All your points are about an obsolete idea of Bitcoin, a PoW public blockchain. A PoS private blockchain with private keys not handled by the users would invalidate your entire list.
You mean PoS, which feature is literally that the more you have, the more you can stake, and the more you can earn in return? So basically the system that has built-in wealth concentration?
Yes, but if we are talking about a private
permissioned blockchain, there’s no need to obtain returns from staking. It can be even a Proof of Authority tokenless network for what banking care.
Banks are already paying for servers to process and store information. A few validators or collators (quite cheap for a private network) provided by several banks would cost a fraction of what they pay now and they’ll keep owning the data, they could reverse transactions, be covered by several layers of public encryption, guard the user’s wallet/login, etc.
Don’t mix blockchain with the speculative world built on top of it. That’s only an unfortunate use of the technology.
The PoS option was to highlight that power consumption doesn’t have to be an issue. Of course, PoS has its own issues.
The network can use any other type of proof, like Proof of Authority where only a buch of validators owned by the banking system can process the transactions. The network can be even tokenless, no profit or incentives from it, just the secure architecture.
You make a good point that PoS would solve one of the issues I raised which is electricity usage.
In theory it could also increase throughput and reduce costs, but: a) in practice that hasn’t happened yet despite years of development, b) it’s never going to be as efficient as a centralised system because of the extra overheads necessary to decentralise it, so that point still stands
All my other points still stand as well, plus the additional problems PoS creates to do with centralisation of power
All your points are about an obsolete idea of Bitcoin, a PoW public blockchain. A PoS private blockchain with private keys not handled by the users would invalidate your entire list.
You mean PoS, which feature is literally that the more you have, the more you can stake, and the more you can earn in return? So basically the system that has built-in wealth concentration?
Yes, but if we are talking about a private permissioned blockchain, there’s no need to obtain returns from staking. It can be even a Proof of Authority tokenless network for what banking care.
Banks are already paying for servers to process and store information. A few validators or collators (quite cheap for a private network) provided by several banks would cost a fraction of what they pay now and they’ll keep owning the data, they could reverse transactions, be covered by several layers of public encryption, guard the user’s wallet/login, etc.
Don’t mix blockchain with the speculative world built on top of it. That’s only an unfortunate use of the technology.
PoS centralizes the authority to whoever is richest. That’s literally worse than how paper currency with semi corrupt government works.
The PoS option was to highlight that power consumption doesn’t have to be an issue. Of course, PoS has its own issues.
The network can use any other type of proof, like Proof of Authority where only a buch of validators owned by the banking system can process the transactions. The network can be even tokenless, no profit or incentives from it, just the secure architecture.
All my points? That’s a bit rich
You make a good point that PoS would solve one of the issues I raised which is electricity usage.
In theory it could also increase throughput and reduce costs, but: a) in practice that hasn’t happened yet despite years of development, b) it’s never going to be as efficient as a centralised system because of the extra overheads necessary to decentralise it, so that point still stands
All my other points still stand as well, plus the additional problems PoS creates to do with centralisation of power