5 ms·

The scarcity of bitcoins depends on the scarcity of computational power, and at scale that causes all the problems associated with generating energy. But is tha

The scarcity of bitcoins depends on the scarcity of computational power, and at scale that causes all the problems associated with generating energy. But is that the only viable way to generate scarce tokens? What if there was some objective, necessarily incorruptible and public source of random data, and tokens were generated only when certain values appear? The number generated is adjusted by adjusting the range of those values. Is such a publicly verifiable random source possible? Some kind of cosmic slot machine, like maybe variations in a pulsar? If it is possible, could it actually be a low power way to mint scarce tokens? The same random source used to generate the tokens could also be used to randomly distribute them. Is that compatible with the incentive structure of crypto coins?

Sargos 6y ago
Ethereum is starting to use Proof of Stake which provides the same security as Bitcoin's Proof of Work but without the energy waste. Over the long run proof of work will cease to be used.
- madacol 6y ago
  PoS security is weaker than PoW, that's a fact. See https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/70807/how-does-proof-of-stake-prevents-dishonest-behaviour-compared-to-pow https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/70807/how-does-p... But is it stronger enough to still be 99% as useful? I don't know, these are all experiments.
PragmaticPulp 6y ago
> The scarcity of bitcoins depends on the scarcity of computational power No, the scarcity of Bitcoin is hardcoded into the protocol. The protocol doesn't care if 1 miner or 1 million miners are validating the blockchain. The number of BTC is the same. ...as long as everyone agrees to use the same Bitcoin, that is. People could simply fork the Bitcoin chain with a different number of maximum Bitcoin and call it "Bitcoin 2". The scarcity relies on Bitcoiners all agreeing to not recognize any other protocol with a higher limit on Bitcoin, which is currently an attractive proposition to all of the BTC early adopters who would profit greatly from forcing the rest of the world to buy their BTC at inflated prices in the future to get anything done.
dane-pgp 6y ago
That's an interesting idea, but I think what proof-of-work (and -stake) provides is an effective Sybil-proof identity system, which your cosmic slot machine wouldn't. To use a slightly different analogy, imagine that the pulsar variations determined the outcome of a cosmic roulette wheel. What is to stop miners from "betting" on every possible value on the wheel? If winning a spin gives the right to mint some new coins, then the only reasonable strategies would be to make such a blanket bet, or to never bet at all. Perhaps, though, your system could be coupled with a system that restricts participants to one (public key) identity per IPv4 address. The cosmic roulette wheel would then pick a participant at random who would mine the next block and receive the block rewards. I feel like there must be a flaw with this design, other than the fact it rewards hoarders of IP addresses. Perhaps the biggest problem is building a device which can run anywhere on Earth and measure variations in a pulsar, but there must be other globally-measurable random number generators that machines could cheaply reach consensus on.

Sargos 6y ago

Ethereum is starting to use Proof of Stake which provides the same security as Bitcoin's Proof of Work but without the energy waste. Over the long run proof of work will cease to be used.

madacol 6y ago
PoS security is weaker than PoW, that's a fact. See https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/70807/how-does-proof-of-stake-prevents-dishonest-behaviour-compared-to-pow https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/70807/how-does-p... But is it stronger enough to still be 99% as useful? I don't know, these are all experiments.

PragmaticPulp 6y ago

> The scarcity of bitcoins depends on the scarcity of computational power No, the scarcity of Bitcoin is hardcoded into the protocol. The protocol doesn't care if 1 miner or 1 million miners are validating the blockchain. The number of BTC is the same. ...as long as everyone agrees to use the same Bitcoin, that is. People could simply fork the Bitcoin chain with a different number of maximum Bitcoin and call it "Bitcoin 2". The scarcity relies on Bitcoiners all agreeing to not recognize any other protocol with a higher limit on Bitcoin, which is currently an attractive proposition to all of the BTC early adopters who would profit greatly from forcing the rest of the world to buy their BTC at inflated prices in the future to get anything done.

dane-pgp 6y ago

That's an interesting idea, but I think what proof-of-work (and -stake) provides is an effective Sybil-proof identity system, which your cosmic slot machine wouldn't. To use a slightly different analogy, imagine that the pulsar variations determined the outcome of a cosmic roulette wheel. What is to stop miners from "betting" on every possible value on the wheel? If winning a spin gives the right to mint some new coins, then the only reasonable strategies would be to make such a blanket bet, or to never bet at all. Perhaps, though, your system could be coupled with a system that restricts participants to one (public key) identity per IPv4 address. The cosmic roulette wheel would then pick a participant at random who would mine the next block and receive the block rewards. I feel like there must be a flaw with this design, other than the fact it rewards hoarders of IP addresses. Perhaps the biggest problem is building a device which can run anywhere on Earth and measure variations in a pulsar, but there must be other globally-measurable random number generators that machines could cheaply reach consensus on.