I love DASH two–layer systen
Cryptocurrency Blockchains Don’t Need to Be Energy Intensive
21–30 of 301 posts
Re: Cryptocurrency Blockchains Don’t Need to Be Energy Intensive
#22How about a proof of negative energy requirement? Like how much solar electricity you generate or CO2 you scrub out of the air.
Well human labor is a somewhat renewable source of energy. And when people perform work for us it saves us the energy of performing the same work ourselves in the future. And when people perform work to produce artifacts such as planted crops, structures, machines, buildings, materials, working inventory the work is stored in physically observable material capital held on land. If we want to coin the material capital and place a shared currency into circulation backed by material capital this can be accomplished by having public employees of local land loan offices appraise the minimum labor replacement cost of the material capital which the borrow agrees to hold on site and require the loan to be repaid before the capital fully depreciates.
Re: Cryptocurrency Blockchains Don’t Need to Be Energy Intensive
#23How about a proof of negative energy requirement? Like how much solar electricity you generate or CO2 you scrub out of the air.
Maybe someone has a really clever idea but I do not think anything rooted in the real world can work. You will always need some kind of sensor to record whatever it is that you are doing in the real world and you will have to prevent people from faking those sensor readings. If you had a central authority as root of trust you might be able to build some tamper-proof device that provides cryptographically attested values but I can not think of a way to do something like this without already having a root of trust.
Re: Cryptocurrency Blockchains Don’t Need to Be Energy Intensive
#24I'm not really convinced. Proof of Stake has a startup issue that Proof of Work doesn't have. If you want to have your coin begin as proof of stake you have to have some mechanism for how the initial coins are distributed and that method is usually going to involve the creators giving themselves a lot of coins. A lot of crypto projects have all sorts of ways of obfuscating this or claiming that the intial coins will…
There is a third method which, funnily enough, was implemented by the very first PoS coin. A hybrid blockchain in which PoW is used for distribution.
Re: Cryptocurrency Blockchains Don’t Need to Be Energy Intensive
#25What about nano and banano?
Re: Cryptocurrency Blockchains Don’t Need to Be Energy Intensive
#26How about a proof of negative energy requirement? Like how much solar electricity you generate or CO2 you scrub out of the air.
That is basically what Bitcoin is... because the cheapest energy is the one you can produce yourself from renewables.
Re: Cryptocurrency Blockchains Don’t Need to Be Energy Intensive
#27How about a proof of negative energy requirement? Like how much solar electricity you generate or CO2 you scrub out of the air.
That is basically what Bitcoin is... because the cheapest energy is the one you can produce yourself from renewables.
You're only thinking of honest miners.
The cheapest energy is the one you steal.
Re: Cryptocurrency Blockchains Don’t Need to Be Energy Intensive
#28I'm not really convinced. Proof of Stake has a startup issue that Proof of Work doesn't have. If you want to have your coin begin as proof of stake you have to have some mechanism for how the initial coins are distributed and that method is usually going to involve the creators giving themselves a lot of coins. A lot of crypto projects have all sorts of ways of obfuscating this or claiming that the intial coins will…
> If you want to have your coin begin as proof of stake you have to have some mechanism for how the initial coins are distributed and that method is usually going to involve the creators giving themselves a lot of coins. Don't Proof of Work coin issuers do the same? Even Satoshi has a pretty large amount of Bitcoin.
There were no pre-mined bitcoin distributed. Satoshi mined his coins in the early days but crucially anyone could participate and mine at the same time.
Re: Cryptocurrency Blockchains Don’t Need to Be Energy Intensive
#29How about a proof of negative energy requirement? Like how much solar electricity you generate or CO2 you scrub out of the air.
Maybe someone has a really clever idea but I do not think anything rooted in the real world can work. You will always need some kind of sensor to record whatever it is that you are doing in the real world and you will have to prevent people from faking those sensor readings. If you had a central authority as root of trust you might be able to build some tamper-proof device that provides cryptographically attested val…
This is called the oracle problem.
The proposed solutions are in the same vein as security in base layer consensus mechanism: create an economic incentive to be accurate over time. Make sensors/sensor data compete to be designated as roots and gain some sort of revenue. Reputation is hard to build, but easy to destroy.
Re: Cryptocurrency Blockchains Don’t Need to Be Energy Intensive
#30I'm not really convinced. Proof of Stake has a startup issue that Proof of Work doesn't have. If you want to have your coin begin as proof of stake you have to have some mechanism for how the initial coins are distributed and that method is usually going to involve the creators giving themselves a lot of coins. A lot of crypto projects have all sorts of ways of obfuscating this or claiming that the intial coins will…
This is actually quite fun to say out loud - "here is a revolutionary trustless system of currency, but you must trust a group of anonymous developers in the non-extradition offshore not to screw you with premine"
Exactly This. Why can people NOT see this?!