Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

news.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

801–810 of 839 posts

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#801

Post by keymone »

darawk wrote: post #792
keymone wrote: post #714

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ordering transactions.

Hm? How so? PoW miners can reorder transactions too. How is this different?

they cannot without expending large amount of energy and even then it will look extremely shady to both old and new nodes. in pos you can generate an entire new blockchain from genesis and new nodes won't have a clue which chain is "real" while old nodes will be very much confused having to make a decision on the split and reorg.

point is - pos is based on trust, pow is based on laws of physics.

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#802

Post by keymone »

Nursie wrote: post #800
keymone wrote: post #780

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When I have $100 in my wallet, I actually have $100 yeah, tell that to Venezuelans. > You completely fail to address the point - when making a transaction, removing the bank from the picture actually hurts purchasers and demands far more trust. that wasn't actually the point, or at least was completely off target, but sure, i can address it - banks are providing some useful services, banks won't stop providing thos…

>yeah, tell that to Venezuelans Or BTC hodlers who've seen an 80% crash, perhaps. > banks are providing some useful services, banks won't stop providing those services on top of cryptocurrencies Then they, and I, have no incentive to use cryptocurrency. >finally, if you're fine trusting politicians to run your financial system and regularly screw you up with inflation, financial meltdowns, bankruptcies, etc So far th…

> Or BTC hodlers who've seen an 80% crash, perhaps

zoom out, you're embarrassing yourself.

> Your 'fix' doesn't actually fix anything and it makes a lot of things worse. That's why you get called on it.

that's just like your opinion man. no reason to continue, time will prove who's right.

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#803

Post by sjeohp »

ForHackernews wrote: post #738
sjeohp wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mining gold gets harder over time. If you want more gold that's the price you pay. Trust-less consensus may be the same. Nature doesn't care either way.

Nature has nothing to do with it. Bitcoin is a poorly-engineered human-designed, human-built system.

Math has everything to do with nature.

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#804

Post by baddox »

Walf wrote: post #727
baddox wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An enormous amount of energy used to support a tiny minority of people participating in a highly-manipulated wealth redistribution mechanism is, objectively, a complete fucking waste. Objectively? No, I'm pretty sure that isn't "a complete fucking waste" to the people who are benefitting from it. Which is literally the definition of "subjective." Removing externalities of electricity pricing solves this. That's the…

>Objectively? No, I'm pretty sure that isn't "a complete fucking waste" to the people who are benefitting from it. Which is literally the definition of "subjective." You just proved their point. The beneficiaries of Bitcoin – like you – have a subjective viewpoint. You are few, and, objectively the cost to the stakeholders (inhabitants of Earth) is disproportionate to the benefit to the shareholders (the relatively f…

> You are few, and, objectively the cost to the stakeholders (inhabitants of Earth) is disproportionate to the benefit to the shareholders

That's a different claim, and I agree with it. In fact, the entire point of my comments in this thread is that I want environmental regulations that internalize all the costs of energy usage.

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#805

Post by SilasX »

DenisM wrote: post #87

This gets asked often, but in case something changed recently - what are the use cases of cryptocurrencies that are not: - Attempts to side-step the law (however misguided the law is) - Trivial to do using a typical centralized database (e.g. Federal Reserver or VISA) - Tantamount to waiting for a greater fool to buy out the current players I am not looking for answers of the form "well whenever you want to avoid a t…

Donate to Wikileaks when the US government is pressuring every centralized payment processor not to process payments but won't outright ban them. Does that pass?

And I don't see why you dismiss the importance of the first one. What if I'm trying to flee the country with something to my name, like Venezuela. Tough luck?

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#806

Post by dajohnson89 »

IanCal wrote: post #782
IanCal wrote: post #724

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how that's relevant to the calculation here.

This is by far the least productive HN thread I've ever been on. The article just isn't related to a raw energy calculation, as that is not impacted by where the energy comes from. edit - noted. Avoid crypto threads on HN as they're like discussing things on reddit.

you're technically right that the article i linked isn't making the same calculation as you made. I'm not sure why you saw it as a rebuff or some kind of argument for/against. I linked it because i'd imagine that a big concern about blockchain energy usage is the environmental impact.

