Hacker News Reader

Comment by nosuchthing | Hacker News Reader

Proof-of-Stake statistically equates to "Give the rich more money".

Consider Ethereum's stats (and other similar PoS minting methods):

  Presale ICO / Premine ( max cost $0.50 USD per ETH  )
  = 72,009,990 ETH
  
  Total Supply today (Feb 23rd 2018)
   = 97,800,000 ETH

  Source:
  https://etherscan.io/stat/supply

Now imagine a financial system where all the wealthy have to do simply own money (spawned from software or premine) to get more money. Or where voting is done by merely by controlling a large sum of money/tokens.

View on HN

>Now imagine a financial system where all the wealthy have to do simply own money... to get more money.

You mean the current system?

PoS is literally get paid for doing nothing but owning lottery tickets.

Normal capital flow with bonds, stocks, etc allow a legally binding agreement for mutually beneficial transfer of capital between parties.

Well, they get paid for putting that capital at risk and for keeping it locked into the system to provide consensus. It's a kind of a service.

Except only the top few largest "stakers" are paid, others are either disqualified entirely for being too poor to stake, or will not recieve block rewards for being statistically irrelevant.

PoS is a lottery with reusable tickets. Winners get more tickets.

PoS is an idea. There are implementation that reward everyone equally for the amount they put it (like semux)

interesting, thanks for sharing

With PoW you use your money to buy mining equipment and you will get more money, and voting power. With PoS you buy more of the currency with that money instead.

Right, but the rest of us also have to suffer due to the economic repercussions (or being unable to get an affordable graphics card without waiting forever)

the economist would say...

"affordable" is a opinion.

the market price is the market price, if you want one you have to pay more.

you are not entitled to a good at the price you think is "fair"

Just pay more for the card and you can have one whenever you want. Isn't that what HN thinks employers should "just" do with tech talent because "there is no real shortage"?

Nano uses dPOS and does not mint any new coins with PoS nor does not charge any tx fees. Instead of "Give the rich more money" it's more like "preserve the value of my money by fulfilling the promise of this coin".

Nano (aka Raiblocks) is basically a scam.

How was the supply produced and distrubited? https://raiblocks.net/page/frontiers.php?limit=100

Nano/Raiblocks were created from software, a reproducable distributed database protocol. Except in the case of Nano, the vast majority of the tokens are in control of the owners with a few being given away to the public for clicking captchas.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=raiblock+captch...

Consider, anytime you buy a cryptocurrency it means someone else is trying to cash out...

I don't agree, but I do think it's very wise to be suspicious of coins and their distribution mechanism.

> Except in the case of Nano, the vast majority of the tokens are in control of the owners

Do you have evidence of this?

What evidence is there 90% of Nano distribution isn't owned by a single person?

This is a major aspect of transparency in decenteralized p2p protocols, and the issue with Nano is there's no paper trail or proof that the devs didn't take all the supply.

We do know 13% of all Nano in circulation was stolen in the Bitgrail hack.

Proof of work is the same, except instead of rich people buying more Etherium to get rich faster, they buy more mining hardware.

Not entirely, PoS disqualifies poor accounts from receiving newly minted block rewards.

This is basically how it is now. There is a non-zero risk to staking as well as the stock market/bonds

I'm having a hard time understanding the risk to staking ... is it just an opportunity cost risk ?

Yes, combined with the risk that the currency could go down in terms of the currency you care about.

Can you retract those funds at any time?

What's your proposal for a more egalitarian reward model for block producers (in any consensus model)?

Equal payment for the same work/processing power.

What does that concretely mean?

Proof of work, it requires continual investment if you want to get the rewards, not just sitting there watching the cash roll in.

How is that more egalitarian? It's still a conversion between capital and income.

It's like saying stocks that give dividends are more "egalitarian" because you have to reinvest them in order to gain the same return on investment.

Absurd.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com