4 ms·
> I may have been imprecise in terminology, but that's no reason to pearl-clutch about my choice of words. I think you got your point across fine. Obviously it
by ktta 9y ago
> I may have been imprecise in terminology, but that's no reason to pearl-clutch about my choice of words.
I think you got your point across fine. Obviously it doesn't look like 'real' work since there's so much power being spent, seemingly unnecessarily. But I think it is easy to underestimate how effectively it can replace the current financial system.
Why do you think wealth can't be generated with digital currency? What part of 'positive-sum satisfaction of human desires' you think current digital system can't satisfy? And I think you're looking at the resources spent on digital currency and the current financial system in a different way. There's no need of people spending lots of time and energy to safe guard big lock rooms.
Banking can move to the digital ecosystem just fine. And it is just in its first iteration.
- SilasX 9y ago>Why do you think wealth can't be generated with digital currency? I didn't say that. I said that the marginal unit associated with mining can't be credited with the wealth gains of digital currency applications. The criticism was of the mining costs you need to make this work, not the stuff you can layer on top of the currency itself. For it to be a social net positive, all those benefits would have to outweigh the mining costs. >And I think you're looking at the resources spent on digital currency and the current financial system in a different way. There's no need of people spending lots of time and energy to safe guard big lock rooms. Of course the financial system has to pay for similar "defense", but the comparison is not favorable to Bitcoin/PoW. The costs of securing conventional centralized mechanisms (or bank vaults) ramp up much slower than Bitcoin per dollar or per unit of wealth secured.
- ktta 9y agoFair point. I guess something only like PoS can avoid that problem, if it is infallible, which might not be the case. >The costs of securing conventional centralized mechanisms (or bank vaults) ramp up much slower than Bitcoin per dollar or per unit of wealth secured. Actually I think the costs are much less, because after a certain point, you're not working to secure the network but racing to make more bitcoin. The network can be secure with much less resources than what is currently being spent. It is a misconception to think that effort to mine is to fight external attacks. It is more like fight between banks to transact faster.