Author: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH 2021-05-10 21:22:17
Published on: 2021-05-10T21:22:17+00:00
In an email to the Bitcoin Protocol Discussion list, Keagan McClelland expressed his skepticism about Proof of Stake (PoS), stating that it requires permission from coin holders to enter the system, unlike Proof of Work (PoW). He also noted that PoS must have a trusted means of timestamping to regulate overproduction of blocks, which introduces trust into the system and is generally considered to be a nonstarter in Bitcoin. McClelland believes that the bar for new attempts in consensus algorithms is very high and PoS has not proposed, much less demonstrated, a set of properties consistent with Bitcoin's objectives. Erik Aronesty shared his opinion that Proof-of-Burn (PoB) has a much higher likelihood of being a good enough security mechanism and solving the nothing-at-stake problem. However, there is still an issue with block-timing in a quality PoB implementation. SatoshiSingh asked for opinions on implementing PoS for Bitcoin mining in the future, citing his concern about the energy usage of Bitcoin mining. He acknowledged that PoS is untested and not battle-tested like PoW but suggested that smaller networks could test it. SatoshiSingh presented two possibilities: PoS isn't a good enough security mechanism or it works as intended. If PoS turns out to be effective after battle testing, he asked whether people would consider implementing it for Bitcoin despite potential controversy and the need for a hard fork.
Updated on: 2023-06-14T21:10:09.662032+00:00