3 ms·

So there were attempts to make the calculations more useful, but that's not the only way to avoid this 'wasted energy'. One alternative idea is 'proof of stake

So there were attempts to make the calculations more useful, but that's not the only way to avoid this 'wasted energy'. One alternative idea is 'proof of stake'. And then it always seemed to me, also, that some kind of strategic partial centralisation could help make cryptocurrencies much more efficient..

zanny 9y ago
No PoS system has emerged that can both remain perfectly distributed while also preventing double spend chain forks. If the cost to participate in multiple conflicting histories is effectively 0 (as it isn't with PoW, but is with PoS) then you can prioritize a history most beneficial to you instead of the reality. Honestly, if you are going "big leagues" in cryptocurrency, I don't think having a central authority is bad as long as procedures are in place to contest flawed histories. Peercoin does its PoS through the developers signing key locking history - as long as people trust the devs, they trust the blockchain. If someone can prove the Peercoin blockchain is manipulated, the chain and project can be forked and someone else can be given confidence by whatever measure the community wants to use.
- runeks 9y ago
  > Peercoin does its PoS through the developers signing key locking history - as long as people trust the devs, they trust the blockchain. If trust in devs is sufficient, why bother with a blockchain? Just store the history in Git.
  - eru 9y ago
    You might trust different people with different things.
eru 9y ago
> And then it always seemed to me, also, that some kind of strategic partial centralisation could help make cryptocurrencies much more efficient.. Yes, and you could implement that specialisation on top of bitcoin. Just imagine eg one of the bitcoin exchanges that hold your balance for you allowing you to send money to other account holders (even at other exchanges) without that ever hitting the blockchain. The control to keep that kind of company honest is that people will occasionally demand their balances be paid out in bitcoin.

zanny 9y ago

No PoS system has emerged that can both remain perfectly distributed while also preventing double spend chain forks. If the cost to participate in multiple conflicting histories is effectively 0 (as it isn't with PoW, but is with PoS) then you can prioritize a history most beneficial to you instead of the reality. Honestly, if you are going "big leagues" in cryptocurrency, I don't think having a central authority is bad as long as procedures are in place to contest flawed histories. Peercoin does its PoS through the developers signing key locking history - as long as people trust the devs, they trust the blockchain. If someone can prove the Peercoin blockchain is manipulated, the chain and project can be forked and someone else can be given confidence by whatever measure the community wants to use.

runeks 9y ago
> Peercoin does its PoS through the developers signing key locking history - as long as people trust the devs, they trust the blockchain. If trust in devs is sufficient, why bother with a blockchain? Just store the history in Git.
- eru 9y ago
  You might trust different people with different things.

eru 9y ago

> And then it always seemed to me, also, that some kind of strategic partial centralisation could help make cryptocurrencies much more efficient.. Yes, and you could implement that specialisation on top of bitcoin. Just imagine eg one of the bitcoin exchanges that hold your balance for you allowing you to send money to other account holders (even at other exchanges) without that ever hitting the blockchain. The control to keep that kind of company honest is that people will occasionally demand their balances be paid out in bitcoin.