5 ms·

Not sure the parallels are as strong as you're making them out to be; there are deep, deep flaws with proof of work as a concept because of the energy consumed.

Not sure the parallels are as strong as you're making them out to be; there are deep, deep flaws with proof of work as a concept because of the energy consumed. There will probably be a better end state for distributed trust, but we're legitimately not there yet.

aoro 9y ago
They already exist. Check out the stellar consensus mechanism. https://www.stellar.org/papers/stellar-consensus-protocol.pdf https://www.stellar.org/papers/stellar-consensus-protocol.pd...
- CryptoPunk 9y ago
  Stellar is not decentralized.
v64 9y ago
> there are deep, deep flaws with proof of work as a concept because of the energy consumed What is the energy consumption of all the bank offices and computer systems in the world? Even without this comparison, I think the amount of energy required is not a flaw in itself, but rather an aspect of the technology we should seek to improve upon (for instance, proof of stake is an attempt at this). I don't think it's sustainable long term (2400 baud internet wasn't sustainable long term either), but that doesn't mean we don't have the kernel of a great idea today. I agree with you 100% that we're not there yet, but I disagree with those who say this road leads to nowhere.
- Rebelgecko 9y ago
  Bitcoin mining (not even counting other cryptocurrencies) uses more electricity than most countries in the world. If you look at transactions per Watt, I would guess that the banks are doing better by multiple orders of magnitude
- gamblor956 9y ago
  If reports are to be believed, the entire sum total of energy consumed by banks, credit card processors, their computer systems, offices, and personnel...is dwarfed by the amount of energy wasted on Bitcoin alone. Banks and credit card processors can handle billions of transactions per day. Bitcoin, ethereum, and the other cryptocurrencies struggle to handle a few thousand, and are technologically incapable of non-linear scaling.
oculusthrift 9y ago
proof of stake.
iamwil 9y ago
Proof of Stake is already on the horizon for 2018 for Ethereum.
- jhwang5 9y ago
  PoS doesn't solve the problem of concentrating power on miners
- ACow_Adonis 9y ago
  Is it just me, or do people keep staying "proof of stake" as an answer to the proof of work concept, when it's not even a given that such a thing is a feature as opposed to completely undesired?
  - iamwil 9y ago
    That’s a separate issue. The comment I replied to is concerned about the energy consumption, and that’s what i’m Addressing.
wan23 9y ago
The energy consumption of the bitcoin network is not inherent to proof of work as a consensus mechanism. Bitcoin uses a difficulty setting to keep the rate of block creation relatively constant even as the hashing power dedicated to it increases. The reason so much energy is being used boils down to speculation in the price of bitcoin. At $10,000 per coin and with a block reward of 12.5 coins, successfully mining a block yields $125,000. That means that for each individual miner it would be profitable to spend up to that much per block they win. $125k can buy a LOT of electricity. But on the other hand, if the price of bitcoin were closer to $1 again and nobody expected it to appreciate very much then the level of investment, and thereby power usage, would go way down.
koonsolo 9y ago
> because of the energy consumed. > but we're legitimately not there yet. Maybe Directed Acyclic Graph technology (instead of blockchain), such as iota and raiblocks? Iota seemed to make its enterence into the top 10 of cryptocurrency, so I guess we're there.

aoro 9y ago

They already exist. Check out the stellar consensus mechanism. https://www.stellar.org/papers/stellar-consensus-protocol.pdf https://www.stellar.org/papers/stellar-consensus-protocol.pd...

CryptoPunk 9y ago
Stellar is not decentralized.

v64 9y ago

> there are deep, deep flaws with proof of work as a concept because of the energy consumed What is the energy consumption of all the bank offices and computer systems in the world? Even without this comparison, I think the amount of energy required is not a flaw in itself, but rather an aspect of the technology we should seek to improve upon (for instance, proof of stake is an attempt at this). I don't think it's sustainable long term (2400 baud internet wasn't sustainable long term either), but that doesn't mean we don't have the kernel of a great idea today. I agree with you 100% that we're not there yet, but I disagree with those who say this road leads to nowhere.

Rebelgecko 9y ago
Bitcoin mining (not even counting other cryptocurrencies) uses more electricity than most countries in the world. If you look at transactions per Watt, I would guess that the banks are doing better by multiple orders of magnitude
gamblor956 9y ago
If reports are to be believed, the entire sum total of energy consumed by banks, credit card processors, their computer systems, offices, and personnel...is dwarfed by the amount of energy wasted on Bitcoin alone. Banks and credit card processors can handle billions of transactions per day. Bitcoin, ethereum, and the other cryptocurrencies struggle to handle a few thousand, and are technologically incapable of non-linear scaling.

oculusthrift 9y ago

proof of stake.

iamwil 9y ago

Proof of Stake is already on the horizon for 2018 for Ethereum.

jhwang5 9y ago
PoS doesn't solve the problem of concentrating power on miners
ACow_Adonis 9y ago
Is it just me, or do people keep staying "proof of stake" as an answer to the proof of work concept, when it's not even a given that such a thing is a feature as opposed to completely undesired?
- iamwil 9y ago
  That’s a separate issue. The comment I replied to is concerned about the energy consumption, and that’s what i’m Addressing.

wan23 9y ago

The energy consumption of the bitcoin network is not inherent to proof of work as a consensus mechanism. Bitcoin uses a difficulty setting to keep the rate of block creation relatively constant even as the hashing power dedicated to it increases. The reason so much energy is being used boils down to speculation in the price of bitcoin. At $10,000 per coin and with a block reward of 12.5 coins, successfully mining a block yields $125,000. That means that for each individual miner it would be profitable to spend up to that much per block they win. $125k can buy a LOT of electricity. But on the other hand, if the price of bitcoin were closer to $1 again and nobody expected it to appreciate very much then the level of investment, and thereby power usage, would go way down.

koonsolo 9y ago

> because of the energy consumed. > but we're legitimately not there yet. Maybe Directed Acyclic Graph technology (instead of blockchain), such as iota and raiblocks? Iota seemed to make its enterence into the top 10 of cryptocurrency, so I guess we're there.