5 ms·

Not the poster above, but I think the main issue is with the cost to provide proof of work in a trustless network. For example, bitcoin is already at or close t

Not the poster above, but I think the main issue is with the cost to provide proof of work in a trustless network. For example, bitcoin is already at or close to the point where the most efficient mining operations have a hard time turning profit without a major bubble drawing in outside capital. 3 years from now it may well be unsustainable.

kristofferR 9y ago
Ethereum is planning a switch away from proof of work.
- Animats 9y ago
  Who, exactly, gets to decide that?
  - Laforet 9y ago
    The short answer: The developers gets to decide. The longer answer can be found here[0] [0]:https://www.cryptocompare.com/coins/guides/what-is-the-ethereum-ice-age/ https://www.cryptocompare.com/coins/guides/what-is-the-ether...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - cslarson 9y ago
    The users of the platform get to decide what software they want to use.
- joosters 9y ago
  It's unclear whether or not the alternative 'proof of stake' technique will be more efficient than proof of work. It is susceptible to abuse, and is likely to require an arms race of CPU power to prevent attackers from abusing it.
  - redy 9y ago
    So much fear, uncertainty, doubt. This thread of full of people who clearly know little boldly asserting that it's impossible. It's unclear? You realize proof-of-stake coins like Nxt [1] have been in production since 2013? I won't say much else. People who are interested or curious enough will seek out the truth and move beyond this execrable thread. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nxt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nxt
  - runeks 9y ago
    It's definitely more efficient than proof-of-work, since no energy is burned off with the only purpose being to calculate a proof of this. The problem is that it makes consensus harder to reach, since there's no problem with having 10 different chains, because no energy needs to be burned off for each chain. This, effectively, makes your account balance a democratic decision by nodes in the Ethereum network (as opposed to forcing someone to burn off large amounts of energy if they want to alter your balance). History being decided by democratic vote is exactly what proof-of-work avoids, or at least makes extremely expensive.
    - xorcist 9y ago
      That's a bit early to say for certain. Nobody has made PoS work in an adversarial environment yet. It is misleading to describe PoS as a democratic vote. There is no voting as that could be faked. If you want an allegory maybe jury duty for the richest. That also captures the basic problem with it, when the chosen few collude. Let's just say it is an active research area.
      - runeks 9y ago
        > It is misleading to describe PoS as a democratic vote. There is no voting as that could be faked. I disagree. With PoS there is, ultimate, only the democratic vote. For example, in a network with 1,000 nodes, let's say 95% follow one chain and ignore another chain, and that the remaining 5% follow that other chain. The two chains are completely different, but are both valid. In a PoS-system there would be no way, besides democratic vote, to determine which chain is the right one. You're forced to either ask someone you know which chain he's using, or just go with the 95%-chain. With Bitcoin, the answer is very simple: you follow the chain with the largest amount of work, regardless of how many nodes say the one with less work is the right one. Bitcoin is inherently non-democratic in this scenario, as all nodes only care about chain work, and not how many nodes follow which chain. As opposed to PoS, where two competing, valid chains only differ in which (trusted/untrusted?) -- and how many -- nodes follow each chain.
dwild 9y ago
Isn't it by design? The Bitcoin difficulty move depending on the mining power, thus lowering or increasing the cost of operating a miner. If it's unsustainable, then miners will go out, the mining power will decrease and it will cheaper again. I guess an outside force (private corporation or government) can try to leverage that as a weakness by injecting capital into their own mining operation, thus making it unsustainable for miner to operate and then getting the majority but that would be a whole other story (and we would still have ways to mitigate it). There could also be some kind of critical point where too many miners keep doing it unsustainably, in hope to survive longer than others and stay up (but that would be absurd, they could just start it up again later when it will be sustainable again, but humans are humans...). They all close at a similar point and the difficulty stay way too high and it's literally too expensive to reach the next difficulty change. Even then, we could try to inject cash at that point or developpers may force a difficulty change... but it may be too expensive and we abandon Bitcoin because of that.
- Laforet 9y ago
  >There could also be some kind of critical point where too many miners keep doing it unsustainably, in hope to survive longer than others and stay up (but that would be absurd, they could just start it up again later when it will be sustainable again, but humans are humans...). This is not absurd at all, most miners have a lot of sunken capital as well as ongoing costs such as fixed term rent and electricity contracts they cannot easily get out of, thus many continue to operate at a loss just in case price improves over time. A lot of traditional businesses also follow this model.

kristofferR 9y ago

Ethereum is planning a switch away from proof of work.

