41–50 of 104 posts
physical-economy interpretation: the teachers and children are lucky enough to live in a rich society where only a fraction of the population are required to do productive work such as growing food, distributing clean water, building and maintain housing and providing healthcare services. the teachers and children are freed from the burden of contributing productive work that benefits society and can instead engage i…
A third class plays using a consensus model based on explicit relationships of trust. Each student keeps track of which of the others they consider trustworthy. Since they all play together everyday, they know who is nice, and who is naughty. When a supermajority trusts the student placing a new block, that student is allowed to place it anywhere. When not enough people trust the student placing the block, they preve…
Which cryptocurrency does this describe?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Proof of stake literally makes rich richer, thats the point of it - holders can mint new blocks. With proof of work there is actual work involved tol, not just minting money with your capital.
In either case you can use your accumulating capital to accumulate more capital -- PoW just means consuming actual resources to do so, as you fold your earnings into more hardware and electricity to earn more.
(Of course that's pretty much the point of the analogy.)
> The first class lost the students that simply couldn't keep up with the increasingly difficult sudokus. This is the story of every proof-of-work cryptocurrency. After a certain point, they only serve to make the rich even richer. Look at Bitcoin for example, where over 50% of the hashing power is controlled by big Chinese mining operations.
I would contest that assertion - some blockchains regularly change their PoW algorithm in an attempt to stay "ASIC-resistant."
> The first class lost the students that simply couldn't keep up with the increasingly difficult sudokus. This is the story of every proof-of-work cryptocurrency. After a certain point, they only serve to make the rich even richer. Look at Bitcoin for example, where over 50% of the hashing power is controlled by big Chinese mining operations.
Proof of stake literally makes rich richer, thats the point of it - holders can mint new blocks. With proof of work there is actual work involved tol, not just minting money with your capital.
That's certainly true with a very simple PoS mechanism. I don't think that type of PoS is used in practice with any major cryptocurrency (please correct me if I'm wrong though).
The one I'm most familiar with (Cardano) uses delegated proof of stake, so users delegate their stake to a stake pool and share in the rewards. The platform supports, encourages, and enables this for users with only very introductory understanding of Cardano.
Stake pools also suffer a penalty when they amass too much stake (their rewards decrease), so decentralization is encouraged and no one would be able to get, say, 50% RoA by owning of 50% of the Cardano currency (ADA)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Proof of stake literally makes rich richer, thats the point of it - holders can mint new blocks. With proof of work there is actual work involved tol, not just minting money with your capital.
> Proof of stake literally makes rich richer, thats the point of it That's certainly true with a very simple PoS mechanism. I don't think that type of PoS is used in practice with any major cryptocurrency (please correct me if I'm wrong though). The one I'm most familiar with (Cardano) uses delegated proof of stake, so users delegate their stake to a stake pool and share in the rewards. The platform supports, encoura…
It would be nice to discuss the actual implications of the technology, critical or not, without such strong opinions interfering.
A third class plays using a consensus model based on explicit relationships of trust. Each student keeps track of which of the others they consider trustworthy. Since they all play together everyday, they know who is nice, and who is naughty. When a supermajority trusts the student placing a new block, that student is allowed to place it anywhere. When not enough people trust the student placing the block, they preve…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would contest that assertion - some blockchains regularly change their PoW algorithm in an attempt to stay "ASIC-resistant."
That simply makes two currencies - before-fork, and after-fork. There's no rule that the one that "should" win does, especially in the face of large computing power making the former more attractive. See Bitcoin Cash, versus Bitcoin Classic.
The example you gave has nothing to do with changing the PoW function to counteract ASICs. Both Bcash and bitcoin classic were forked because of completely different reasons, and had people who believed in those reasons defend the new forks and run the node software etc. For example XMR has been doing ASIC-deterrent forks for years now with great success.