4 ms·

No, it's the chemical reaction that the oil plants use, not the owners of the said plants. See how silly that sounds? You can't assert that every PoS system is

No, it's the chemical reaction that the oil plants use, not the owners of the said plants. See how silly that sounds? You can't assert that every PoS system is vulnerable to a grinding attack without specifying what the attack is. Every PoW system has a centralization of mining problem due to economy of scale. Now prove that isn't true.

keymone 8y ago
> No, it's the chemical reaction that the oil plants use, not the owners of the said plants poor attempt, try again. > without specifying what the attack is stake grinding, long range and other attacks are widely known. all complexities that deviate from trivial PoS system exist solely to address these attacks. are you really pretending they don't exist? > Every PoW system has a centralization of mining problem due to economy of scale. Now prove that isn't true. the only centralizing factor is energy subsidies. it's still a far cry from issues with PoS systems.
- topmonk 8y ago
  >> No, it's the chemical reaction that the oil plants use, not the owners of the said plants > poor attempt, try again. I like how you deleted the "See how silly that sounds?" part, which is what I'm getting at. Anyway, who to blame is philosophical question and has no absolute truth, we might as well blame God for making humans greedy and shortsighted. I think we have to agree to disagree here. The fact remains though that in today's world if BTC switched over to PoS, we'd save about 1% energy usage today and the corresponding co2 production to go along with it. If BTC continues to grow, this number will go up correspondingly. Are you denying this? > stake grinding, long range and other attacks are widely known. all complexities that deviate from trivial PoS system exist solely to address these attacks. are you really pretending they don't exist? I'm saying they've been solved. You can see their justifications against the attacks you talk about in the white papers. If you have a specific attack against a specific coin, then we have something to talk about. Otherwise, just repeating over and over, "But there are attacks!" doesn't disprove anything they are saying. > the only centralizing factor is energy subsidies. it's still a far cry from issues with PoS systems. Again, economies of scale. Please at least try to address my arguments.
  - keymone 8y ago
    Who is to blame for environmental harm is not a philosophical question. Act of consumption is not harmful, act of production is harmful. The fact that demand creates incentive to produce from shitty sources doesn’t change the actor that is doing harm. And it’s not 1%, so you’re wrong about that too. If BTC switched over to PoS it would cost the world exactly the same amount of resources, shifting some energy consumption into political plane. Fiat money is 100% political plane. Going towards fiat money is antithetical to bitcoin. You’re saying attacks have been solved without citing any sources. There is no solution to PoS attacks that doesn’t make the system less trustless or less decentralized and introduces a layer of attackable complexity. > Again, economies of scale. Please at least try to address my arguments. I haven’t seen an argument so far, only a buzzword.

keymone 8y ago

> No, it's the chemical reaction that the oil plants use, not the owners of the said plants poor attempt, try again. > without specifying what the attack is stake grinding, long range and other attacks are widely known. all complexities that deviate from trivial PoS system exist solely to address these attacks. are you really pretending they don't exist? > Every PoW system has a centralization of mining problem due to economy of scale. Now prove that isn't true. the only centralizing factor is energy subsidies. it's still a far cry from issues with PoS systems.

topmonk 8y ago
>> No, it's the chemical reaction that the oil plants use, not the owners of the said plants > poor attempt, try again. I like how you deleted the "See how silly that sounds?" part, which is what I'm getting at. Anyway, who to blame is philosophical question and has no absolute truth, we might as well blame God for making humans greedy and shortsighted. I think we have to agree to disagree here. The fact remains though that in today's world if BTC switched over to PoS, we'd save about 1% energy usage today and the corresponding co2 production to go along with it. If BTC continues to grow, this number will go up correspondingly. Are you denying this? > stake grinding, long range and other attacks are widely known. all complexities that deviate from trivial PoS system exist solely to address these attacks. are you really pretending they don't exist? I'm saying they've been solved. You can see their justifications against the attacks you talk about in the white papers. If you have a specific attack against a specific coin, then we have something to talk about. Otherwise, just repeating over and over, "But there are attacks!" doesn't disprove anything they are saying. > the only centralizing factor is energy subsidies. it's still a far cry from issues with PoS systems. Again, economies of scale. Please at least try to address my arguments.
- keymone 8y ago
  Who is to blame for environmental harm is not a philosophical question. Act of consumption is not harmful, act of production is harmful. The fact that demand creates incentive to produce from shitty sources doesn’t change the actor that is doing harm. And it’s not 1%, so you’re wrong about that too. If BTC switched over to PoS it would cost the world exactly the same amount of resources, shifting some energy consumption into political plane. Fiat money is 100% political plane. Going towards fiat money is antithetical to bitcoin. You’re saying attacks have been solved without citing any sources. There is no solution to PoS attacks that doesn’t make the system less trustless or less decentralized and introduces a layer of attackable complexity. > Again, economies of scale. Please at least try to address my arguments. I haven’t seen an argument so far, only a buzzword.