Animats 9y ago
Who, exactly, gets to decide that?
- Laforet 9y ago
  The short answer: The developers gets to decide. The longer answer can be found here[0] [0]:https://www.cryptocompare.com/coins/guides/what-is-the-ethereum-ice-age/ https://www.cryptocompare.com/coins/guides/what-is-the-ether...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- cslarson 9y ago
  The users of the platform get to decide what software they want to use.
joosters 9y ago
It's unclear whether or not the alternative 'proof of stake' technique will be more efficient than proof of work. It is susceptible to abuse, and is likely to require an arms race of CPU power to prevent attackers from abusing it.
- redy 9y ago
  So much fear, uncertainty, doubt. This thread of full of people who clearly know little boldly asserting that it's impossible. It's unclear? You realize proof-of-stake coins like Nxt [1] have been in production since 2013? I won't say much else. People who are interested or curious enough will seek out the truth and move beyond this execrable thread. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nxt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nxt
- runeks 9y ago
  It's definitely more efficient than proof-of-work, since no energy is burned off with the only purpose being to calculate a proof of this. The problem is that it makes consensus harder to reach, since there's no problem with having 10 different chains, because no energy needs to be burned off for each chain. This, effectively, makes your account balance a democratic decision by nodes in the Ethereum network (as opposed to forcing someone to burn off large amounts of energy if they want to alter your balance). History being decided by democratic vote is exactly what proof-of-work avoids, or at least makes extremely expensive.
  - xorcist 9y ago
    That's a bit early to say for certain. Nobody has made PoS work in an adversarial environment yet. It is misleading to describe PoS as a democratic vote. There is no voting as that could be faked. If you want an allegory maybe jury duty for the richest. That also captures the basic problem with it, when the chosen few collude. Let's just say it is an active research area.
    - runeks 9y ago
      > It is misleading to describe PoS as a democratic vote. There is no voting as that could be faked. I disagree. With PoS there is, ultimate, only the democratic vote. For example, in a network with 1,000 nodes, let's say 95% follow one chain and ignore another chain, and that the remaining 5% follow that other chain. The two chains are completely different, but are both valid. In a PoS-system there would be no way, besides democratic vote, to determine which chain is the right one. You're forced to either ask someone you know which chain he's using, or just go with the 95%-chain. With Bitcoin, the answer is very simple: you follow the chain with the largest amount of work, regardless of how many nodes say the one with less work is the right one. Bitcoin is inherently non-democratic in this scenario, as all nodes only care about chain work, and not how many nodes follow which chain. As opposed to PoS, where two competing, valid chains only differ in which (trusted/untrusted?) -- and how many -- nodes follow each chain.

dwild 9y ago

Isn't it by design? The Bitcoin difficulty move depending on the mining power, thus lowering or increasing the cost of operating a miner. If it's unsustainable, then miners will go out, the mining power will decrease and it will cheaper again. I guess an outside force (private corporation or government) can try to leverage that as a weakness by injecting capital into their own mining operation, thus making it unsustainable for miner to operate and then getting the majority but that would be a whole other story (and we would still have ways to mitigate it). There could also be some kind of critical point where too many miners keep doing it unsustainably, in hope to survive longer than others and stay up (but that would be absurd, they could just start it up again later when it will be sustainable again, but humans are humans...). They all close at a similar point and the difficulty stay way too high and it's literally too expensive to reach the next difficulty change. Even then, we could try to inject cash at that point or developpers may force a difficulty change... but it may be too expensive and we abandon Bitcoin because of that.

Laforet 9y ago
>There could also be some kind of critical point where too many miners keep doing it unsustainably, in hope to survive longer than others and stay up (but that would be absurd, they could just start it up again later when it will be sustainable again, but humans are humans...). This is not absurd at all, most miners have a lot of sunken capital as well as ongoing costs such as fixed term rent and electricity contracts they cannot easily get out of, thus many continue to operate at a loss just in case price improves over time. A lot of traditional businesses also follow this model.