4 ms·

> There is no reason to expect new technologies to come out of this, and certainly not any new science Proof-of-stake coins are one obvious counterexample. Wou

by shawnz 6y ago

> There is no reason to expect new technologies to come out of this, and certainly not any new science Proof-of-stake coins are one obvious counterexample. Would proof-of-stake technologies have been developed if proof-of-work didn't come along first to incentivise development and build trust in cryptocurrencies?

tsimionescu 6y ago
Proof-of-stake is not an iteration on proof-of-work, it is a lateral idea. There is no reason why the first popular crypto-coin wouldn't have been proof-of-stake, except that it didn't occur to Satoshi (or it did and they didn't like it for other reasons).
- shawnz 6y ago
  Firstly that's not completely true: proof-of-stake doesn't solve the initial wealth distribution problem so often proof-of-work is still necessary in some capacity even in proof-of-stake coins. Furthermore it's possible that a purely proof-of-stake currency would have never gained the widespread trust that proof-of-work did at a time when cryptocurrencies were a new idea. Or maybe not... but people did have ideas about proof-of-stake quite early on and it took much longer for those ideas to gain the same level of acceptance that proof-of-work did.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    Inventing the technology and getting it adopted are two different things. For example, I happen to believe that decentralized coins are a horrible idea in and of themselves, even without proof-of-work also helping to increase global warming. So, from my point of view, any adoption of a crypto-currency is a net-negative, and I would be happy to know that the technology exists, but is staying abandoned as long as we have no use for it other than non-centralized money.
    - shawnz 6y ago
      > I happen to believe that decentralized coins are a horrible idea in and of themselves, even without proof-of-work Sure, but that is a much different argument than proof-of-stake vs proof-of-work. With the assumption that having a successful proof-of-stake cryptocurrency is a net good, then what I am saying is maybe our usages of proof-of-work up until the future widespread adoption of proof-of-stake actually will contribute more positively to that end than negatively.
      - tsimionescu 6y ago
        My original claim is that new technology is not getting funded by dumping energy into bitcoin mining. Proof-of-stake was proposed as a counter example, but as discussed it may actually predate bitcoin's adoption. It may be true that dumping energy into bitcoin can fund the adoption of a proof-of-stake coin, but that is no longer a new technology, it is simply adoption. So I stand by my original point - the resources going into bitcoin are not fueling technology research. They may be fueling PoS Ethereum adoption, but that is another argument entirely.
        CryptoUnchained 6y ago
        You are speaking in absolute terms. It goes against all logic that new technology wouldn't be funded by dumping energy into bitcoin mining. Simple logic.. Billions of dollars in miners are bought by speculators, Bitmain orders new 5nm chips from TSMC... TSMC uses money for R&D. Either you're being willfully ignorant or you're trolling us.
        shawnz 6y ago
        > It may be true that dumping energy into bitcoin can fund the adoption of a proof-of-stake coin, but that is no longer a new technology, it is simply adoption. I'm not sure that's true. Proof-of-stake is established as a concept but there is still lots of room for technological improvements in the implementation and user experience. New proof-of-stake coins can compete more effectively because of the trust which Bitcoin established.

by shawnz 6y ago

tsimionescu 6y ago

Proof-of-stake is not an iteration on proof-of-work, it is a lateral idea. There is no reason why the first popular crypto-coin wouldn't have been proof-of-stake, except that it didn't occur to Satoshi (or it did and they didn't like it for other reasons).

shawnz 6y ago
Firstly that's not completely true: proof-of-stake doesn't solve the initial wealth distribution problem so often proof-of-work is still necessary in some capacity even in proof-of-stake coins. Furthermore it's possible that a purely proof-of-stake currency would have never gained the widespread trust that proof-of-work did at a time when cryptocurrencies were a new idea. Or maybe not... but people did have ideas about proof-of-stake quite early on and it took much longer for those ideas to gain the same level of acceptance that proof-of-work did.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  Inventing the technology and getting it adopted are two different things. For example, I happen to believe that decentralized coins are a horrible idea in and of themselves, even without proof-of-work also helping to increase global warming. So, from my point of view, any adoption of a crypto-currency is a net-negative, and I would be happy to know that the technology exists, but is staying abandoned as long as we have no use for it other than non-centralized money.
  - shawnz 6y ago
    > I happen to believe that decentralized coins are a horrible idea in and of themselves, even without proof-of-work Sure, but that is a much different argument than proof-of-stake vs proof-of-work. With the assumption that having a successful proof-of-stake cryptocurrency is a net good, then what I am saying is maybe our usages of proof-of-work up until the future widespread adoption of proof-of-stake actually will contribute more positively to that end than negatively.
    - tsimionescu 6y ago
      My original claim is that new technology is not getting funded by dumping energy into bitcoin mining. Proof-of-stake was proposed as a counter example, but as discussed it may actually predate bitcoin's adoption. It may be true that dumping energy into bitcoin can fund the adoption of a proof-of-stake coin, but that is no longer a new technology, it is simply adoption. So I stand by my original point - the resources going into bitcoin are not fueling technology research. They may be fueling PoS Ethereum adoption, but that is another argument entirely.
      - CryptoUnchained 6y ago
        You are speaking in absolute terms. It goes against all logic that new technology wouldn't be funded by dumping energy into bitcoin mining. Simple logic.. Billions of dollars in miners are bought by speculators, Bitmain orders new 5nm chips from TSMC... TSMC uses money for R&D. Either you're being willfully ignorant or you're trolling us.
      - shawnz 6y ago
        > It may be true that dumping energy into bitcoin can fund the adoption of a proof-of-stake coin, but that is no longer a new technology, it is simply adoption. I'm not sure that's true. Proof-of-stake is established as a concept but there is still lots of room for technological improvements in the implementation and user experience. New proof-of-stake coins can compete more effectively because of the trust which Bitcoin established.