6 ms·

I can't see governments allowing PoW to continue to exist in our current climate (in all senses). How would Bitcoin ever move over to PoS like this? Would it ju

I can't see governments allowing PoW to continue to exist in our current climate (in all senses). How would Bitcoin ever move over to PoS like this? Would it just be a Bitcoin hard fork?

whatisweb3 4y ago
Yes it would need a hard fork - but Bitcoin community is notoriously resistant to change, so it probably would not happen for some years or decades.
- RL_Quine 4y ago
  It's actually a soft fork to change the consensus method believe it or not, even changing to a new proof of work scheme is completely backwards compatible. It's not a good idea and it's sort of ridiculous, but it is technically doable. If you felt inclined, we could change the transaction format, switch the scripting language to x86 assembly, issue new currencies- all in a soft fork.
  - whatisweb3 4y ago
    How is it backwards compatible? Clients cannot continue to secure the protocol by hash mining after switching the protocol from PoW to PoS. Bitcoin moving to PoS would probably lead to a hard fork and split - two protocols, one where some group want to stay on the PoW fork, and another where some group want to migrate to the new PoS fork.
    - RL_Quine 4y ago
      You define a consensus rule in NewStakeChain that it must include within it a valid block for OldChain that contains no transactions, or otherwise causes damage to the network by making it unusable such as a reorganization proof. Once the OldChain network has been destroyed by the new one, the consensus rule can be relaxed and there no longer needs to be POW completed by anybody. This specific example works and is economically rational because miners could make a PoW block and get its reward, or they could make the no transaction attack block and get its reward, plus the reward on NewStakeChain for submitting the proof.
      - olalonde 4y ago
        That doesn't work as it would still require PoW to "include within it a valid block for OldChain". Any change to proof of work requires a hard fork.
        RL_Quine 4y ago
        Nobody would be mining OldChain so it's difficulty would be irrelevantly close to zero, you'd just just drop the requirement for POW down to something effectively gone. I said it's contrived as anything, but it's all technically possible if you mess with the incentives and intentionally create really perverse systems. That's the messiest of them though, changing the transaction format, script language, issuing new coins or whatever is pretty clean in comparison.
        olalonde 4y ago
        > Nobody would be mining OldChain so it's difficulty would be irrelevantly close to zero, you'd just just drop the requirement for POW down to something effectively gone. Why would nobody be mining OldChain? You can't remove the block reward or change the difficulty without a hard fork. PoW miners would still decide which blocks are mined and reap the rewards (block reward and transaction fees). You haven't actually proposed a solution that wouldn't require a hard fork.
        RL_Quine 4y ago
        You can remove the block reward as a soft fork, the consensus rule for Bitcoin and its derivatives is a maximum. Even if it wasn't, you can soft fork in a rule that the block reward should be spent to somewhere invalid, or paid to a particular person.
        olalonde 4y ago
        That doesn't work, unless 100% of miners accept your rule change forever (aka impossible). It would only take a single miner to keep mining using the old rules and this miner would reap the block reward / transaction fees. An old Bitcoin client would follow the chain created by this miner, wouldn't it?
gregwebs 4y ago
Current Bitcoin usage is literally a rounding error of global energy usage (0.1%) and if wildly successful would still be < 1% of energy usage. https://www.lynalden.com/bitcoin-energy/ https://www.lynalden.com/bitcoin-energy/ If Bitcoin moved to PoS it would be fundamentally different. It might work for other coins since they aren't as decentralized. > Instead, proof-of-stake mainly seems less suitable for a decentralized and censorship-resistant global monetary asset, especially when considered along with the issues that I’ll describe in the second half of this article about stablecoins. Proof-of-stake is inherently equity-like rather than money-like, compared to proof-of-work https://www.lynalden.com/proof-of-stake/ https://www.lynalden.com/proof-of-stake/
- rekoil 4y ago
  1% of ALL energy generated just to operate a part of the world economy is a massive amount though...
  - 100001_100011 4y ago
    Bitcoin uses less energy than Gold Mining and the Banking System https://twitter.com/topimp21/status/1542863870552936448 https://twitter.com/topimp21/status/1542863870552936448 "Bitcoin uses 2-56 times less energy than the fiat system" https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/bitcoin-environmental-debate-is-wrong https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/bitcoin-environmental-de...
    - TremendousJudge 4y ago
      It also processes several orders of magnitude less transactions, and does so much slower (and at a higher cost). Please stop posting misleading claims.
      - 100001_100011 4y ago
        What I posted isn't mutually exclusive with the parent comment. The lightning network on top of Bitcoin scales the number of transactions. Please stop placing claims where I didn't make any.
bibabaloo 4y ago
> governments allowing PoW Is there any precedent for this? Have governments ever ruled on how people can use their computational power?
- rekoil 4y ago
  Ignoring your actual question; do you think it's reasonable that we don't introduce new societal rules as technology progresses?
- cesarb 4y ago
  > Is there any precedent for this? Have governments ever ruled on how people can use their computational power? Yes, they have. For instance, the DMCA is a USA law which, among other things, forbids people in the USA from using their computational power to circumvent an access control system (for instance, by brute forcing a cryptographic key) which happens to be preventing access to a copyrighted file. An older example is that encryption within France used to be severely restricted (quoting from https://www.theregister.com/1999/01/15/france_to_end_severe_encryption/ https://www.theregister.com/1999/01/15/france_to_end_severe_... which is from before the current laws: "Until 1996 anyone wishing to encrypt any document had to first receive an official sanction or risk fines from F6000 to F500,000 ($1000 to $89,300) and a 2-6 month jail term. Right now, apart from a handful of exemptions, any unauthorised use of encryption software is illegal. Encryption software can be used by anyone, but only if it's very easy to break.")
- wmf 4y ago
  More generally, governments have banned inefficient light bulbs, appliances, and cars. Banning PoW ASICs would be no different. PoW on GPUs would be harder to ban.
cesarb 4y ago
> How would Bitcoin ever move over to PoS like this? Would it just be a Bitcoin hard fork? I believe it would be possible for Bitcoin to migrate to proof of stake with a soft fork, similar to how they migrated to SegWit. A majority of nodes (both non-miner full nodes and miners) would have to upgrade to a version which rejects blocks which do not contain a proof of stake together with the current proof of work; non-upgraded nodes would ignore the proof of stake but would still accept the blocks as valid since the proof of work is valid (this is the key difference between a soft fork and a hard fork; on a hard fork, non-upgraded notes would reject the new chain). And to get rid of the proof of work, the block intervals would have to be tweaked to make the network appear to be running slow (for instance, making every block take one minute longer, either on reality or through clever manipulation of the block timestamps), so that the difficulty adjustment gradually reduces the difficulty, until the (now vestigial) proof of work becomes trivial to compute.
dogeprotocol 4y ago
[dead]

