<p><a href="https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/3129/78">This answer</a> might be enough to make proof-of-stake not needed.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-03-11T12:27:34.933Z
Your question is a good question, but this is not an answer to this question. Again, please do not move random discussions which are not backed up with some solid theory to this site (Especially using two levels of redirection).
Stéphane Gimenez
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-03-11T13:14:28.557Z
I did mean it as an answer. If proof of stake is not needed (as I currently believe might be the case), then the whole viability question is moot.
ripper234
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-03-09T14:48:01.267Z
2012-03-09T14:48:01.267Z
2017-04-13T12:47:33.583Z
ripper234
<p>Meni mentioned <a href="https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/3123/78">Proof of Stake</a> as a possible way to augment Proof of Work as the underlying mechanism powering Bitcoin confirmations.</p>

<p>Is it viable? What are its downsides? Who has analyzed it? (I don't see a lot of people on <a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=37194.0" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this thread</a>)</p>

<protocol><blockchain><future-proof>
Is proof-of-stake a viable alternative / augmentation to proof-of-work?
ripper234
# Is proof-of-stake a viable alternative / augmentation to proof-of-work?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2012-03-09)

Meni mentioned [Proof of Stake](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/3123/78) as a possible way to augment Proof of Work as the underlying mechanism powering Bitcoin confirmations.

Is it viable? What are its downsides? Who has analyzed it? (I don't see a lot of people on [this thread](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=37194.0))

**Tags:** protocol, blockchain, future-proof


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_0 on 2012-03-09. Score: -2 | Accepted answer

[This answer](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/3129/78) might be enough to make proof-of-stake not needed.

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Your question is a good question, but this is not an answer to this question. Again, please do not move random discussions which are not backed up with some solid theory to this site (Especially using two levels of redirection).  
> **username_0**: I did mean it as an answer. If proof of stake is not needed (as I currently believe might be the case), then the whole viability question is moot.  

---

