Zooko talking about PoS. PoS vs PoW Discussion

3 posts about ASICs vs GPU were merged into an existing topic: Let’s talk about ASIC mining

Cross posting this as i think it should belong in this category as well:

Some interesting explaination i just found on the ETH reddit channel, and i honestly admit so far that i as well thought the main computationally afford is going into validating the transaction. :roll_eyes:

Validating transactions happens computationally in PoS just like it does in PoW. Validating transactions and blocks made by others just happens to be a fairly computationally light process. The main computational effort in PoW is not going into validating transactions, but instead into the race for who finds the next valid block. Odds at finding the next block are distributed according to computational power. PoS allows leaving this crazy race out of the picture.

So who has more stake wins!

More or less the same as in PoW, not? You just don’t need millons of kw/h for this simple job.

Beside that at least in PoS you have some mechanisms available that limit the stake impact like max. stake amount, max. stake duration, stake cool down time, decreasing reward at a given stake amount, and and and.

Versus PoW at least their are some mechanisms and designs available that to NOT encourage having the biggest stake for more profit. Not even talking about the amount of investment that decreases in PoW vs. increases in PoS. Simple said, in PoS the more stake the lass advantage compared to PoW… At least something…

1 Like

I’m glad you believe in something.

Actually yes, i believe that it’s possible to make a fair better PoS design, this doesn’t mean every PoS design is a good one. But at least it’s possible to make a pretty good one, time will show which projects are going with good PoS designs and which are going with bad ones. PoS isn’t just PoS … but yes, i believe it’s possible, enough the devs (of a given projcect) are interested in a fair POS design…

It all points to BAT being next to be added to coinbase and not Zcash. Look at its chart last week, insiders are buying it, no other reason. Also, they said from Coinbase that it is easier for them to add erc 20 tokens, compared to other cryptocurrency where they have to work on.

Crosspost from “Let’s talk about asics”

It took me some hours to make this list to see if your argument is a valid one. The coins are choosen by transaction speed and not by me (just as a sidenote!). I checked each coin to see it’s minimum stake.

Ok, let’s compare average transaction speeds, transactions/s and minimum stake for the POS coins and let’s see if they are indeed slower and how it’s compared to the PoW coins:

  • Zcash, Asic, 15 minutes, 7-27 transactions/s
  • Bitcoin, Asic, 78 minutes, currently ~3-7 transactions/s
  • Ripple, RPCA, 4 seconds, ~ 1,000,000+ transactions daily (Visa Level!),
  • Bitcoin Cash, Asic, 60 minutes, ~10 transactions/s ???
  • Litecoin, Asic, 30 minutes, 56 transactions/s
  • Ethereum, GPU, 6 minutes, 12-25 transactions/s,
  • Dash, Hybrid Asic/POS, 15 minutes, 28-56 transactions/s, 1000 Dash minimum stake = ~154,000$, lol,
  • Augur, Hybrid POS, 6 minutes, transactions/s (limited to ETH?), strange staking here, no idea how it works!
  • Monero, GPU, 30 minutes, 4 transactions/s (bevor bulletproof!),
  • Cardano, POS, 3-5 minutes, (all notes validate!), 257+ transactions/s, no stake minimum
  • IOTA, PoA, 3 minutes, DAG, claims 1.000.000 transactions per second, no staking possible,
  • Steem, POS (Proof of Brain), 3 seconds, 1,000+ transactions/s, couldn’t find minimum stake so far
  • Stratis, POS, 6 minutes, < claims 20,000 transactions/s, 1 Stratis mimimum stake, 1.45$
  • Ardor, POS, 60 seconds, ~100 transactions/s, minimum stake 1000 Ardor = ~ 110$
  • NEM, POS/Proof of Importance, 30 seconds, 3085 transactions/s, minimum stake: 10,000 XEM = ~1,000$
  • Stellar, 5 seconds, ~1,000 transactions/s, automatic staking, compensates for inflation
  • Spectrecoin, POS, 30 seconds, ??? transactions/s, Stealth staking!, no minimum stake, suggested 7.800 coins = ~1482$ for daily reward
  • NEO, POS, 15 seconds, <10,000 transactions/s, 1 NEO minimum stake = ~18$
  • Electroneum, Asic, 75 minutes, faster transactions for higher fees, ??? transactions/s
  • Bitshares, POS (dPos), 2 seconds, 3,300 transactions/s, claims 100,000 possible, staking trough elections
  • Nano, POS (dPos), 5 seconds, 7,000 transactions/s, voting with stakes
  • EOS, POS, 1.5 seconds, 50,000 transactions/s, seems to be dPos, must check this further!
  • Tron, POS (dPos), 5 seconds, 1,500 transactions/s, currently only voting
  • VeChain, POS, 6 minutes, 10,000 transactions/s, no stake minimum
  • Qtum, POS, 4 minutes, 60-70 transactions/s, no stake minimum
  • PIVX, POS, 60 seconds in private mode, 173 transactios/s, no minimum stake, garantee monthly reward 1.000 PIVX needed, ~1,400$
  • Kommodo, Hybrid POS,?? minutes, ~10,000 transactions/s on 64 chains, minimum stake 1 Kommodo,

