Zooko talking about PoS. PoS vs PoW Discussion

Once again its not the same thing. The network comming to consensus is not the same as transaction speeds, however it can effect them.

Most the coins you have shown with fast transaction times are NOT pure PoS coins. And the ones that are, have a huge stake required that helps prevent millions of nodes.

You have not linked a system you have described earlier where 1 coin = 1 stake in a PURE PoS system with fast transaction times. Maybe you dont realize you dont like a PURE PoS system, and instead liked a DPoS system.

1 Like

Could next generation/future asics include these in regards to ProgPOW?

These results show that an ASIC specialized for executing ProgPoW would need to consist of:

  • A high bandwidth memory interface.
    (allready asked in the asic mining topic if hbm2 would fix this issue)

what about these? How difficult to design this on an Asic?

  • A compute core with a large register file.
  • A compute core with a high throughput integer math.
  • High throughput, highly banked cache.
  • Small Keccak + KISS99 engines.

Uppps, maybe this post belongs into the asic mining topic, no matter i replied to a post here…:thinking:

1 Like

If Bitmain could make a better GPU, im pretty sure they would have by now. Nvidia and AMD have been researching GPUs for over 20+ years. Its not something you just slap a few components on and now you have a ASIC that can do everything a GPU can but faster.

I think this is they guy on utube that I was talking about.I didn’t save the link. Anyways here you go -

1 Like

Thx for the link, quiet interesting, didn’t watch the whole video yet, but this guy is making a profit from staking, no matter half of the coins are absolutly never heared coins for me.

Will watch the whole video tomorrow, but from what i got out the guy made profit to fit it up.


This very good written article convinces me even more that the near future is POS/POS like consensus design and that we are losing ground.

"Bitcoin uses a Proof-of-Work algorithm which has well-documented challenges that threaten to be fatal. Proof-of-Stake has gained in popularity as a result and entails users showing that they have staked crypto on validating transactions, but favors the already-rich and runs the risk of creating a 51 percent shareholder.

The deep, structural issues with these methods are part of the reason that many startups have started looking for other ways of achieving consensus."

I thought the article would actually mention what the Bitcoin’s PoW flaws were, but that is all it said, How do we know that these other validation methods are more secure? They are all too new to say they are better. Once they become hacked we will see how good (or bad) they are.

Proof of Authority sounds good in concept for decentralization (if it limits the amount per person) and preventing attacks, but it needs to have very solid safeguards for privacy. Proof of Authority with zk-SNARK’s would be an intriguing method.

No system is perfect and this article doesnt even go into detail on how or why it thinks PoW has fatal flaws.

It then begins to talk about other systems that have yet to be proven or tested in the wild. Alot of the things they talk about are all theoritical and might be even more flawed and hackable then PoW.

In theory, Equihash algo was suppose to be ASIC-resistant and we all seen how that turned out.

Proof of Authority
“In theory, this provides a near-unhackable attack surface.”

Proof of Contribution
“An attack on the network is theoretically prevented by the high cost required to overload the system.”

To say PoW has flaws and have no supporting arguments is pretty weak. Then to say here are other systems that have solved the PoW problems. PoW has been tried and tested for 10 years now, and so far it has been the most successful blockchain.


I personally think most flaws of BTC POW are obvious and are even bigger outside BTC, they are obvious in my opinion, but here a list of them that apply to BTC and most other POW coins:

  • Tracing a coin’s history
  • design limitations
  • Several ways for a theoretical Sybill attack
  • Packet sniffing
  • Illegal content in the block chain
  • Energy Consumption, billions of watt to have just 7 transactions per block?
  • Scalability
  • Spamming transactions
  • High transaction costs on peeks, increasing over time.
  • Slow transactions
  • Limited transactions per second
  • Mining pool centralization. 5 mining pools have together over 50%, 6 miningpools together even 70%
  • Uselessness of computations
  • It’s an arms race between miners to develop more powerful and efficient equipment, and to operate in the lowest cost structures globally. This will lead to geographical centralization.
  • Expenses grow unmanageable, and mining becomes possible only for large groups of miners. In addition, specialized computers consume a lot of energy, which increases costs. The consequence of this is a gradual increase in the centralization of the system, as it is beneficial. And this is what happens in the case of bitcoin.
  • Various other attacks theoretical possible: Double spending or Race attack, Finney attack, Brute force attack, Vector 76 or one-confirmation attack, 50% hashpower or Goldfinger, Block discarding or Selfish mining, Block
    withholding, fork after withholding (FAW) attack …
  • huge increasing history data in the blockchain that must be downloaded
  • 81% of the BTC mining power is located in China
  • PoW has also proven to be not as decentralized as other consensus models. Due to the inherent reward system based on computational power, miners typically pool together into mining pools in order to compete for block rewards. This has created a centralized hierarchy within Bitcoin, with only three or four mining groups controlling the majority of block production. Because of this, the miners themselves are a source of centralization.
  • long queue of transactions in an overflow
  • The block reward is 25 coins now, and will be 0.78 coins in 20 years (some blocks already have fees of this magnitude).
  • Administrator of the pool can enact policies that demand higher transaction fees from users…
  • Why having a few (dozens) centrally controlled pools is bad? Less nodes in the decentralized network ⇒ weak network topology ⇒ network DoS attacks, network isolation attacks.

Some resources that describe these pretty well:

A Survey on Security and Privacy Issues of Bitcoin (36 pages!)

Proof of Activity: Extending Bitcoin’s Proof of Work via Proof of Stake (40 pages very interesting!!!)




This is some good research :slight_smile:

1 Like

Alot of these are more your opinion on random aspects of BTC and not actual flaws of the PoW system.



(I’m just posting interesting articles related to the PoW vs PoS discussion, not taking a viewpoint.)


I know PoS has some advantages over PoW, however these articles are very biased. They talk about the disadvantages of PoW than go on to talk about the advantages of PoS. Far from a fair comparison.

Whatever you think. In your opinion everything not POW seems to be personal opinions, unfair, whatever. Thx god there are other experts making decisions and reviews.

Here the newest Global Public Blockchain Technology Assessment Index:

Clearly visible that POS/POS like are coming more than strong. BTC only rank 19 now, ZEC ranked 25,

The ranking speaks for itself where the near future is heading and that the “old” blockchain POW projects are losing ground…

P.S.: Even no need to answer the BTC/POW flaw & weekness list some posts above as you didn’t even took the time to read into the attachements.

1 Like

If you think about it, PoS system is similar to shares and shareholders. People holding the shares receive profits (mining rewards) or in traditional systems they receive dividends. I am ok with that.


Hard to belive them ratings when they have EoS rated as the number 1 blockchain currently. It is not a blockchain, its a scam. Everyday a new scandal comes out about EoS and how its not even a blockchain, but closer to a cloud service and how the block producers are always colluding.

Do you think China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology who are in charge of regulations, would list privacy coins high even if they were number one? Coins they have zero control over, have zero tracking abilities for, and are completely anonymous as currency.

Also, Alot of the coins you are pointing out are not truely pure PoS like you keep insisting.

Actually I did read them… and alot of the issues you raised that I addressed are not related to PoW systems or unique to them.