echo you have heard from other maxis, it is not less decentralised than mining in Bitcoin
sagenumen t1_izbbnkc wrote
How, exactly, is it centralized?
rogue_binary t1_ize0c6d wrote
4 addresses make up 60% of staked ethereum. That's far more centralized than fiat.
travisjo t1_iza3w4r wrote
Or you know, burn it all to the ground because it's pointless.
IamCryptoSamurai t1_izdud36 wrote
this is going to send it to the moon next cycle
neckos t1_iz9xss4 wrote
PoW is a feature, not a bug. Bitcoin users will never swap to the centralized and insecure PoS system.
DecayingVacuum t1_iza9p0a wrote
Putting "The Merge" in quotes is one of those, "tell me you know nothing of software development, without telling me" scenarios.
PocktCalculator t1_iz9rq0p wrote
The more I look into this the more I realise bitcoin is the only game in town and everything else is a fucking scam . Eat shit vitaly buttermycorpdick
IsThereAnythingLeft- t1_izax1vh wrote
The stupider you get then if you think the first attempt at a new tech that doesn’t change it the best
PocktCalculator t1_izay2xf wrote
Show me something that came after bitcoin that is better value. I’ll wait
IsThereAnythingLeft- t1_izayx5o wrote
Better tech, easy ETH, algo
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