4 ms·
Wasteful as in we can do better. Did you see the link in my comment? One of the authors of that paper is actually a Turing award winner. Ultimately we've reach
by 110011 9y ago
Wasteful as in we can do better. Did you see the link in my comment? One of the authors of that paper is actually a Turing award winner.
Ultimately we've reached a point where there are more efficient alternatives to having hundreds of people computing billions of hashes to reach consensus. To put this in perspective imagine a group of people sorting by randomly permuting and checking if it works, while stubbornly refusing to adopt near linear algorithms.
- RoboTeddy 9y agoReally interesting paper! +1 on trying to solve this problem, I was just trying to put the size of the problem in perspective (the house isn't really burning down). I suspect people underestimate the game theoretic consequences of stake systems like Algorand as compared to PoW. (For example, the dynamics of contentious forks may look quite different.) I don't know which is better! But those types of consequences are likely much larger (for better or worse) than the electricity savings.