Everything else about cryptocurrency in a scam, and people promoting it are scammers, so this is not exactly a surprise if true.
Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus
151–160 of 822 posts
Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're missing the point. If we're going to start legislating how we're all allowed to use energy that civilization has made available, who gets to decide what's allowed? Numbers I've seen suggest that global PC gaming alone (excluding consoles) currently uses about as much electricity as bitcoin. Should we ban that too since playing cards are readily available and use almost no energy? Maybe we can make a concession…
"who gets to decide" it's called "we the people" or democracy if you will. We as a society decide that cryptocurrency aren't worth destroying the world over, and that's about it.
If bitcoin mining uses renewable power (and pays for it), is that destroying the world or is that encouraging renewable adoption?
If bitcoin mining uses co2 producing power (because the economics supports it), is that the fault of bitcoin or the government for not sufficiently taxing the negative externalities of that means of production?
Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus
#153PoW systems rely on the "phone a friend method" as well. When you download a Bitcoin client from a "friend", you are trusting them to honestly introduce you to the network. If you fall asleep for a period of years, you have to trust your friends to honestly inform you of all of the PoW forks and policy changes that have occurred over that interval. The only difference is that PoS blockchain clients must be bundled wi…
Is the threat of long range attacks in PoS any worse than PoW in practice? Bitcoin for example still relies on a list of hardcoded nodes for bootstrapping clients. Not to mention very few people actually bother to verify the full chain (360GB and counting) from genesis. As for auditing the the integrity of the code or binary, it is signed by GPG keys hosted on public key servers accessed using X509 certificates pinne…
> As for auditing the the integrity of the code or binary, it is signed by GPG keys > hosted on public key servers accessed using X509 certificates pinned by a a
> couple of trust anchors preloaded in your OS. So much for distributed consensus...
You can literally validate the entire chain with a simple python script. Millions of those on github.
>Not to mention very few people actually bother to verify the full chain (360GB and counting) from genesis.
Absolutely wrong. The chain is validated in its entirety upon first sync. 100% from genesis to tip.
>Bitcoin for example still relies on a list of hardcoded nodes for bootstrapping clients.
It doesn't. Longest valid chain with most work is the canonical chain. Hardcoded seed nodes exist to speed up the discovery.
Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus
#154Can't wait for the day all PoW mining activities are declared illegal. To be honest, I don't understand why it hasn't been banned already. Sweden has recently called for a EU wide ban because it identified PoW mining as a threat to transition their economy to renewable energy. https://www.fi.se/en/published/presentations/2021/crypto-ass...
You never mentioned why you think mining should be illegal. Probably because of the outrage published by the media based on intuitive assumptions that end up not being true. That bitcoin mining long term is bad for the environment. However, this is not true even though it intuitively seems that way. (Similar to how making highways wider actually ends up making traffic worse, not better). We can actually start with 1…
Or, instead of creating Bitcoin with excess energy, one could produce e.g. hydrogen. Which, compared to Bitcoin, has a lot more uses.
Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus
#155(my day job is developer on Proof-of-Stake Algorand block chain, I'm a developer, this may not be polished official PR) Article's theory about malicious old blocks doesn't hold up. Let's say I start a new node and verify history since the beginning. Somewhere along the line I'm connected to a malicious node which hands me a fictionalized block. It would need to have been signed by not just one but about 30-45 account…
> but that would destroy the network and destroy his value that he sunk into the network Isn’t the whole point that by that time he would have withdrawn from the network so he would sink it without losing anything himself.
But...if you no longer have value on the network, doesn't that mean you no longer have enough stake to control the network?
Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a difference between each of those uses of electricity and PoW. PoW is throwing away electricity for the sake of it, and resists getting more efficient. If the goal is for the bitcoin network to cost $1M to do a single double spend, then PoW has to use $1M worth of electricity every 10 minutes. Let's say we live in a future where we suddenly have 10x as much electricity. Due to supply and demand, electricity…
bitcoin incentivizes the search for cheaper energy, and allows for the instant monetization of once wasted energy. That's a LOT. this whole argument of energy use... i bet most of these people would have fallen for the same energy propaganda when the internet was just getting started... "what's email?? why would you waste electricity to send an electronic mail??"
There's rarely such a thing as 'wasted energy' outside crypto. Energy can be exported (even if at low efficiency) or stored in various forms (pumping water up a mountain, hydrolisis of water to fuel hydrogen plants, etc). Unfortunately, Bitcoin, Ethereum et al are actively making these productive uses of energy un-economical, as they have worse return on investment than simply burning that energy on crypto.
Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus
#157Can't wait for the day all PoW mining activities are declared illegal. To be honest, I don't understand why it hasn't been banned already. Sweden has recently called for a EU wide ban because it identified PoW mining as a threat to transition their economy to renewable energy. https://www.fi.se/en/published/presentations/2021/crypto-ass...
I think it is a matter of months, before crypto mining is banned in Europe and the US. Just because cryptomining is a bottomless well : The more crypto miners earn money, the more they invest on graphic cards and the more they consume electricity. Inevitably, there will be supply problems
Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus
#158(my day job is developer on Proof-of-Stake Algorand block chain, I'm a developer, this may not be polished official PR) Article's theory about malicious old blocks doesn't hold up. Let's say I start a new node and verify history since the beginning. Somewhere along the line I'm connected to a malicious node which hands me a fictionalized block. It would need to have been signed by not just one but about 30-45 account…
Charlie Munger is on record saying he hates crypto. I doubt Buffet is far off. How many billions would they need to sink into destroying something they hate?
Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ethereum is literally broken, look it up
Sure, go steal all the money in curve. I'll wait.
yeah, save all that money in a monetary system that is controlled and literally changed on the whim of it's creators... sounds vary familiar to another monetary system we currently are on...
oh, well here are some interesting links
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8LXLoTUJ5g
https://twitter.com/CryptoLanroc/status/1458144922867957761
https://betterprogramming.pub/the-encyclopedia-of-smart-cont...
https://twitter.com/SpillyGuy/status/1432370045758447625?s=2...
Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
"who gets to decide" it's called "we the people" or democracy if you will. We as a society decide that cryptocurrency aren't worth destroying the world over, and that's about it.
But we the people is usually restricted to one country. How do you get multiple countries to cooperate and ban cryptocurrency mining?
By convincing the people in all of those country to vote the same way - ideally through pure argument, realistically through various carrot and stick negotiation techniques. This is really not rocket science.