Fastest Binance Deposit Times:

  • Nano, 3 seconds
  • Stellar, 5 seconds
  • Ripple, 10 seconds
  • Neo/Gas, 20 seconds
  • Iota, 2 minutes
  • Verge, 2,30 minutes
  • Groestlcoin, 5 minutes
  • Viacoin, 6 minutes
  • Monero, 6 minutes

Some of the Resources:

1 Like

Wow you have mentioned this several times already. When I quoted the article I was showing an example of why PoS is broken. At the start of ethereum PoS talks, they were talking about 1,500 eth needed. This was from the devs, yes they have reduced it over time, but this was the starting number.

EDIT: You were constantly saying PoS is for the average little guy, My example was showing, PoS is not for the little guy with a few hundred dollars.

Correct would be ETH POS is not for the little guy with a few hundred dollars as it’s ETH that needs 10 ETH to stake, not EVERY POS.

Actually and to be honest and fair, today i came across some other POS coins that need larger amounts of stakes for being able to get for sure monthly rewards. PIVX for example, a little bit above 1000 coins needed, makes (if i remember right about 1.800 USD). So it’s a valid argument in my opinion that if a bigger amount of coins is needed it’s no more for the very little holder, absolutly agree on this one.

But than again, every coin has it’s own PoS design, some go with 10 ETH, some with 1000 PIVX, others go with as low as USD 10 stake. Just because some coins decide to make their design that way doesn’t mean the POS system is flawed, it’s the given coins/projects design that is flawed for whatever reason they have for that.

My wish/hope is indeed that POS staking should be available for everybody with about USD 100-250, somewhere in that range and someone can only hope that more devs think about the smaller holders as well. We will see…

What if minimum stake was 1 Zcash. Lets do the math. Currently circulating: 5,063,569 Zcash. Daily inflation is 7200.
1 Zcash is 0.00001975% of entire supply but not all supply would be staked as not everyone has entire 1 Zcash so lets say 0.00002, so this means they would receive 0.00144 Zcash/day if i have calculated it right. This means that holder of 1 Zcash would receive additional 0.5184 Zcash for a year of holding it.
I ask you, is this so bad ?


That’s one big IF your assuming!

Where are you getting these numbers from? You are making assumptions on a system that doesnt even exist. There are more factors at work than just how many coins you are holding.

This is how PoS system i envisioned would work. Only assumption is that minimum stake is 1 Zcash, rest is based on current network and supply.

I didn’t check the calculation, too lazy in the morning with my coffee, lol.

Actually i think this is exactly the reason why ETH for example wants in generally a higher stake, to exclude small holders and to maximize the reward for bigger stake holders, which in my opinion is a bad approach. As i’am anyway not an ETH fan i actually don’t care, it’s only interesting because ETH is currently the highest ranked Token switching to POS at some time, that’s all.

Up to the design the reward would mostly would be influenced by some other factors as well. For example i personally have yet no idea how the exchange wallets are handled? Are these staking too? Never thought about it so far, just came into my mind right now. If they don’t stake than the reward for the desktop wallet would be higher. If they stake than your calculation is correct and includes that factor allready.

Next thing would be that staking doesn’t automaticly begin immediatly, it mostly would need 24 or 48 at least to mature the coins in the wallet. Again excluding the current transfered coins from staking increasing the stake reward of these that didn’t move.

