3 ms·

"Nothing is cheaper than proof of work" is a ludicrously overstated claim from an overstated article. Proof of work is as expensive as it can feasibly be. When

by rspeer 8y ago

"Nothing is cheaper than proof of work" is a ludicrously overstated claim from an overstated article. Proof of work is as expensive as it can feasibly be. When you say "nothing is cheaper than proof of work", it means you have the problem that only proof of work solves, which is that you want to achieve decentralized consensus and you trust nobody. Everything is cheaper than proof of work, as long as you trust somebody. And if you're an anarcho-capitalist who trusts nobody, why should I want to live in the world you create? A little bit of trust is worth it to stop burning coal to power useless computation.

grey-area 8y ago
This is the central problem of cryptcurrences based on bitcoin - people want trust, they want verified counter parties, they don’t want a currency just anonymous enough to make petty crime easy. That makes POW remarkably unsuited to a currency as it solves the wrong problems. Also if you’re going to have POW, all these ASICS could at least be folding proteins or doing other grid computing, so they have a useful byproduct.
- __blockcipher__ 8y ago
  This makes no sense to me. >people want trust, they want verified counter parties then you don't understand what makes cryptocurrency useful. you can send it to anyone, anywhere, with no government to tell you "no you can't buy these [censored books / illegal drugs / unregulated services]" or "no you can't send it to [blacklisted country]". <== I'm talking about currencies like XMR (monero) there since Bitcoin is a little more trackable The more you rely on trusted third parties, the less useful cryptocurrencies are since USD is far more stable and dominant. PoW has problems, but PoS also has massive problems. I'm not confident a PoS coin can survive longterm - but it'll be interesting to see; many coins are trying
  - grey-area 8y ago
    then you don't understand what makes cryptocurrency useful. It solves the wrong problems, which is why it's not useful (at least in its current form). You can't even do what you contend with cryptocurrencies right now, because as you admit they are trackable, by design. That's a very hard problem, and if you wanted to solve it, you certainly wouldn't start with a public ledger. The more you rely on trusted third parties, the less useful cryptocurrencies are since USD is far more stable and dominant. QED. This is exactly my point. You're trying to avoid trusted third parties when most of the world wants a trusted third party - as evidenced by thousands of years of economic systems which rely on it. Cryptocurrencies are full of interesting ideas, but they're also based on some wild assumptions which just don't match what most people use money for. Which is a shame as it'd be nice to see government grip over currencies undermined and a truly global currency which nobody controls emerge. I just don't think our current cryptocurrencies are heading in the right direction, or even starting from the right place to do that.
    - __blockcipher__ 8y ago
      To put it bluntly I don't think you've given it a fair consideration. As I alluded to, cryptocurrencies like XMR are actually secure by design (or rather, the best manifestation of the attempt for ideal privacy/security/fungibility)

by rspeer 8y ago

grey-area 8y ago

This is the central problem of cryptcurrences based on bitcoin - people want trust, they want verified counter parties, they don’t want a currency just anonymous enough to make petty crime easy. That makes POW remarkably unsuited to a currency as it solves the wrong problems. Also if you’re going to have POW, all these ASICS could at least be folding proteins or doing other grid computing, so they have a useful byproduct.

__blockcipher__ 8y ago
This makes no sense to me. >people want trust, they want verified counter parties then you don't understand what makes cryptocurrency useful. you can send it to anyone, anywhere, with no government to tell you "no you can't buy these [censored books / illegal drugs / unregulated services]" or "no you can't send it to [blacklisted country]". <== I'm talking about currencies like XMR (monero) there since Bitcoin is a little more trackable The more you rely on trusted third parties, the less useful cryptocurrencies are since USD is far more stable and dominant. PoW has problems, but PoS also has massive problems. I'm not confident a PoS coin can survive longterm - but it'll be interesting to see; many coins are trying
- grey-area 8y ago
  then you don't understand what makes cryptocurrency useful. It solves the wrong problems, which is why it's not useful (at least in its current form). You can't even do what you contend with cryptocurrencies right now, because as you admit they are trackable, by design. That's a very hard problem, and if you wanted to solve it, you certainly wouldn't start with a public ledger. The more you rely on trusted third parties, the less useful cryptocurrencies are since USD is far more stable and dominant. QED. This is exactly my point. You're trying to avoid trusted third parties when most of the world wants a trusted third party - as evidenced by thousands of years of economic systems which rely on it. Cryptocurrencies are full of interesting ideas, but they're also based on some wild assumptions which just don't match what most people use money for. Which is a shame as it'd be nice to see government grip over currencies undermined and a truly global currency which nobody controls emerge. I just don't think our current cryptocurrencies are heading in the right direction, or even starting from the right place to do that.
  - __blockcipher__ 8y ago
    To put it bluntly I don't think you've given it a fair consideration. As I alluded to, cryptocurrencies like XMR are actually secure by design (or rather, the best manifestation of the attempt for ideal privacy/security/fungibility)