The miners are not the only stakeholders. What really matters is whether the users want to own the new coins or the old.
Nope. The consensus is very clearly defined. Users of coins have absolutely nothing to decide in this decision making process. If you want to understand how Bitcoin works I would suggest to study the whitepaper. If a switch to another algorithm would be possible, bitcoins would be worthless bits. The most important feature of the network is that some elements can't change, first and foremost the money supply and proof-of-work. You can ask some of the miners and core developers how likely such a switch is.
I don' think you are getting it, but this is possibly a political nativity, they are saying they will do the hard sell to other chumps to get them to take this road.
---
I have one question and its of an economic nature, here it is:
If i'm X with 1000 BTC now I have a "Stake" in Bitcoin, agreed?
To get this stake i had to either:
A: Mine it using PoW
or
B: Purchase it with fiat money or good or services (essentially packaged energy)
of course i might have realized a large profit up until this point (transfered energy) , but>
now to further my Stake, I need to expend more work in some way, (so let me give you an example.)
*lets exclude transfer for the now as its irrelevant to the conversation directly, but lets come back to it.
I might need to buy hardware to mine more PoW currency as per the equilibrium of difficulty.
or
I can directly expend (packaged energy) fiat or goods and services to gain more "stake"
So in summary i can conclude that , Proof of stake is basically a shell game that gives and owner of the stake(energy) an increasing reward(energy) thus centralizing the network and breaking a bunch of fundamental laws of economics.
having said all of that , my question is simple - does more "stake" give more "votes" as per the "one cpu one vote" principal?
** i still believe that you could be able to implement this don't get me wrong, we know the human race is fundamentally docile, however where it will fail is in the execution, you should read over some of my theories on decentralized economics.
This system would fail for the same reasons the current banking system is failing and its centralized media outlets, basically the theory of decentralized multidimensional information flow and how that effects competition.
i will give them to you once i have refined them a little.
sorry for the rant the simple question again:
does more "stake" give more "votes" as per the "one cpu one vote" principal? if your answer is yes, that's a "double spend" of "packaged energy" think about it.
well when i say its a "double spend" it had to come from somewhere, so let me think on this, its transfered from the decentralized network. oh, of course its an implosion.
wow.