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?
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.