I can't see governments allowing PoW to continue to exist in our current climate (in all senses). How would Bitcoin ever move over to PoS like this? Would it just be a Bitcoin hard fork?

whatisweb3 4y ago

Yes it would need a hard fork - but Bitcoin community is notoriously resistant to change, so it probably would not happen for some years or decades.

RL_Quine 4y ago
It's actually a soft fork to change the consensus method believe it or not, even changing to a new proof of work scheme is completely backwards compatible. It's not a good idea and it's sort of ridiculous, but it is technically doable. If you felt inclined, we could change the transaction format, switch the scripting language to x86 assembly, issue new currencies- all in a soft fork.
- whatisweb3 4y ago
  How is it backwards compatible? Clients cannot continue to secure the protocol by hash mining after switching the protocol from PoW to PoS. Bitcoin moving to PoS would probably lead to a hard fork and split - two protocols, one where some group want to stay on the PoW fork, and another where some group want to migrate to the new PoS fork.
  - RL_Quine 4y ago
    You define a consensus rule in NewStakeChain that it must include within it a valid block for OldChain that contains no transactions, or otherwise causes damage to the network by making it unusable such as a reorganization proof. Once the OldChain network has been destroyed by the new one, the consensus rule can be relaxed and there no longer needs to be POW completed by anybody. This specific example works and is economically rational because miners could make a PoW block and get its reward, or they could make the no transaction attack block and get its reward, plus the reward on NewStakeChain for submitting the proof.
    - olalonde 4y ago
      That doesn't work as it would still require PoW to "include within it a valid block for OldChain". Any change to proof of work requires a hard fork.
      - RL_Quine 4y ago
        Nobody would be mining OldChain so it's difficulty would be irrelevantly close to zero, you'd just just drop the requirement for POW down to something effectively gone. I said it's contrived as anything, but it's all technically possible if you mess with the incentives and intentionally create really perverse systems. That's the messiest of them though, changing the transaction format, script language, issuing new coins or whatever is pretty clean in comparison.
        olalonde 4y ago
        > Nobody would be mining OldChain so it's difficulty would be irrelevantly close to zero, you'd just just drop the requirement for POW down to something effectively gone. Why would nobody be mining OldChain? You can't remove the block reward or change the difficulty without a hard fork. PoW miners would still decide which blocks are mined and reap the rewards (block reward and transaction fees). You haven't actually proposed a solution that wouldn't require a hard fork.
        RL_Quine 4y ago
        You can remove the block reward as a soft fork, the consensus rule for Bitcoin and its derivatives is a maximum. Even if it wasn't, you can soft fork in a rule that the block reward should be spent to somewhere invalid, or paid to a particular person.
        olalonde 4y ago
        That doesn't work, unless 100% of miners accept your rule change forever (aka impossible). It would only take a single miner to keep mining using the old rules and this miner would reap the block reward / transaction fees. An old Bitcoin client would follow the chain created by this miner, wouldn't it?

