I have been using crypto since 2017, made plenty of dumb trades which caused me to lose out a lot. Currently my portfolio is about 80% BTC and while the new USA admin seems they may do more damage than good to the crypto space I’m still positive about Bitcoin.

This sub seems like a meme or anti-btc sub mostly. Anybody here who isn’t that way?

  • ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works
    2·
    1 month ago

    My biggest worry about Bitcoin is that it’s still on proof of work. Even if it has shown itself to be bulletproof, it uses as much electricity as a small country and I don’t think the environmentalists are going to just let that slide.

    • Sonalder@lemmy.ml
      1·
      3 days ago

      Proof-of-Stake is not a great match for Bitcoin because it fails at being neutral, it’s a plutocracy system and is not as resilient as PoW.

      You know what other global industries consume more than small countries ? All of them, including banking. This is an unfaire comparison in my opinion. Also the energy consumption is not the most interesting factor, the source of the energy is more interesting in my opinion.

      Here is a comment I just made under OP’s post to list a few academic peer-reviewed paper about the positive environmental impact of Bitcoin’s PoW for financing renewable energy production and cleaning methane from the atmosphere. I’ve also included some articles from mainstream media.

      • Sibshops@lemm.eeEnglish
        1·
        3 days ago

        Do you happen to have a source showing that Proof-of-Work (PoW) is more secure than Proof-of-Stake (PoS)? Most comparisons I’ve come across seems to show that PoS is more secure, especially when it comes to cryptoeconomic defense.

        For example, PoS has built-in economic deterrents:

        • As an attacker accumulates, the price of the token tends to rise, making the attack increasingly costly.
        • Existing holders benefit from this price increase and can sell to the attacker, effectively extracting value from an attacker during an attempted takeover.

        This is unique to PoS and doesn’t exist in PoW, where the cost of an attack is external and doesn’t get progressively more difficult to attack.

        • Sonalder@lemmy.ml
          1·
          3 days ago

          I don’t have a source, I’ve made those assumptions after countless conversation with various actors across the blockchain space both from PoW chains and PoS ones.

          It’s not much about security but more about permissionless, neutrality and resilience. PoS isn’t insecure but it’s less resilient and tend to have neutrality issue that we don’t have seen yet on Bitcoin PoW for exemple.

          There is different things here. First with PoS you don’t have a link to the real world, atoms and stuff. You don’t really have a physical cost to secure the network, you don’t have external factors like you have on mining farms. The competition is completely different where you have to find the cheapest energy source and the most stable places to mine. In PoS validator gets richer and gets more influence, in PoW this isn’t exactly the case due to physical reasons.

          If for some reasons like a bug or a global disaster and that all the nodes went offline when the validator start to come back online they will have to communicate and choose what is the real chain. With PoW miners will simply mine the longest chain as it’s the consensus. Bringing more resilience.

          Also in PoS like on Ethereum an issue is centralization of the validator, on PoW this is more about concentration while not an ideal thing this isn’t as bad as Lido and AWS centralisation.

          • Sibshops@lemm.eeEnglish
            1·
            3 days ago

            I agree with a lot of your points, but I’d add that money is a limited economic resource tied to the real world, atoms and all that. Buying stake in a network carries a real, physical cost similar to buying mining equipment.

            Also, I don’t think PoS’s more flexible recovery models are necessarily a bad thing. They actually provide adaptability in case of problems.

            But if we look at resilience historically, PoW chains have been vulnerable to 51% attacks, like we’ve seen with Ethereum Classic and Bitcoin Gold. Where as with PoS, noone has even been able buy up 51% of a chain for an attack.

            • Sonalder@lemmy.ml
              1·
              2 days ago

              Sorry but you can’t compare the physical ressources of PoW and PoS, mining isn’t buying a shit tons of ASICs and getting bitcoins.

              How it’s recovery model is more flexible ? How does mining can’t adapt to issues ?

              51% on Bitcoin has been highly improbable from decades now, miners will see it comming fast enough to adapt. Forks and 51% attacks are two very different concept. You had it with ETH PoW and you’ll probably get new fork even after PoS chains.

              Again I never said that PoS was less secure, I said it was more neutral and resilient. Bitcoin needs to be neutral and resilient as a network. PoS is a different consensus mechanism that have different tradeoff.

              • Sibshops@lemm.eeEnglish
                2·
                2 days ago

                I mean in general, Bitcoin aside, PoS is more resilient than PoW. The only major resilience issue I know of in PoS is when validators came offline for Ethereum and couldn’t reach finality. But I don’t think that’s a fair comparison to PoW because PoW doesn’t have finality in the first place. Also, because PoS has finality, it’s resistant to long-range attacks, even if someone did a 51% attack (which has never happened for a PoS chain), they wouldn’t be able to rewrite finalized blocks.

                • Sonalder@lemmy.ml
                  1·
                  2 days ago

                  Do you understand what it would need to change multiple blocks on 51% attack. Getting 51% of hashrate is a thing, maintaining long enough is another. Also if 51% attacks happen in a PoW consensus it can recover from it, not without any damage but it can recover. On PoS systems, once it happend it’s done.

                  PoW has probabilistic finality. The deeper a block is buried under subsequent blocks, the less likely it is to be reversed. Deterministic finality is not a universal upgrade — it trades off with flexibility and recovery mechanisms.

                  Main risks regarding PoS resilience are in my opinion :

                  • Centralized staking: A few providers (Lido) control large shares of stake, increasing systemic risk.
                  • Recovery assumptions: PoS chains often rely on subjective knowledge of the canonical chain in recovery scenarios (see “weak subjectivity”).
                  • Slashing risks: Honest validators can be penalized due to bugs or network issues.
                  • Sibshops@lemm.eeEnglish
                    2·
                    2 days ago

                    Centralized staking: Yes, it’s a concern, but so is centralized mining. We’ve seen real-world 51% attacks on PoW chains due to mining centralization.

                    Weak subjectivity: True, it’s a real factor, but not a showstopper. Clients just need to use a recent finalized checkpoint.

                    Slashing risk: It exists in theory, but we haven’t seen it hit honest validators in practice, even on smaller PoS chains.

    • John@lemmy.mlEnglish
      3·
      1 month ago

      Aside from the long term security guarantees that every Bitcoiner is just ignoring, the narrative around energy usage has pretty much gone away. Why? I have no idea. Ethereum in comparison has gone to PoS and reduced its energy usage to near trivial amounts while at the same time democratizing securing the network in a way more sustainable way.