351–360 of 822 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not about spent electricity bills, it is about spent time. This is the problem that needs to be solved, how can you make the work more time consuming without beeing able to go around this with computing here: electric power.
It is impossible, because time, unlike electricity, is free.
(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…
PoS is Plutocracy on Steroids. You've outlined only one, the most obvious and least probable, mode of failure. The more subtle and wildly prevalent failure mode is that the consensus will be set by the few whales, who will maximize their rent extraction at the expense of numerous small players, which will include most later adopters, aka the entire population of Earth. It's already visible on smaller scale in DAOs, e…
Just how it works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have zero clue how bitcoin works. No, there is no voting and there is no leader election. Miners construct blocks with transactions and if they manage to find a signature - that block is appended to the chain. If somebody does it faster - they append their block. Please at least get the basics before you start arguing with people.
What, exactly, do you think the purpose of computing a SHA prefix is? It's to perform distributed, decentralized leader election. The leader who wins has the privilege of proposing the next block. "If somebody does it faster" is the voting aspect--nodes vote on who they think did it faster, and it is quite possible that they disagree (which can only be resolved by another round of leader election, since the next lead…
No, the hash that you win with, deterministically points to the only possible block that you can “propose”. Your understanding is completely backwards. You seriously don’t know how bitcoin works.
Proof of work has always had an economic flaw that you could theoretically temporarily rent enough mining power to perform double spends of more value than the cost of renting those devices. But this attack has never been performed because the reality of all these cryptocurrencies is that the security depends only relatively weakly on proof of work. Instead it relies on trust between the main stakeholders: miners, bi…
Renting out equipment for miners is dangerous, as an attack on the network can wipe out all their sunk costs. Bitcoin miner farms are very strongly incentivized to be aligned with the long term health of the system, so they try to play nice close to the ethos of Bitcoin (they learned enough from the blocksize wars that they can get burned if they go against Bitcoin)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Smelting metals actually produces something, proof of work just burns electricity for the random chance of winning a lottery
Simply because something is intangible and invisible, like atoms, does not make it any less valuable. It's a system with an immutable monetary policy. Literally unprecedented in human history.
If we do not bound the growth of PoW energy usage, I think it could easily destroy itself in a roundabout way: by destroying the fragile global order that keeps humanity going.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Attestations don't have a real world economic cost that can be validated trustlessly within the system. If you compromise or coerce enough validators, you can rewrite the history for no cost. That's what PoW provides that PoS just doesn't. Immutability. In fact, I would argue that one of the most important products of bitcoin, is providing the hardest, most immutable database human civilization has ever created. We c…
> but once a piece of data gets confirmed... it can never be changed or removed from the blockchain. But it can, in the exact same manner as described in this article: have an 51% attacker build up a long chain and hide it from the world; then publish it. PoW is vulnerable to exactly the same type of attack described in this article. In order to build a longer chain with non-negligible probability, you need to stake…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What, exactly, do you think the purpose of computing a SHA prefix is? It's to perform distributed, decentralized leader election. The leader who wins has the privilege of proposing the next block. "If somebody does it faster" is the voting aspect--nodes vote on who they think did it faster, and it is quite possible that they disagree (which can only be resolved by another round of leader election, since the next lead…
> The leader who wins has the privilege of proposing the next block. No, the hash that you win with, deterministically points to the only possible block that you can “propose”. Your understanding is completely backwards. You seriously don’t know how bitcoin works.
Here is my question to you: if the node that wins the election (and the ones that accept its mined block, of course) is not the one voting on which transactions get to go into the chain, rather than be stuck in the mempool somewhere, who is? Do you genuinely think there is no decision being made there?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't take a discussion of climate change seriously unless it specifically addresses a single-percentage problem?
A rapidly-growing 1% problem, one that has the potential to nullify other costly gains. Such problems need to die young, before they grow into 5/10/50% problems.
As OP mentioned this issue is already getting addressed and in process to become more debated
If anything, solving existing real problems ought be priority rather than such a niche thing
Whether PoS will work, I don't know. But the author didn't realize that PoW is certainly doomed. PoW miners tend to spend more and more resources on finding blocks, until the cost approaches the rewards. But the rewards go up as the cryptocurrency becomes more popular, because the price and transaction fees go up. Therefore, a PoW cryptocurrency tends to "eat the world" as it becomes bigger. That's why Bitcoin is alr…
> Bitcoin is already approaching 1% of global electricity consumption, if it hasn't passed that point already And this is the reason why I cannot take any climate change conversation seriously unless it includes the topic of cryptocurrencies. Whatever the promises of cryptocurrencies were, now most (all?) degenerated into a mechanism for speculation, and effectively into a self-sustaining and self-promoting mechanism…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And Proof of Work is better because the haves buy equipment the have-nots can't buy to vote? Unless you have a citizenship based voting of some short where a single person gets a single vote and they actually vote (automatically I guess and assuming without delegating to the big whale because "I am bored") what do you think agreement via resource scarcity implies? P.S. Also lobbying...
PoW at least provides a decent and somewhat fair coin distribution mechanism. With PoS, the coin creators can assign themselves an arbitrary fraction of the coins, concentrating the wealth. Even if there is a public record of all the funds raised in a public sale and all expenditures made (which is rarely the case), it's possible for the creators to participate in the public sale and recover large parts of funds used…
There are plenty of PoW coins with unfair or absurd distributions, and plenty of PoS coins with somewhat equitable distributions.