News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:BTC Endgame by AffableSpatula on Friday February 19, 2021 @05:03PM (#26198621)
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?
Re:BTC Endgame by DSMan195276 on Friday February 19, 2021 @05:20PM (#26198765)
> 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.

Re:BTC Endgame by shawnz on Friday February 19, 2021 @06:07PM (#26199251)
Miners don't control the price. If a PoS coin became valued, they'd be leaving free money on the table to ignore it. And if Bitcoin became devalued, the mining rate would drop to match (otherwise they'd be spending in excess of the reward on electricity)
Re:BTC Endgame by hanniabu on Friday February 19, 2021 @07:04PM (#26199748)
Miners don't control the price but they control the upgrade. Why would the miner vote (with their hashpower) to upgrade to a PoS consensus and kill their business?
Re:BTC Endgame by shawnz on Friday February 19, 2021 @07:36PM (#26200056)
They don't control the upgrade: new miners can simply come in to take the free rewards on the new coin if the existing ones refuse to do it.

All that matters is the market's valuation of the currency: it would be irrational for miners to do anything except expand until their costs nearly match the reward.

Re:BTC Endgame by AffableSpatula on Friday February 19, 2021 @05:24PM (#26198810)
The attack scenario is an adversarial nation state who is not motivated economically and is intent on sabotage of the network.
Re:BTC Endgame by DSMan195276 on Friday February 19, 2021 @05:26PM (#26198829)
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.
Re:BTC Endgame by AffableSpatula on Friday February 19, 2021 @05:33PM (#26198910)
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.

Re:BTC Endgame by DSMan195276 on Friday February 19, 2021 @07:49PM (#26200175)
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.

Re:BTC Endgame by nostrademons on Friday February 19, 2021 @05:14PM (#26198715)
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.

Re:BTC Endgame by hertzrat on Friday February 19, 2021 @05:43PM (#26199013)
> 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

Re:BTC Endgame by keskadale on Saturday February 20, 2021 @12:01AM (#26201728)
try rust.
Re:BTC Endgame by hanniabu on Friday February 19, 2021 @07:14PM (#26199842)
> and along with it your advantage over [PoS chains]

You're assuming that PoW is better than PoS.