I'm a cryptominer, I do proof of work because I believe in incorruptible, open source, fair, permissionless, non-custodial data tracking and money.
I see a big trend to push into Proof of Stake. It makes no sense to me. It's only slightly more secure than regular banking and it's an interest/inflationary model of money, many are centralized and CBDCs are just proof of stake cryptos. It basically feals like the bankers are trying to destroy cryptocurrency by infecting it with the banking system.
Is it just me who thinks like this? What are your thoughts?
POS is the same old system with a shiny new name. Those holding the most dictate the rules.
Bitcoin is a honey pot. But crypto per se is not a bad technology. After WW3 I will buy crypto, before I stick with aurum et argentum (gold and silver).
Proof of stake is not necessarily evil; but central bank digital currencies (cbdc) are!
I’m ok with eth going pos, but will avoid as much as I possibly can any cbdc.
Keep in mind IBM build the computer system for the concentration camps in wwii. Today IBM is building the international vaccine passport system with hyperledger (a private blockchain that uses the same concepts but redesigned to permit centralized control)
Yeah Central Bank digital currencies are terrifying. I want to do absolutely everything in my power to support the proof of work systems and keep an alternative going so that maybe we have a hope in hell of resisting cbdcs. I understand a little bit why the banks want them but they're not benevolent and they're not going to use them nicely.
Simply put it puts too much power in the hands of bankers and governments.
POW vs pos to me is not the real fight.
The real fight is
That is a much better way of putting it. That is a significantly better way of putting it because public versus private, custodial versus non-custodial, anonymous versus traceable. You're right they're all extremely important questions.
I'm not big on the crypto scene, but I've been in currency exchange for a while. I see PoS as a reasonable way to connect the currency to the material value it represents. In other words, it validates the fungibility across currencies, and potentially even a material par value. Many people in crypto think the value is only in the accountability, but that's not true: there is also value in the exchangeability, and proof of stake can be material to that.
That is true the exchangeability is a big part of it but that is not necessarily something that requires proof of stake. Bitcoin and ethereum are slow because the base parameters of the systems keep it at a set speed no matter how much demand there is. There's lots of other cryptocurrencies where the difficulty isn't modified so heavily in this way.
So like ethereum and Bitcoin can only process 10 transactions a second same with Bitcoin. But then if you takes something like ergo, which actually positions itself as a better replacement for ethereum using better technology and better programming ideas, processes it's like tens of thousands of transactions a second because that's how high the devs set the parameter.
Also most of the speed up techniques that are going to be a real benefit to the proof of stake systems could be applied to the proof of work systems they just don't do it. Sharding is actually something that could be applied to proof of work and would give proof of work the same speed up it gives proof of stake. You're essentially hyperthreading the crypto network.
That's why I think that proof of stake has got to be some sort of like cabal plot or something. I think the cabal knows that cryptocurrency is coming for its money system and they decided that they needed to take over.
I can't know for sure but that's what my Spidey senses are telling me.
That's not what I meant. Exchangeability within the system is one thing; exchanging outside the online system is helped by proof of stake.
Think of it this way: what happens if one day people wake up and say "I don't care about bitcoin." Independently of the value of distributed architecture and open books, there's no counter. It's an existential problem for bitcoin and most cryptos. Yes, there is true value to a trusted network (most crypto-haters ignore this outright) and secure accounting in and of itself, but beyond that it has nothing. If there was proof that say, the Mormon church, or the State of Texas guaranteed each Brighamcoin as being worth one hour of labor or one bushel of wheat, this would provide a guarantee that, above and beyond the secure transparency of transactions within the system, that the currency could be exchanged from one system to another.
Obviously that's an analogy, but that's how I see proof of stake: a bridge of accountability from the crypto environment to non-crypto and material environments. And that's why I think a centralized blockchain currency is superior (with the important caveat that it can't be controlled by cheats and liars). Bitcoin on its own is a secure value transfer mechanism, but cannot guarantee its underlying value without material accountability, which comes in the form of proof of stake.
Looks like war then. I knew the bankers were going to fight back. I was expecting them to use legislation. I didn't expect them to invade and corrupt. I should have. It's their MO.
I like gold and silver, but pay for something online with it lol.
Glad to see it's not just me.
When I was learning about crypto, pow made me excited and hopeful for the future. Then I read about proof of stake and I'm still angry.
Kind of defeats the entire purpose of having gold or silver though. Cuz you'r gold and silver are still held in a custodial service. If the custodian decides to steal your assets, I mean he already has them. It's like buying gold or silver on the stock market, you don't actually have gold or silver you just have a promissary note that says that it's yours, like an old greenback.
If I could store my assets in a non-custodial manor like a safe we're only I have the combination or the key, that's significantly more secure because then if somebody wants it they have to come get it.
That's why I like my private wallets. They're non-custodial so for somebody to steal my crypto they would have to bust into my house and steal my recovery keys.
I live in Canada so this is something I think about because my prime minister and deputy Prime Minister and finance Minister of all decided that they can just steal your money whenever they want.
For now, we've withdrawn all of our assets, while leaving a float to pay the bills, and we've been talking about emigrating.
I agree with you: any crypto that is not backed by a traceable ledger is essentially a scam. If you can't read the list of transactions to see the chain of events that allows this person to be authorized to spend X amount of credits on the system then how do you know that they legitimately have the authority to spend that amount of credits on the system?
If you're backed by a ledger where you can't see the list of transactions coupled with the outgoing public account address and the incoming public account address and the amount and type of currency as well as read the financial aspects of the smart contracts, then how do you know the validity of the transactions or the totals in anybody's accounts?
That's why any crypto that's worth it salt has a public ledger and relatively transparent list of transactions that is publicly available monitored and mirrored across all nodes.
Another way to think of it is in a real cryptocurrency, or one that's worth investing in every single unit of currency can be traced directly back to a crypto miner who earned it by solving a block or someone who minted it by locking in assets into the system.