Another thing would be the whole design. IF it’s hybrid the POS reward is lower of course. If there is a maximum staking limite, let’s say 10.000 ZEC or whatever, the output reward again would be higher for the other stakers.

Than comes the most important design question in my opinion. Which design to choose to distribute/validate transactions. There seem to be several approaches for this. From being randomly choosen wallets up to indeed fairly distributed rewards at the price of some centralization of course, for example like NEO.

Another thing would be transaction cost, this should be lower in POS taking away a bit of the reward but eventually favouring more transactions which again could increase the amount of transactions. As the ZEC transaction cost isn’t currently high i doubt this will have a lot of influence at all.

One more thing would be IF the wallet must be 24/7 online. In case yes it would not allow cold storage wallets to stake, in case it is not a requirement like Kommodo or NEO, cold wallets as well get rewards.

There are some more factors but i think these are the most important ones. This said, i think the perfect POS design for a given coin, just talking generally, should be the result of a bigger discussion not only between the developers but as well between the holders/investors/community to come up with the best possible solution and eventually being innovative with new mechanisms to prevent fraud, rich get richer issues, cheating, faster transactions, more transactions and and and and. Pretty sure it’s possible to come up with a way fairer POS design than many of the currently used ones.

And whatever giving coin/project is going to POS is again asic resistant, one thing that makes me wonder why nearly nobody calling for asic resistance is supporting a POS discussion as a move to POS should be more likely and logical than back to gpu PoW :thinking:

They want a high stake because than there will be less nodes, when there is less nodes, it takes less time to come to consensus. Having a pure PoS system with lots of nodes is much slower. This is why lots of PoS system have a required amount of coins to stake.

Makes some sense of course. But thinking about it, the ETH POS design has absolutly different requirements as a platform while a privacy coin like ZEC has again others. I mean there aren’t 1000 other projects on ZEC like on ETH for example, just as a thought.

But such thoughts like yours is the way to go i think to see if POS would fit all ZEC requirements, if it would improve whatever, make it more secure or not. I think a fair discussion can’t hurt at all, not?

Edit: The question about nodes should arise automaticly the question if masternodes should be included?! Me personally doesn’t like them neither combined with PoW nor with PoS, but that’s just my opinion of course, but if i remember right Zooko once mentioned them as well as a possibility for future (don’t nail me on this one!).

Some interesting explaination i just found on the ETH reddit channel, and i honestly admit so far that i as well thought the main computationally afford is going into validating the transaction. :roll_eyes:

Validating transactions happens computationally in PoS just like it does in PoW. Validating transactions and blocks made by others just happens to be a fairly computationally light process. The main computational effort in PoW is not going into validating transactions, but instead into the race for who finds the next valid block. Odds at finding the next block are distributed according to computational power. PoS allows leaving this crazy race out of the picture.

Last 3 months i buyed 10 masternode coins …and guess what …on all masternode worth went 100 times less and even 1000 …i lost 3000$…and i was lucky because i wanted to invest more but thank god i did not.

Even far biggest masternode coin now and is Dash is sinking constantly like Titanic.
So for me never ever i would buy any masternode coin…who want to lose money its his money.

Only tactic that ever worked for me in trading was this…buy some GPU coin that is hyped by GPU miners and market cap is still low (but not bitcoin forks …they allready have most coins mined) and save them until you heard that there is ASIC created …and soon as you heard it …sell all.
That tactic made me some money …all other things i tried i lost.
Some months ago i buyed RVN because its GPU mined and was huped by them and i thing i will earn money …i could sell now and make profit but still waiting …maybe sell some part …as soon i hear ASIC for RVN i will sell all .


please think. those questions do not make sense if you compare to GPU

I feel free to add PoS/PoA as this seems currently the more logical comparison to compare 3 options instead of only 2 :slight_smile:

gpu has a real 2yr warranty;

GPU: True, some issue such warranties, some other producers void the warranty if used for mining.
Asic: Limited warranty only.
POS: No warranty needed at all. Point goes to POS :slight_smile:

lifespan - there are people mining ok 5yrs+ at 100% fan speed;

GPU: To some extend true. The question should be more if they are profitable after a given period? Answer is nowadays probably no. The gpu cards from 5 years ago mostly don’t make anymore any profit. Result: Newer hardware is needed soon or late.
Asic: Undoubtable they are of lower quality than gpu’s. Again the main question is now long are they staying profitable?
POS: No hardware and no lifespan needed. Point for POS :slight_smile: Actually gpu’s can be sold, they have value right? Means when a gpu project switches to POS no harm to the gpu miners is done at all :slight_smile:

gpu has value no matter what will happen with equihash;

