[atweiden]

You’d have to be doing something seriously wrong in your staking endeavours to break even due to “staking costs” even over the course of 1000 years.

The primary cost of staking is the initial investment in the stake, handedly.

The initial investment in the stake dwarfs the cost of even the most sophisticated staking infrastructure.

[dropnerd]

how does the capital cost being mining hardware and electricity rather than a pos token make the system more equitable?

[atweiden]

> how does the capital cost being mining hardware and electricity rather than a pos token make the system more equitable?

Every well known proof of stake system today was either premined, ICO’d, sold to investors in private rounds at “special” prices, or some combination of these.

Naturally, if you were autoyielding passive income by staking pos coins you had a cost basis of effectively zero in, either because you participated in an ICO, or worse, because you had the right connections, or exploited your privileged position as developer to hard code coin balances for yourself into your own ledger prior to launch, you’d _love_ proof of stake and trumpet its supposed equity and fairness in public.

In reality, the most privileged and exploitative of investors who have the lowest entry price get the highest rate of return on staking (effectively ∞ in the case of premine recipients).

To insinuate this situation is “equitable” is beyond ridiculous.

[dropnerd]

no one in this thread is promising utopia. i am merely pushing back against assertions of bitcoin being "most equitable".

late entrants add value to networks, and some of that value accrues to early entrants. this is the same for any network. a publicly accessible ico is just as equitable as someone mining btc with their cpu on low difficulty.

once the price of the token goes up, the difference between someone who was invited there early versus found their own way in does not matter to the new adopters. the inequity is felt purely based on the token price difference rather than the security mechanic.

[atweiden]

> no one in this thread is promising utopia. i am merely pushing back against assertions of bitcoin being "most equitable".

Fairly launched proof of work systems are a great deal more equitable than PoS premined ICO coins. This is just a fact.

> a publicly accessible ico is just as equitable as someone mining btc with their cpu on low difficulty.

No, absolutely not. Obviously someone has to get the ICO money. How on earth is that “just as equitable” as anyone in the world being able to use any old Windows computer to mine coins on demand. With proof of work, money isn’t being transferred from end users to developers, or their many Swiss foundations.

[dropnerd]

> Obviously someone has to get the ICO money.

the value accrues to the network (20 million to 300 billion over the last decade or so), not the dollars that went into the ico sale. the ico dollars are a rounding error.