This is bad logic

Both are examples of capital at risk and work being performed to secure a network. The difference is one is performing a type of "work" that is essentially useless and has a high overhead due to excessive power usage. Rewards flow to those that have the most capital in both scenarios.

PoS = proof of stake and PoW = proof of work.  They are two different mechanisms that can be used for achieving consensus in peer-to-peer networks.  With PoS, consensus is formed by those holding stake; with PoW, consensus is formed by those doing work.  

You can dance around this fact as much as you like, but that's what it comes down to Mgburks77.  The question is which mechanism will the market prefer?

I would actually like to see a PoS alt-coin and I believe that through blockchain mergers of like-minded alt coin communities one can grow to challenge litecoin.  This will help us answer these questions empirically, rather than through hand-waving debates that this thread is evidence of. 

I think it would be proper to call this PoS alt bitshares instead, for it is no longer a coin.  Dividends are awarded to share holders for holding stake, rather than to miners for doing work.  Arguments are settled based on how many shares one holds, rather than by how much work one performs.  

The one that performs the essential task of achieving consensus, in a decentralized manner by private individuals without the need for expensive specialized equipment and outrageous power and cooling requirements.

Bitcoin has been betamaxxed, at least in my humble opinion. There may be a few kinks left to be worked out with PoS but it is the way crypto currency will go in the end. It's the most reasonable scheme.


Again,

The idea that labor somehow infuses a product with value is a totally mistaken assumption with a basis in obsolete neo-classical economic theory. Value is is purely subjective so whether consensus is arrived upon via proof of work or proof of stake is completely irrelevant. The only essential requirement is only that a consensus be arrived at somehow. The easiest and cheapest manner of doing so is clearly the best choice.

It also encourages competition. This sort of bad behavior only exists in a monopoly and may be actionable. Certainly such bad behavior will not be forgotten, excused, nor forgiven.

It sounds like you agree with this statement then:

PoS = proof of stake and PoW = proof of work.  They are two different mechanisms that can be used for achieving consensus in peer-to-peer networks. With PoS, consensus is formed by those holding stake; with PoW, consensus is formed by those doing work.

You can't evade my point like that.

Consensus is consensus. All you need is an accurate way to assess each individual's choice. You could do it by hand with a pencil and paper if you had to. No reason to go through that though. Proof of Stake and it's distributed P2P network can show where the true consensus lie cheaply and easily.

There are no centralized banks of miners or financial institutions involved in skewing the consensus toward their preferred form of infrastructure.

And in the question of mass adoption PoS wins hands down. ASIC miners will never be widely adopted. It's become a planned obsolesce scheme, at its basis. Those chips are junk and can't be used for anything else once they pass the end of their shelf life. Being able to stake on your tablet or mobile device is going to be the most important factor in destroying the grip mining cartels have on the crypto economy.

Once the staking Android wallet is developed mining is finished. That is the writing on the wall, as I see it.

ha ha you are being totally disingenuous


In PoW consensus is formed by those who own the most computing power instead of from individual devices. The most rewards flow to those who hold collective hashing power or bitcoin with the infrastructure they have designed to create an entry barrier.

They used their capital stake to purchase this infrastructure so that's not a valid point at all. It's better for a decentralized trustless network to produce coins than to have trusted authorities controlling the network and doling out low rewards to their subjects.

I think both are flawed
The arrival of the staking android wallet is going to to be the catalyst for change.

It's going to revolutionize crypto and put it back in the hands of individuals. No one is going to need banks anymore because they will own their own bank and it will be on their mobile device.

Not really here to pitch any particular alt coin, but only one has this sort of staking wallet in development and it is supposedly almost ready.

That is the future.

Ha. I am presently researching whether anyone has a full node bitcoind running on a Linux smartphone.

CPU capacity on a multi-core smartphone already exceeds what Proof-of-Stake requires. Likewise for RAM regarding the flagship Android phones now, and ordinary phones in a couple of years. The blockchain is about 20 GB today and could fit on flagship Android phones now. Furthermore, Bitcoin Core developers have plans to prune or otherwise compress the blockchain for the purposes of validation.

From my own experience running a full node, network bandwidth is the most precious resource. Propagation of new blocks, and of the entire blockchain for new mobiles entering the network requires much symmetric bandwidth, depending upon the number of permitted peer connections.

In a possible world, every smartphone is a Proof-of-Stake full node. There would be billions of them in the Bitcoin Network rather than the less than 10 thousand full nodes nowadays. It is fair that only block-validating, and blockchain-maintaining wallets receive their annual 10% bitcoin dividends. These dividends, given the higher prices for bitcoin that I expect with Proof-of-Stake, would be sufficient to pay for the cellular data bandwidth consumed. Or consider that the full node smartphone client could connect to the network only when WiFi is the connection - and receive a diminished bitcoin dividend in proportion to the time spent securing and maintaining the network, effectively receive annual 5% bitcoin dividends for coins held in the smartphone's full node wallet connected 12 hours each night to the owner's WiFi.

The major problem is that the Energy Charter Treaty encourages our respective governments not to permit waste of energy. In perhaps four more years the cost of electric power to operate and cool ASIC mining equipment will exceed $100 billion annually. The precedent is the incandescent light bulb ban. Do we want a bitcoin ban when it can be avoided?

The lesser problem is fairness. Why should Proof-of-Work ASIC-operators waste their bitcoin rewards on equipment and power, when those very same rewards can be given to us, the bitcoin holders as annual 10% bitcoin dividends using ordinary computers.

I liken the current Proof-of-Work system to a bank protected from robbers by a moat filled with burning paper currency.

spin off?  is that a fork?