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#807

Post by ForHackernews »

sjeohp wrote: post #803
ForHackernews wrote: post #738

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nature has nothing to do with it. Bitcoin is a poorly-engineered human-designed, human-built system.

Math has everything to do with nature.

Endlessly re-calculating SHA-256 over and over is not some beautiful mathematical principle.

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#808

Post by DINKDINK »

camgunz wrote: post #620
DINKDINK wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You're supposing It's a single example of the value of decentralized property rights. Say I'm an alcohol maker in Sharia-law country, I want to be able to make wine but prevent the state from expropriating my wealth because they ban alcohol. Say I live in a country which mandates that all business ventures with returns less than 2% a year will have their profits stolen (read: inflation) I can use bitcoin to escape t…

> Say I live in a country which mandates that all business ventures with returns less than 2% a year will have their profits stolen (read: inflation) I can use bitcoin to escape that oppression. The moment Bitcoin becomes a viable way to subvert the state, they'll just change the laws. And if people actually start using it to smuggle money internationally the feds will get involved. The entire idea that Bitcoin can s…

>The moment [cryptography] becomes a viable way to subvert the state, they'll just change the laws.

Does that sentence make much sense? Government decrees don't eradicate goods, they create make black markets.

>if people actually start using it to smuggle money

If? People already use bitcoin to evade capital controls in China, Venezuela etc

>the 1% will use it to hide their wealth from wealth redistribution policies demanded by liberal democracies.

You're confusing equity (something you own) and equality (rights that you have). Bitcoin promotes equality (each client has the same rights). Arbitrarily making certain people unequal (different people have different rights, some have their wealth stolen, some don't) always leads to more inequity. Voting about who to steal from doesn't legitimize theft. If people who generated wealth through voluntary exchange want to protect their property rights from theft, I won't deny them that. Agents who use the state to expropriate wealth through artificial privilege (the real enemy here) want to perpetuate the existing system, not encourage a neutral rights network such as bitcoin.

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#809

Post by AgentME »

resters wrote: post #771
AgentME wrote: post #736

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The energy cost isn't exactly in creating bitcoins. The energy cost is in securing the network against people doing 51%-attacks, and bitcoins are set to be minted out of thin air and transaction fees are paid out in order to incentivize people to protect the network. Mining will still be necessary after all bitcoins are minted, or else anyone could 51%-attack the network and double-spend bitcoins.

What percentage of CPU power do you think will be mining bitcoin 5 days before vs 5 days after all of the coins have been mined? If you think the amount will be roughly equal, then you are predicting that transactions that end up in blocks will need to voluntarily contribute an amount equivalent to the block reward in order for the system to continue functioning. This seems unlikely to me.

Transactions already include fees today. The minting rate of new bitcoins goes down over time, so when minting finally ends, it won't be a sudden change to the mining rewards. It's expected that the mining reward will be mostly transaction fees by the end, so the mining reward will only be a little affected by the minting being stopped.

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#810

Post by resters »

AgentME wrote: post #809
resters wrote: post #771

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What percentage of CPU power do you think will be mining bitcoin 5 days before vs 5 days after all of the coins have been mined? If you think the amount will be roughly equal, then you are predicting that transactions that end up in blocks will need to voluntarily contribute an amount equivalent to the block reward in order for the system to continue functioning. This seems unlikely to me.

Transactions already include fees today. The minting rate of new bitcoins goes down over time, so when minting finally ends, it won't be a sudden change to the mining rewards. It's expected that the mining reward will be mostly transaction fees by the end, so the mining reward will only be a little affected by the minting being stopped.

> the minting rate of new bitcoins goes down over time

Isn’t the difficulty level calibrated based on 10 mins per block? I don’t see how your statement above can be true. Seems like it goes from one reward every 10 mins (on average) to 0 rewards as soon as the last one is mined.

Post reply on HN