Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus

yanmaani.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 822 posts

Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus

#381

Post by righttoolforjob »

dan-robertson wrote: post #373
wcoenen wrote: post #268

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…

A positive side effect of your (1.) scenario is that it results in a surplus of renewable energy (mining needs the cheapest energy and renewable energy is generally the cheapest). Having a surplus of cheap green energy is probably good for the economy, though a lot more than 1% would probably be needed to see significant benefits.

> mining needs the cheapest energy and renewable energy is generally the cheapest

The cheapest energy is the cheapest. It has nothing directly to do with it being renewable.

Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus

#382

Post by gefhfff »

tzs wrote: post #366
drclau wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> And this is the reason why I cannot take any climate change conversation seriously unless it includes the topic of cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin's electricity use (or the electricity use of any other single application) is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to addressing climate change. Proof: • Too much of what we does depends on electricity and has no even remotely feasible substitutes for it to be plausible to giv…

You are making (wrong) assumptions:

- electricity is the only part where Bitcoin produces emissions (emissions of mining hardware)

- wasting climate neutral energy does not matter (it does: it's harder, takes more time and resources to switch to climate neutral sources; iirc studies estimate Germany needs to cut 50% of energy consumption to achieve 1.5° conformity)

- Bitcoin miners don't bypass widely adopted regulations somehow

Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus

#383

Post by seoaeu »

tzs wrote: post #366
drclau wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> And this is the reason why I cannot take any climate change conversation seriously unless it includes the topic of cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin's electricity use (or the electricity use of any other single application) is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to addressing climate change. Proof: • Too much of what we does depends on electricity and has no even remotely feasible substitutes for it to be plausible to giv…

Um, the difficulty of switching to renewable energy is directly proportional to the amount of capacity you need to build. That we’ll eventually reach net zero carbon so emissions now don’t matter is a rather outrageous claim

Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus

#384

Post by paulgb »

dan-robertson wrote: post #373
wcoenen wrote: post #268

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…

A positive side effect of your (1.) scenario is that it results in a surplus of renewable energy (mining needs the cheapest energy and renewable energy is generally the cheapest). Having a surplus of cheap green energy is probably good for the economy, though a lot more than 1% would probably be needed to see significant benefits.

How does adding demand for something create a surplus of it? I think you have that backwards.

Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus

#385

Post by DonHopkins »

dan-robertson wrote: post #373
wcoenen wrote: post #268

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…

A positive side effect of your (1.) scenario is that it results in a surplus of renewable energy (mining needs the cheapest energy and renewable energy is generally the cheapest). Having a surplus of cheap green energy is probably good for the economy, though a lot more than 1% would probably be needed to see significant benefits.

A positive side effect of hitting your hand with a hammer is a surplus of morphine your doctor prescribes to make you stop feeling it, and a surplus of lithium your psychiatrist prescribes to make you stop doing it.

And no, renewable energy isn't generally the cheapest, coal is. (Until you factor in the health care and funeral service costs.)

Bitcoin is just China's way of exporting coal through the atmosphere.

Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus

#386

Post by amelius »

mission_failed wrote: post #206
inter_netuser wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a common misunderstanding. Proof of Work does not get you any votes at all. PoW is a service to the network, to create an immutable ledger. It comes with a very real nuclear option that will bankrupt miners if you misbehave and get fired by hashing algo change. It's just a boring industrial business, like smelting aluminum or iron.

Smelting metals actually produces something, proof of work just burns electricity for the random chance of winning a lottery

Perhaps we should insert humans in the loop, to verify whether useful work was performed.

Or some AI because humans are prone to bribery to some extent.

Or we could make it democratic. "Jeff Bezos asserts that he provided useful work for society and that he therefore deserves $1B this year. Please cast your votes".

Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus

#387

Post by gefhfff »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #375
sandworm101 wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, like others have stated, the climate challenge is switching our entire energy production (plus other fossile fuel end-uses) to net-zero or net-negative emissions. If Bitcoin disappeared tomorrow, it would give a small reduction in energy use, but at best it buys you 6 months extra to decarbonize electricity production.

"small"

6 months can be a tipping point happening or not.

Additionally, each produced ton of green house gases is contributing to climate change right now

The more electricity to decarbonize the more difficult.

Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus

#388

Post by dan-robertson »

> To use an analogy, it is as if someone would sit down to design a building in the following way: first, they draw how they would like for the exterior to look. Then, they draw how they would like for the interior to look. They make basic measurements, to confirm that the interior does not exceed the exterior in terms of dimensions. They then suggest that the house is plausible, and send it off to the construction workers to build.

For what it’s worth, this is how plenty of buildings are designed. Ignoring silly things like the inside not fitting in the outside, an architect may design the building and hand it off to a technical architect who works out how to make it stand up and has some back and forth with the architect modifying the design. At a later stage it goes to a structural engineer who will make sure that it really is likely to stand.

Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus

#389

Post by seoaeu »

lottin wrote: post #332
ogogmad wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a blockchain, the chain keeps splitting. Your tokens live on multiple competing chains simultaneously. In PoW, you are forced to pick one of those chains to mine on. In PoS, you can stake on all of them simultaneously. The splitting is unavoidable and happens constantly. Multiple competing future states are constantly being created, and the network has to eventually arrive at a consensus about which possible futur…

> Figuring out how to make spending your tokens irrevocable is the whole point of PoW/PoS. Maybe I'm missing something... if miners are required to send the tokens to an invalid address, are these tokens not lost irrevocably?

What stops miners from sending their tokens somewhere, then hard forking from a previous block where they didn’t send them?

This has a clear answer in PoW, but not in your scheme

Post reply on HN