gregwebs 4y ago

Current Bitcoin usage is literally a rounding error of global energy usage (0.1%) and if wildly successful would still be < 1% of energy usage. https://www.lynalden.com/bitcoin-energy/ https://www.lynalden.com/bitcoin-energy/ If Bitcoin moved to PoS it would be fundamentally different. It might work for other coins since they aren't as decentralized. > Instead, proof-of-stake mainly seems less suitable for a decentralized and censorship-resistant global monetary asset, especially when considered along with the issues that I’ll describe in the second half of this article about stablecoins. Proof-of-stake is inherently equity-like rather than money-like, compared to proof-of-work https://www.lynalden.com/proof-of-stake/ https://www.lynalden.com/proof-of-stake/

rekoil 4y ago
1% of ALL energy generated just to operate a part of the world economy is a massive amount though...
- 100001_100011 4y ago
  Bitcoin uses less energy than Gold Mining and the Banking System https://twitter.com/topimp21/status/1542863870552936448 https://twitter.com/topimp21/status/1542863870552936448 "Bitcoin uses 2-56 times less energy than the fiat system" https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/bitcoin-environmental-debate-is-wrong https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/bitcoin-environmental-de...
  - TremendousJudge 4y ago
    It also processes several orders of magnitude less transactions, and does so much slower (and at a higher cost). Please stop posting misleading claims.
    - 100001_100011 4y ago
      What I posted isn't mutually exclusive with the parent comment. The lightning network on top of Bitcoin scales the number of transactions. Please stop placing claims where I didn't make any.

bibabaloo 4y ago

> governments allowing PoW Is there any precedent for this? Have governments ever ruled on how people can use their computational power?

rekoil 4y ago
Ignoring your actual question; do you think it's reasonable that we don't introduce new societal rules as technology progresses?
cesarb 4y ago
> Is there any precedent for this? Have governments ever ruled on how people can use their computational power? Yes, they have. For instance, the DMCA is a USA law which, among other things, forbids people in the USA from using their computational power to circumvent an access control system (for instance, by brute forcing a cryptographic key) which happens to be preventing access to a copyrighted file. An older example is that encryption within France used to be severely restricted (quoting from https://www.theregister.com/1999/01/15/france_to_end_severe_encryption/ https://www.theregister.com/1999/01/15/france_to_end_severe_... which is from before the current laws: "Until 1996 anyone wishing to encrypt any document had to first receive an official sanction or risk fines from F6000 to F500,000 ($1000 to $89,300) and a 2-6 month jail term. Right now, apart from a handful of exemptions, any unauthorised use of encryption software is illegal. Encryption software can be used by anyone, but only if it's very easy to break.")
wmf 4y ago
More generally, governments have banned inefficient light bulbs, appliances, and cars. Banning PoW ASICs would be no different. PoW on GPUs would be harder to ban.

cesarb 4y ago

> How would Bitcoin ever move over to PoS like this? Would it just be a Bitcoin hard fork? I believe it would be possible for Bitcoin to migrate to proof of stake with a soft fork, similar to how they migrated to SegWit. A majority of nodes (both non-miner full nodes and miners) would have to upgrade to a version which rejects blocks which do not contain a proof of stake together with the current proof of work; non-upgraded nodes would ignore the proof of stake but would still accept the blocks as valid since the proof of work is valid (this is the key difference between a soft fork and a hard fork; on a hard fork, non-upgraded notes would reject the new chain). And to get rid of the proof of work, the block intervals would have to be tweaked to make the network appear to be running slow (for instance, making every block take one minute longer, either on reality or through clever manipulation of the block timestamps), so that the difficulty adjustment gradually reduces the difficulty, until the (now vestigial) proof of work becomes trivial to compute.

dogeprotocol 4y ago

[dead]