4 ms·

I'm not so sure. If you don't need proof of work to secure a blockchain, then why is the free market of Bitcoin consensus continuing to expend huge amounts of c

I'm not so sure. If you don't need proof of work to secure a blockchain, then why is the free market of Bitcoin consensus continuing to expend huge amounts of capital to stick with it as its sybil resistance mechanism? If it wasn't considered a value destroying move, the transition away from PoW would've happened already no?

nostrademons 6y ago
It has, in new cryptocurrencies. Virtually all cryptocurrencies launched since 2017 are proof-of-stake: Cardano, EOS, Stellar, Polkadot, Tezos, TRON. Ethereum is in the process of a very expensive and painful transition from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake. The reason you haven't seen this in the global cryptocurrency industry is because of network effects and adoption curves. Most programmers would probably agree that C++ is archaic and that the software industry has moved on to newer languages like Rust, Go, Kotlin, ES6, etc. Why then do Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, Google, etc. all rely on large quantities of C++ code? Because they were founded in the last millennia, when C++ was basically the only alternative for what they were trying to do, and have deeply enmeshed ecosystems and value chains that are all dependent on their existing C++ codebase. Throw it out and you throw out the $5T+ in value they've built. They couldn't have built that up without the 20 year head start they have, but if you're founding a tech company now, you're pretty dumb to use C++. Similarly, Bitcoin has built a whole ecosystem of miners, speculators, traders, exchanges, payment systems, wallets, etc. Throw proof-of-work out and you throw all that out, and along with it your advantage over Ethereum, Cardano, Stellar, etc.
- hertzrat 6y ago
  > if you're founding a tech company now, you're pretty dumb to use C++ All us unreal engine using indie developers must be pretty dumb then. It’s true that programming in c# in unity is easier, but the end result of the c++ is a prettier game with more things happening at once at a higher frame rate. More grass, more characters, more animations, more AI nuance, more physics interactions, lower system requirements during a gpu shortage, etc
  - keskadale 6y ago
    try rust.
- hanniabu 6y ago
  > and along with it your advantage over [PoS chains] You're assuming that PoW is better than PoS.
DSMan195276 6y ago
> If it wasn't considered a value destroying move, the transition away from PoW would've happened already no? I think there's a conflict of interest issue here that would prevent such a move even if it would be worth it - the miners clearly have an incentive to keep the current PoW mechanism, as without it they're left holding a bunch of expensive useless tech. And without the miners willing to go along with a move from PoW to PoS, at best you're going to get a split between the PoW and PoS chains rather than a clean shift from one to the other and just create a mess, which isn't ideal for anyone.
- AffableSpatula 6y ago
  The attack scenario is an adversarial nation state who is not motivated economically and is intent on sabotage of the network.
  - DSMan195276 6y ago
    I don't understand what you're getting at, I was pointing out why Bitcoin hasn't moved to PoS even if it may actually be better.
    - AffableSpatula 6y ago
      You're right, I totally misread what you said. I think the answer to what you actually said is; miners don't control consensus on the network - it's not up to them, it's up to fullnodes/users who can change the ruleset whenever they want.
      - DSMan195276 6y ago
        You're good :) And I agree to a point, but miners are the ones that effectively run the network, and there aren't actually all that "many" of them. Without the existing miners willing to contribute the existing network would fall apart. PoS is an interesting situation because it technically makes the miners unnecessary, but obviously the miners are going to say "no" and just keep going with the existing Bitcoin. It would just create another Bitcoin Cash situation effectively, which is a lot less appealing than if everybody switched to PoS and left nobody using the old version.

nostrademons 6y ago

It has, in new cryptocurrencies. Virtually all cryptocurrencies launched since 2017 are proof-of-stake: Cardano, EOS, Stellar, Polkadot, Tezos, TRON. Ethereum is in the process of a very expensive and painful transition from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake. The reason you haven't seen this in the global cryptocurrency industry is because of network effects and adoption curves. Most programmers would probably agree that C++ is archaic and that the software industry has moved on to newer languages like Rust, Go, Kotlin, ES6, etc. Why then do Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, Google, etc. all rely on large quantities of C++ code? Because they were founded in the last millennia, when C++ was basically the only alternative for what they were trying to do, and have deeply enmeshed ecosystems and value chains that are all dependent on their existing C++ codebase. Throw it out and you throw out the $5T+ in value they've built. They couldn't have built that up without the 20 year head start they have, but if you're founding a tech company now, you're pretty dumb to use C++. Similarly, Bitcoin has built a whole ecosystem of miners, speculators, traders, exchanges, payment systems, wallets, etc. Throw proof-of-work out and you throw all that out, and along with it your advantage over Ethereum, Cardano, Stellar, etc.

hertzrat 6y ago
> if you're founding a tech company now, you're pretty dumb to use C++ All us unreal engine using indie developers must be pretty dumb then. It’s true that programming in c# in unity is easier, but the end result of the c++ is a prettier game with more things happening at once at a higher frame rate. More grass, more characters, more animations, more AI nuance, more physics interactions, lower system requirements during a gpu shortage, etc
- keskadale 6y ago
  try rust.
hanniabu 6y ago
> and along with it your advantage over [PoS chains] You're assuming that PoW is better than PoS.

DSMan195276 6y ago

> If it wasn't considered a value destroying move, the transition away from PoW would've happened already no? I think there's a conflict of interest issue here that would prevent such a move even if it would be worth it - the miners clearly have an incentive to keep the current PoW mechanism, as without it they're left holding a bunch of expensive useless tech. And without the miners willing to go along with a move from PoW to PoS, at best you're going to get a split between the PoW and PoS chains rather than a clean shift from one to the other and just create a mess, which isn't ideal for anyone.

AffableSpatula 6y ago
The attack scenario is an adversarial nation state who is not motivated economically and is intent on sabotage of the network.
- DSMan195276 6y ago
  I don't understand what you're getting at, I was pointing out why Bitcoin hasn't moved to PoS even if it may actually be better.
  - AffableSpatula 6y ago
    You're right, I totally misread what you said. I think the answer to what you actually said is; miners don't control consensus on the network - it's not up to them, it's up to fullnodes/users who can change the ruleset whenever they want.
    - DSMan195276 6y ago
      You're good :) And I agree to a point, but miners are the ones that effectively run the network, and there aren't actually all that "many" of them. Without the existing miners willing to contribute the existing network would fall apart. PoS is an interesting situation because it technically makes the miners unnecessary, but obviously the miners are going to say "no" and just keep going with the existing Bitcoin. It would just create another Bitcoin Cash situation effectively, which is a lot less appealing than if everybody switched to PoS and left nobody using the old version.