5 ms·

This means you're an "engineer" but not yet an economist. Try to study economics if you're really serious about your career in cryptocurrency area, you'll find

This means you're an "engineer" but not yet an economist. Try to study economics if you're really serious about your career in cryptocurrency area, you'll find yourself thinking completely differently. At least you'll get to a point where you don't make a wholesale criticism like this but can say "I know it would be better to have a tech that consumes less energy, but I also understand why it's not a trivial issue, because physics and economics." One of the biggest fallacies in the history of economics that repeats itself over and over and over again is that people make decisions based on what they can see but they neglect what they can't see that happens as a result of what they can see. As much as I would like to see PoS work, it may just be the case is that at the end of the day, PoS and PoW are the same in the grand scheme of things, not because of some greedy people with financial interest but because of physics. It's hard to make sense of this unless you study economics, no matter how great of an engineer you are. [Edit] I hope my comment works as a wakeup call for those of you who are open minded enough to learn a piece of the puzzle that's obviously missing from your mindset (I shared it because once I learned it, I was so regretful for not having studied even a little bit of economics in my life until now), but looking at all the downvotes, looks like most people don't like to hear what they don't like to hear. I don't really mind, suit yourself. But just remember "Cryptocurrency" is "Crypto" + "Currency", which means it's not just CS, but also economics.

slewis 9y ago
What do you mean “the same in the grand scheme of things”? By what metric?
- cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
  Newton's 3rd law: Proof of Work and Proof of Stake both waste tons of energy, and of course, the entire economic system both of them are trying to replace also waste tons of energy. The problem is, Proof of Work is very objective and measurable, which is why most people criticize Bitcoin for its waste of energy since it's so easy to measure. But proof of stake and the legacy economic system both lack such objective measures, which is why it's hard to compare them. The term "stake" itself is subjective and doesn't take into account the economic ripple effect it can trigger as a result. And these ripple effects DO exist, it's just that most people are not aware of them and just take for granted. Which is why I think it's crucial that you study the history of money before you can confidently say you understand "how money works". This is not to say proof of stake won't work. It's just saying that there's a high chance that there's hidden cost to proof of stake which in the long run can map to the amount of energy wasted by proof of stake, which is backed by newton's 3rd law. You can't create energy. Everything that happens on earth is simply a transfer of limited amount of energy from the sun. If this sounds all woo-woo to you, that's why I suggest studying economics. I personally think the only way to overcome energy consumption is to come up with innovation that's as different from newtonian physics to quantum physics.
  - goldenkey 9y ago
    PoW requires brute force. PoS requires tied up capital. Do you really think the energy usage is the same...physically? Sounds like nonsense with no backing.
    - cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
      Where do you think "capital" comes from? Also, I didn't say they ARE the same. It COULD be the same, or maybe PoS could come up with a tradeoff scheme that's just good enough to work but essentially conserves energy much more than PoW. But the thing about energy is when it is destroyed somewhere, it gets created elsewhere. That's how it simply works. The most important fallacy in economics is that people can only observe what they can observe, not because they're idiots, but because it is spacially or temporally impossible. For example a huge global inflation can happen as a result of a very small stupid decision made by a government, but this may happen 10 years after the original decision. This is why humans make bad decisions because they make decisions based on what is possible to observe, but historically these ALWAYS came back to haunt them. 100% of the time. It MAY be the case that "this time it's different", but the more you study economics the more you become really humble. Trust me. Try it. Just need to read a couple of books.
      - goldenkey 9y ago
        "need to read a couple of books." No. Just no. You are wrong about energy. Power plants do not just burn a steady state amount of fuel. You are also wrong about capital if that is the "energy" you misnamed - capital is created all the time, not debt but actual prosperity through innovation. Please refrain from your "read a book to be like me" humdrum. I am a mathematician - I know enough economics to be quizzically annoyed by the falsities spoken
        cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
        suit yourself :)
mrep 9y ago
As I am reading your comments more, it seems like you just don't understand this trifecta of software engineering, security, and economics. All blockchains that run code on untrusted nodes have the extremely difficult problem of securely verifying other nodes transactions which usually devolve into solutions that solve O(constant) problems on O(N) nodes with N/2 majority consensus governing the network. That is literally the worst solution you can come up with in computer science because it does not scale whatsoever. Contrast this with running code on nodes you trust which scales linearly and you should be able to see why everyone says blockchains are a solution in search of a problem. > "I know it would be better to have a tech that consumes less energy, but I also understand why it's not a trivial issue, because physics and economics." So thus I ask, what "physics and economic" problems do blockchains solve better than current solutions bar illegal markets?
- cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
  What if I told you I already understand everything you just said? I think I answered your last question elsewhere in this thread, if you're genuinely curious, read that one.

