Proof of Work acts like a dividend bc miner’s recieve bitcoin as payment for processing blocks, but to compete must re-invest in their equiptment to be faster, cheaper, and more secure. When you own a Bitcoin you own a 1/21,000,000 share of the Bitcoin network at present. If you spend the Bitcoin by exchanging some of it as a transaction for network time/usage (mining fee) then you recieve the present value of the network’s current capabilities immediately. However, if you hold that Bitcoin over time, and the network size increases, then you own the same 1/21,000,000 percentage of a bigger network (in the future). So the dividend of which you speak, is the increase in the size/capability of the future network. The Bitcoin protocol was designed to incentivize a larger faster cheaper network — which benefits all who use it as a platform on which to build their busines. This is why you are marketing Bitcoin not to investors on Wall Street or SillyCON Valley, but developers worldwide who desire a faster, cheaper more secure data & monetary network (but primarily data).
Proof of Stake incentivizes no increase in the size or capability of the network; thus, the network can be left to stagnate just like a nation under communism/socialism can be left to stagnate bc no one is incentivized to actually take care of the commons — via re-investment. Proof of Stake therefore will not improve the network, and we know this from studying the history of socialism/communism. Unless incentivized by self-profit, the “commons” is ignored or trashed. I predict Eurethraeum mgt. will realize their mistake, and will permanently suspend their move to POS — but perhaps I give them too much credit?
Can you explain in more detail your use of the “game theory” of orphaning blocks? Why might a miner do it? Is it mostly bc a miner, say “Miner C” (for Cut as in shortCut-taker) may choose to simply trust a competitor (use “Miner A” for advantaged) node’s Proof of Work (puzzle solution) rather than verify it (with time and money spent on computation), which would enable miner “C” to get a jump start by putting more CPU/ASIC time into solving the next block’s puzzle? Alternatively, Miner A might wish to do what Midas Mulligan might do, which is OCCASIONALLY broadcast to the Bitcoin network (all the other miners) that it has obtained a solution when really one has NOT been obtained, in order to trick Miner C into shortcutting to solving the next block’s puzzle but this time erroneously atop a soon to be orphaned block? Like any great investor (hence the Midas Mulligan usage) who lets their next favorite stock-buy slip and has the crowd jump in ahead of him causing him to get a higher price, broadcasting a fake solution to the network can help a miner prevent other miners from cutting corners.
Question: How does the Bitcoin protocol distinguish between things like: short term blockchain storage and long-term storage? CPU/ASIC usage vs storage usage? For instance, Amazon Web Services comes as several different products like EC2 (for cpu usage) and S3 (storage). If all fees earned are based on Bitcoin per byte, then what’s the difference between storing data on the blockchain/network for temporary use like 3 or 5 years (so maybe for legal requirements of a financial institution or medical practise to store records?) versus forever-storage — like storing an immutable original-version copy of the movie classic Casablanca? The bitcoin miner network would prefer the former (5 year data storage) than the latter (forever storage) and would logically charge more up front for forever-storage.
LocalBitcoin is shutting down local bitcoining in certain countries, with I believe the US being one of them. One can infer this is likely due to legal pressure from government-enforcement agencies. So in fact your predictions are coming true almost every day now, in 2019. Binance’s “full decentralized” trading chain is another example — they are deprecating it in nations/jurisdictions where they are likely seeing regulatory enforcement of KYC. For these reasons listed above it seems a BSV-only exchange like FloatSV is quite attractive. But is their platform ideal? (using an instance of OKex?) Shouldn’t a BSV-only exchange be built atop Bitcoin itself? I realize Bitcoin’s layers are too young (BitBus after all is a newborn) but shouldn’t we expect fully on-chain exchanges built on a foundation of the Bitcoin network?