5 ms·

Don’t destroy Bitcoin. Invent a more efficient alternative for people to switch to.

ForHackernews 6y ago
Deliberately making bitcoin worse would incentivize users to switch to alternatives like Libra or Ethereum (which claims to be moving to proof-of-stake).
- shawnz 6y ago
  Making Bitcoin deliberately worse would also hinder the development of those future improvements in efficiency, perhaps actually leading to proof-of-work systems being around for even longer.
  - jonhendry18 6y ago
    Er, no it wouldn't? You don't need Bitcoin around to do that.
    - shawnz 6y ago
      I didn't say you need it, but it incentivized the development of those more efficient cryptocurrency technologies by providing a decentralized store of value in which the market could build trust in the interim period where proof-of-stake technologies were still being developed. What I am saying is that perhaps proof-of-work coins actually bootstrapped proof-of-stake technologies, thus leading to more rapid development of cryptocurrency technology in general.
      - jonhendry18 6y ago
        Sure, but in that respect Bitcoin has been redundant for years.
        shawnz 6y ago
        You may say that, but given that proof-of-stake coins should be able to easily outcompete proof-of-work coins on a purely technical basis, and yet they have not achieved that success yet in practice (although they are growing rapidly), it seems the overall market still disagrees.
skinnyasianboi 6y ago
Have a look at Cardano Ouroboros: "An environmentally sustainable, verifiably secure proof-of-stake protocol with rigorous security guarantees."
jonhendry18 6y ago
Do destroy Bitcoin, to incent people to move to more efficient alternatives. Bitcoin should have died a decade ago.
- pharmakom 6y ago
  How would that work exactly? Bitcoin would just get patched and relaunched.
NonCoder 6y ago
An alternative could be where a coin could be directly proportional to a tree planted! Its value would go up as the tree grew bigger. Think of a carbon sink. While it would come with its own loopholes like having invasive plants. Its an interesting way to have an alternate. One could even expand to other similar sources which could aid to a better future.

Deliberately making bitcoin worse would incentivize users to switch to alternatives like Libra or Ethereum (which claims to be moving to proof-of-stake).

shawnz 6y ago
Making Bitcoin deliberately worse would also hinder the development of those future improvements in efficiency, perhaps actually leading to proof-of-work systems being around for even longer.
- jonhendry18 6y ago
  Er, no it wouldn't? You don't need Bitcoin around to do that.
  - shawnz 6y ago
    I didn't say you need it, but it incentivized the development of those more efficient cryptocurrency technologies by providing a decentralized store of value in which the market could build trust in the interim period where proof-of-stake technologies were still being developed. What I am saying is that perhaps proof-of-work coins actually bootstrapped proof-of-stake technologies, thus leading to more rapid development of cryptocurrency technology in general.
    - jonhendry18 6y ago
      Sure, but in that respect Bitcoin has been redundant for years.
      - shawnz 6y ago
        You may say that, but given that proof-of-stake coins should be able to easily outcompete proof-of-work coins on a purely technical basis, and yet they have not achieved that success yet in practice (although they are growing rapidly), it seems the overall market still disagrees.

skinnyasianboi 6y ago

Have a look at Cardano Ouroboros: "An environmentally sustainable, verifiably secure proof-of-stake protocol with rigorous security guarantees."

jonhendry18 6y ago

Do destroy Bitcoin, to incent people to move to more efficient alternatives. Bitcoin should have died a decade ago.

pharmakom 6y ago
How would that work exactly? Bitcoin would just get patched and relaunched.

NonCoder 6y ago

An alternative could be where a coin could be directly proportional to a tree planted! Its value would go up as the tree grew bigger. Think of a carbon sink. While it would come with its own loopholes like having invasive plants. Its an interesting way to have an alternate. One could even expand to other similar sources which could aid to a better future.