slewis 9y ago

What do you mean “the same in the grand scheme of things”? By what metric?

cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
Newton's 3rd law: Proof of Work and Proof of Stake both waste tons of energy, and of course, the entire economic system both of them are trying to replace also waste tons of energy. The problem is, Proof of Work is very objective and measurable, which is why most people criticize Bitcoin for its waste of energy since it's so easy to measure. But proof of stake and the legacy economic system both lack such objective measures, which is why it's hard to compare them. The term "stake" itself is subjective and doesn't take into account the economic ripple effect it can trigger as a result. And these ripple effects DO exist, it's just that most people are not aware of them and just take for granted. Which is why I think it's crucial that you study the history of money before you can confidently say you understand "how money works". This is not to say proof of stake won't work. It's just saying that there's a high chance that there's hidden cost to proof of stake which in the long run can map to the amount of energy wasted by proof of stake, which is backed by newton's 3rd law. You can't create energy. Everything that happens on earth is simply a transfer of limited amount of energy from the sun. If this sounds all woo-woo to you, that's why I suggest studying economics. I personally think the only way to overcome energy consumption is to come up with innovation that's as different from newtonian physics to quantum physics.
- goldenkey 9y ago
  PoW requires brute force. PoS requires tied up capital. Do you really think the energy usage is the same...physically? Sounds like nonsense with no backing.
  - cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
    Where do you think "capital" comes from? Also, I didn't say they ARE the same. It COULD be the same, or maybe PoS could come up with a tradeoff scheme that's just good enough to work but essentially conserves energy much more than PoW. But the thing about energy is when it is destroyed somewhere, it gets created elsewhere. That's how it simply works. The most important fallacy in economics is that people can only observe what they can observe, not because they're idiots, but because it is spacially or temporally impossible. For example a huge global inflation can happen as a result of a very small stupid decision made by a government, but this may happen 10 years after the original decision. This is why humans make bad decisions because they make decisions based on what is possible to observe, but historically these ALWAYS came back to haunt them. 100% of the time. It MAY be the case that "this time it's different", but the more you study economics the more you become really humble. Trust me. Try it. Just need to read a couple of books.
    - goldenkey 9y ago
      "need to read a couple of books." No. Just no. You are wrong about energy. Power plants do not just burn a steady state amount of fuel. You are also wrong about capital if that is the "energy" you misnamed - capital is created all the time, not debt but actual prosperity through innovation. Please refrain from your "read a book to be like me" humdrum. I am a mathematician - I know enough economics to be quizzically annoyed by the falsities spoken
      - cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
        suit yourself :)

mrep 9y ago

As I am reading your comments more, it seems like you just don't understand this trifecta of software engineering, security, and economics. All blockchains that run code on untrusted nodes have the extremely difficult problem of securely verifying other nodes transactions which usually devolve into solutions that solve O(constant) problems on O(N) nodes with N/2 majority consensus governing the network. That is literally the worst solution you can come up with in computer science because it does not scale whatsoever. Contrast this with running code on nodes you trust which scales linearly and you should be able to see why everyone says blockchains are a solution in search of a problem. > "I know it would be better to have a tech that consumes less energy, but I also understand why it's not a trivial issue, because physics and economics." So thus I ask, what "physics and economic" problems do blockchains solve better than current solutions bar illegal markets?

cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
What if I told you I already understand everything you just said? I think I answered your last question elsewhere in this thread, if you're genuinely curious, read that one.