Live data from Hacker News

Proof-of-work should be banned

stopburncoins.medium.com

31–40 of 111 posts

Re: Proof-of-work should be banned

#31
Talking way outside of my understanding of POW, blockchain, etc, but what if POW was something with intrinsic value? Say for instance protein unfolding, physics number crunching, weather prediction, etc. And as a result this became the value of the ledger.

Surely the amount of energy consumed by this valuable POW would make it potentially worth it when the returns would benefit society, the environment, etc...

Re: Proof-of-work should be banned

#32
> Just ask that bitcoin and other switch to PoS! It will not be immediate, so the current investments in hardware can be repaid, and there will be no value lost.

Miners almost certainly won't see it that way. "Oh so now you say that I can recoup my capital investment until 12/31/2024? Great, I will happily sign blocks that mark a transition to proof-of-stake." Miners would fork the coin at best. Or, rather, this new proof-of-stake coin would be considered the 'fork'.

Serious design changes should be proposed via the process. For bitcoin, that's BIP [1]. This is just wishful thinking. Someone who proposes a 'ban' and not a design change is not genuinely motivated to supporting a decentralized currency.

Why transition bitcoin at all? Just endorse PoS coins and if they're truly superior then they will take on more value and people will naturally transition. Metcalfe's law is difficult to overcome. However, the value should be apparent in an overall decrease of the network's CAPEX+OPEX.

[1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/README.mediawiki

Re: Proof-of-work should be banned

#33

Nobody has any right to tell me what kind of math I can on processors I own powered by electricity that I bought.

Technically they do but I agree that these calls for banning Bitcoin because it consumes energy are anti-freedom when considering that its consumption of energy is a drop in the bucket in grand scheme of things.

Re: Proof-of-work should be banned

#36
Proof-of-stake coins lack one of proof-of-work coins most important properties: censorship resistance.

In both consensus systems, a censor is someone that has amassed 51% of the currently available stake (in PoW stake is mining machines, in PoS it is outstanding tokens).

In proof-of-work systems, a censor can be unseated by censored parties allocating more capital to mining machines until non-censoring parties own 51% of all machines.

In proof-of-stake systems, it is impossible to unseat a censor: since it owns 51% of tokens, it will also owns 51% of newly minted units in perpetuity (assuming it doesn't stop censoring and doesn't run into issues that would end up slashing some of their stake).

Re: Proof-of-work should be banned

#37
post #13

This is like saying incandescent light bulbs should be banned. Sure, it’s a sensible thing to say once you have unilaterally-better bulbs already fully commercialized and in mass production. (And this happened with CFLs and then LED bulbs; and then we did ban incandescents, here in Canada and in many other places.) But we’re not at that “fully commercialized and in mass production” inflection point yet with Proof-of-…

Incandescent light bulbs are already banned in California. People there are still able to see in the dark.

Re: Proof-of-work should be banned

#38
post #12

It's unlikely that there will be any real attempt to regulate bitcoin while it enables the circumvention of capital controls and reliably brings wealth and investment into rich countries.

As soon as public coffers are 'materially circumnavigated' it will be a problem.

Re: Proof-of-work should be banned

#39
post #12

It's unlikely that there will be any real attempt to regulate bitcoin while it enables the circumvention of capital controls and reliably brings wealth and investment into rich countries.

because governments love "the circumvention of capital controls" ?
Post reply on HN