Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which proof of stake systems currently exist and work well?
Nano
Nano uses a voting consensus algorithm. There’s no staking, no transaction fees, and a fixed supply.
Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet
91–100 of 862 posts
Re: Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet
#92Steve Balmer and Bill also used to call Linux a cancer but look now: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-07/hackers-b... their OS filled with malicious stuff and who knows what kind of backdoors is when exploited by hackers, they blame it on China rather than taking responsibility of putting users at risk with vulnerable OS
[deleted]
Re: Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet
#93Bill Gates and other government lobbyists are bad for the planet. You are con, Bill, and we all know it.
Re: Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet
#94How has he not acknowledged how expensive physical settlement between banks is? A brinks truck carrying funds between banks, the bankers managing this process, all the and all of the human capital required to support the entire process?
People have done the math, and the carbon cost for a credit card transaction is several orders of magnitude lower than that of a single bitcoin transaction
Except credit card transaction isn't settlement, it's a temporary transfer until it settles, more akin to lightning network. Lightning network barely uses any energy fwiw.
Re: Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet
#95There are so many better crypto-currencies. Better for the environment because they use proof-of-stake, and not proof-of-work. Better for users because transactions are confirmed in seconds, not hours, and without the ridiculous fees that Bitcoin has. I think this shows how truly powerful the network effect, and being first to market is. Because without those things, Bitcoin would be nothing.
Could anyone explain to me how proof of stake works (as opposed to proof of work), and how it is better? Has proof of stake been proven to be as robust as proof of work? EDIT: The wikipedia article is easy to find[1]. However it is really short, looks incomplete, and has a lot of “citation needed” after each point. So I would rather ask on HN. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_stake
In short, "validators" (which replace miners) put up some crypto, and in return get to validate transactions.
If a validator approves a fraudulent transaction (as determined by other validators), they lose their stake.
Re: Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet
#96I feel like it's a matter of time until the central banks release a coin (gold backed?) and kick Bitcoin and all other crypto's out. Keeps them in power, uses the advantages of crypto.
I disagree. While it would do a lot of damage, the advantage of a properly scalable and functioning decentralized cryptocurrency (not implying BTC is the right one) is that it cannot be controlled by any central bank, or anyone else. That is the inherent elegance of such a solution. While in the Western world there is little need for a parallel monetary system except for the black market, other countries are not as f…
That is an advantage, because?
Venezuela, please. Bitcoin is never going to replace the ability of a sovereign state from issuing its own obligations. And as always it is the credibility of that sovereign state that will determine the value of those obligations.
Re: Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet
#97There are so many better crypto-currencies. Better for the environment because they use proof-of-stake, and not proof-of-work. Better for users because transactions are confirmed in seconds, not hours, and without the ridiculous fees that Bitcoin has. I think this shows how truly powerful the network effect, and being first to market is. Because without those things, Bitcoin would be nothing.
I do think Ethereum will overtake Bitcoin eventually in usage. In some ways it already has. Ethereum's transaction fees are set to drop like a rock over the next few years, and so many useful things are built on it already.
What usage? Isn't bitcoin used only for speculation, and a bit of crime on the side? I'm not aware of any usage for bitcoin that isn't purely commodity trading (with zero actual underlying value) or scams.
Re: Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet
#98There are so many better crypto-currencies. Better for the environment because they use proof-of-stake, and not proof-of-work. Better for users because transactions are confirmed in seconds, not hours, and without the ridiculous fees that Bitcoin has. I think this shows how truly powerful the network effect, and being first to market is. Because without those things, Bitcoin would be nothing.
What defines a currency being "better" than another? Is it number of transactions? Is it acceptance among merchants? Is it low fees? Is it stability in purchasing power? Is it likelihood that there will be a fatal flaw in the system that causes financial loss?
Every project has its own strengths and weaknesses, but it's hard to argue that Bitcoin isn't the best on many of those measures. It's all about which of them you as an individual value most.
Re: Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet
#99Steve Balmer and Bill also used to call Linux a cancer but look now: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-07/hackers-b... their OS filled with malicious stuff and who knows what kind of backdoors is when exploited by hackers, they blame it on China rather than taking responsibility of putting users at risk with vulnerable OS
[deleted]
Re: Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet
#100Populism here is unbearable.
The energy consumption of BTC is 'very bad' , full stop.
It has nothing to do with Gates or the fact that he said it.