GPU: True, it has some value, no doubt, anothe question would be how much value once the mass sale begins but that’s another question.
Asic: Less value than GPU but still has some value. Up to how it’s used until it gets obsolent, selling for spare parts, selling to AI companies buying off older asics, whatever.
POS: No hardware, no worries. Nothing that impacts or matters for POS.

gpu has multiple use in crypto and in rest of the world;

GPU: true, so it be.
Asic: Very limited to none other.
POS/PoA: can be run on any PC or Laptop, with PoA on every ioT device like TV, fridge, whatever. Strong point for POS as it’s not limited to any minimum requirements and uses even more multiple use hadware than gpu’s.

people producing this hardware seem not to stick their nose into everything;

GPU: Mostly true, while you never know. It’s not excluded it can/could be happen at some point, even more if crypto establishes even more and is no more “questionable”.
Asic: True, Asic producers, for bad or good, have their nose in my things. Agree.
POS: Excludes the questions. No more even a possible advantage for whatever hardware producer. Point POS :slight_smile:

distribution is already fairly spread over the planet and so on…

GPU: Not really and only to some extend true. Active gpu mining is as well influenced by regions and their electricity prices concentrating these in these regions. Other than that it’s true that gpu’s are available in most regions, enough you can afford them.
ASIC: Even more extreme and influecend by regions with low electricity prices. Less available than a gpu, no doubt either.
POS/PoA: Best distributed needed hardware, everybody and his grandma has a PC, laptop, TV, fridge, cellphone. NO concentration due electricity prices. Very strong point for POS :grinning:

this is why gpu can not be compared to asic, which is about roi only.

GPU: As soon as you buy gpu’s only for mining there is again a ROI factor, no matter the keep value decreases this intention more or less. Still, it’s wishable the bought gpu’s make a profit and the invested money isn’t wasted. Let’s say we have here a limited ROI factor.
Asic: Of course, we have a ROI factor and race here to ROI until new better hardware is released. Nobody really buys an asic without hoping getting his money back.
POS: No pressure on ROI as no hardware was bought anyay. No additional electricity included which is another burden to reach a given ROI. Strong POS point. :grinning:

it seems that you are alone who does not understand the point im trying to make.

I see the point very well. But why should a choice be limited to 2 bad options when there are eventually some 5 more good options available?

why exactly do we have to stick to them?

We don’t have, by now and in future we obviously have better options available that fix all the problems you mentioned. Doesn’t mean it must be POS, eventually some notarious design, some hybrid, some whatever, or something brand new will fit the current issues better, hence the question why should we focus only on 2 prooven by now bad solutions?

I feel again free to add some more points :grinning:

Transactions possible:

GPU: Very limited, doesn’t allow mass adoption at all
Asic: Very limited, doesn’t allow mass adoption at all
POS/POA: Highest currently possible with Blockchain involved, strong point :grinning:


GPU: Gets more and more centralized as difficulty raises to regions with low energy costs. Danger of miningpool centralization of network.
Asic: Same, more and more centralized for regions with low electricity costs. Additonally danger of miningpool centralization of network and unfair secret mining operations. Even worse like SIA, only approved own hardwareto mine on the network.
POS: All the above eleminated, no burden due electricity costs. Strong point for POS :grinning:


GPU: Only really secure in rare occasions. GPU hashpower shifting easy. Cheap to attack coins.
Asic: Only top coins are secure, cheap to attack coins.
POS: Best security option. Incredible expensive to attack a POS coin. Strong point :grinning:

Energy usage:

GPU: uses a lot of energy on PoW.
Asic: uses a lot of energy on PoW
POS: nearly green solution, not much additonally energy required. PoA even less energy consuming.Strong point if you like mother earth :grinning:


GPU: not even the easiest one if used with 1 gpu on a given PC, miningpool setup and so on. Burden for not very advanced people.
Asic: Easier than gpu setup but still requires some knowledge for use.
POS: No technical knowledge required. Nearly as easy as plug & play. Strong point for POS :grinning:

need some more …? :roll_eyes:

1 Like