Community Trust ScoreLikely Real
Now there are new thoughts brewing about changing Bitcoin from POW to POS.
Nic carter says: So backdoor bitcoin into a PoS network with the largest hashrate holders snapshotted and granted perpetual control? Easily the stupidest idea I’ve come across this year
Community Response: Hey you know all those nice properties of PoW – unforgettable costliness, churn in the validation set, nonperpetual validation advantage? Let’s eliminate those
Chris Larsen actively lobbies against BTC via the PoW objection. I have seen it happen on a first hand basis. It’s not a conspiracy, I’ve witnessed it.
PoS has nice properties as well, like finalization, lower start-up capital, faster recovery from state-level attacks. But none of that is as important as winning the hearts and minds of people, and PoW energy is a huge obstacle there. But PoS is not ready for BTC yet, may be give it 3 to 5 years.
We have had and currently have a proof of stake system now with the fiat system. Proof of work is an integral part of Bitcoin not a flaw. A competition for cheaper power creates an incentive to develop better, more efficient energy production. Proof of work will save the planet.
Glad to know the ripple guys are here to fix bitcoin. Maybe we can even get a CEO.
Chris Larsen doesn’t understand PoW and it’s probably because he’s long something else Bitcoin’s moat is not drastically changing, let alone giving up our hash rate ETH may get pawned by memists, but we will not.
Ask yourself: Which companies were we talking about before? Is this one of those companies? If not, ask yourself what your point might be?
Bitcoin PoW mining ensures distribution. PoS is just the legacy banking system with extra steps.
Ethereum started with PoW to get fair distribution but now that the coins are distributed there’s no need to stay with PoW.
How can a coin with 70% pre-mine have a fair distribution? For those who benefitted from the pre-mine, do they still hold it and what percent of the market cap is it?
I know the market doesn’t care (same way the market doesn’t care about slave labor used to make cheap things, etc) but misleading marketing ought to be called out.
LMAO. I agree but probably the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard in crypto.
Miners would just happily continue to mine BTC and also earn some shit coins from the hardfork to dump into BTC. This is just another attempt at FUDing Bitcoin energy consumption.
Stupid or scammer’s idea to introduce noise in Bitcoin so his scam coin gets attention!
How would he propose to stop me from continuing to transact on the longest POW chain?
Also, wouldn’t that make Bitcoin into a security like Ripple? Yup you are quite correct. Ripple is not registered. XRP on the other hand is not that is why there is litigation. So, check your facts first. No judge have made that decision – XRP already has a designation.
They used to just call it all Ripple, until they realized that they had to try to fool the SEC…
I guess you are the expert. I don’t pay attention to the securities market.
This is the company that keeps on spreading FUD around Bitcoin, and now aiming to suggesting PoS, Meanwhile SEC is cooking something for them LOL.
LMAO if you for a sec think anyone else is safe from SEC you are kidding. XRP =/= RIPPLE. I own XRP could care less about Ripple. Just last week, the community raised something like 100K euro to support the XRPL with no intervention from Ripple and this is true in many other aspects.
Bag holders defend their bags, putting facts aside. But only future will tell.
Many of the best stupid ideas come from shit coiners. Bitcoin should remain PoW, the aim should be for cleaner energy providing the PoW, ala Volcano et al.
Bitcoin will eventually go to PoS. But it’ll probably take a long time. I think the model will be the same as Ethereum. Anyone who holds BTC can become a validator. No special lock-in for miners. I actually think that BCH and LTC will probably jump first.
It’s obviously a stupid idea, but the fact that the economic incentive required to make such a horrible mistake is so little compared to the network’s value is problematic.
