3 ms·

I'm really curious about the logic of this move. As I understand it, PoS will award miners who have the most coin with an increased likelihood that they'll be a

I'm really curious about the logic of this move. As I understand it, PoS will award miners who have the most coin with an increased likelihood that they'll be able to mine a coin. In other words, the more coins you own, the higher probability you can mine more. This seems to be designed to fail, or at least designed to create a mining market which is highly central to only the wealthiest players. Anyone care to refute this?

maxerickson 9y ago
The idea is to not have the huge block reward. (the main incentive for participating in the consensus finding is the ability to do transactions)
- rufugee 9y ago
  I get that, but doesn't this still create a network where the most coin-holding miners wield the most power?
mbrock 9y ago
The more money you have, the more ASICs you can buy.
notheguyouthink 9y ago
I don't know much about PoS, but as it was explained to me, it should equal out to the same. Eg, if you have 1% of the wealth you'll get 1% (on average) of the awards. Likewise if you have 10% of the wealth, you'll get 10% (on average) of the awards. On average you're getting the same percentage of rewards as you originally held, meaning on average everyone ends up with the same percentage of coins. No stake holder inflation. That's just how it was explained to me, not my words. Now, with that said, if it's purely coin based and not distributed based on some type of percentage, than I imagine it would start to get out of whack.. no? Eg, if you have 10% and you win the next coin giving no one else money, then at the next lottery you have 10.001% to get the next coin. If that is how they design the system, I imagine that would start to snowball a bit. Still, on average not nearly as bad as it immediately sounds, but nevertheless a problem I would think.
tuesdayrain 9y ago
You could say the same thing regarding PoW - the rich can afford more ASICs which allows them to mine BTC faster and in turn buy more ASICs and so on. The difference is that with PoS, anyone will be able to stake profitably with a staking pool. Small players will lose money in a mining pool due to electricity costs.

maxerickson 9y ago

The idea is to not have the huge block reward. (the main incentive for participating in the consensus finding is the ability to do transactions)

rufugee 9y ago
I get that, but doesn't this still create a network where the most coin-holding miners wield the most power?

mbrock 9y ago

The more money you have, the more ASICs you can buy.

notheguyouthink 9y ago

I don't know much about PoS, but as it was explained to me, it should equal out to the same. Eg, if you have 1% of the wealth you'll get 1% (on average) of the awards. Likewise if you have 10% of the wealth, you'll get 10% (on average) of the awards. On average you're getting the same percentage of rewards as you originally held, meaning on average everyone ends up with the same percentage of coins. No stake holder inflation. That's just how it was explained to me, not my words. Now, with that said, if it's purely coin based and not distributed based on some type of percentage, than I imagine it would start to get out of whack.. no? Eg, if you have 10% and you win the next coin giving no one else money, then at the next lottery you have 10.001% to get the next coin. If that is how they design the system, I imagine that would start to snowball a bit. Still, on average not nearly as bad as it immediately sounds, but nevertheless a problem I would think.

tuesdayrain 9y ago

You could say the same thing regarding PoW - the rich can afford more ASICs which allows them to mine BTC faster and in turn buy more ASICs and so on. The difference is that with PoS, anyone will be able to stake profitably with a staking pool. Small players will lose money in a mining pool due to electricity costs.