1/ Why doesn’t #Bitcoin move from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake?
A panel yesterday at the Oslo Freedom Forum #OsloFF explained PoW vs PoS in the best way I’ve seen in a while.
A thread 🧵 with quotes 👇
2/ “Every system that’s existed has been a stakeholder-run system, so they’re all PoS systems.
PoS systems are the legacy systems that existed forever where people that control the coins, the stakeholders, can disrupt the network, change it or shut it down.”
3/ “#Bitcoin created a triple-entry [ledger] from the old double-entry [ledger] and the ledger self-audits and writes on-chain. It’s an immutable ledger entry that can never be altered.
That’s the best accounting technology that’s ever been created by humans.”
6/ “Basically, PoS relies on circular logic, where the largest coin holders determine the state of the ledger and the state of the ledger determines who the largest coin holders are.
PoS is doing completely different things than what #Bitcoin is doing.”
8/ “PoW allows everyone to decide on the correct ledger state with no human oversight or governance.
PoS is just a fancy way of referring to shareholder governance or a stakeholder-led system where ownership in the system determines authority in the system.”
bitcoin is actually a fungible token protocol itself - for BTC
Casey who created Ordinals is, in his own words, creating runes as a way to allow the speculation and entertainment of tokens in bitcoin, largely popularized by brc-20, with better tech
while brc-20s created the free and open mint meta, making each brc-20 launch a fair token launch, the protocol itself arguably doesn't use the most efficient tech
you need inscriptions to mint, transfer, buy and sell brc-20s, and that cost adds up not only financially but also to the chain itself.
brc-20s are also account based, every inscription sent or received credits or debits that bitcoin address, which is ultimately treated as an account