3 ms·

We already have an answer to this, it’s called proof of stake. The logic is that mining is to distribute votes and make it very difficult (expensive) to have th

We already have an answer to this, it’s called proof of stake. The logic is that mining is to distribute votes and make it very difficult (expensive) to have the majority of the votes. Proof of work does this since it takes a lot of money to buy and run miners, the mining proves you spent this money so you get your votes. The idea behind proof of stake is that you skip the mining entirely and just say the users with the most coins under their name get the most votes in the system. It achieves the same result without having to buy hardware or electricity.

alexmingoia 6y ago
There's an even better alternative than Proof-of-Stake, which is Open-Representative-Voting (ORV) consensus, used by Nano. No fees, no inflation, no mining. https://docs.nano.org/protocol-design/introduction/ https://docs.nano.org/protocol-design/introduction/
- brabel 6y ago
  This is, according to this link you posted yourself, a work-in-progress. There's no evidence this system is resilient to attacks or that it will work at scale. Only time will tell that. While this is definitely better than the outrageous waste of energy promoted by BitCoin and other proof-of-work crypto coins, the fact that BitCoin has been so popular for so long proves that it doesn't matter if it actually is "good" as a crypto coin or not: all that matters is whether people believe its price will keep going up - even on HN you see people who couldn't care less if its energy consumption is on par with Argentina's as long as they can make a few bucks betting on it.
  - alexmingoia 6y ago
    The documentation is a work-in-progress. Nano network has been running succcessfully since inception 5 years ago, its core mechanics unchanged. It's no more a work-in-progress than Bitcoin. Each attack vector and its risks are addressed in detail: https://docs.nano.org/protocol-design/attack-vectors/ https://docs.nano.org/protocol-design/attack-vectors/
StavrosK 6y ago
Like the sibling says, Nano doesn't even require proof of stake. It's an impressive design, much more innovative than the average "let's fork Bitcoin" project, but it hasn't been very popular for some reason. Sending money is instant (as in, sub-second), doesn't require confirmations or mining. It seems too good to be true, but I've read the white paper and can't find a flaw (doesn't mean there aren't any, of course). My only criticism is that running a validator node isn't incentivized, which might be an issue, but due to the design of the coin you only need people to choose enough different validator that one doesn't have a significant percentage of people on it.
jcpham2 6y ago
Except proof of work built its own billion dollar ASIC industry while everyone was ignoring it, now it’s the gorilla in the room it was always known it would be and there exists no economical plan to migrate to proof stake - the cabal has spoken

alexmingoia 6y ago

There's an even better alternative than Proof-of-Stake, which is Open-Representative-Voting (ORV) consensus, used by Nano. No fees, no inflation, no mining. https://docs.nano.org/protocol-design/introduction/ https://docs.nano.org/protocol-design/introduction/

brabel 6y ago
This is, according to this link you posted yourself, a work-in-progress. There's no evidence this system is resilient to attacks or that it will work at scale. Only time will tell that. While this is definitely better than the outrageous waste of energy promoted by BitCoin and other proof-of-work crypto coins, the fact that BitCoin has been so popular for so long proves that it doesn't matter if it actually is "good" as a crypto coin or not: all that matters is whether people believe its price will keep going up - even on HN you see people who couldn't care less if its energy consumption is on par with Argentina's as long as they can make a few bucks betting on it.
- alexmingoia 6y ago
  The documentation is a work-in-progress. Nano network has been running succcessfully since inception 5 years ago, its core mechanics unchanged. It's no more a work-in-progress than Bitcoin. Each attack vector and its risks are addressed in detail: https://docs.nano.org/protocol-design/attack-vectors/ https://docs.nano.org/protocol-design/attack-vectors/

StavrosK 6y ago

Like the sibling says, Nano doesn't even require proof of stake. It's an impressive design, much more innovative than the average "let's fork Bitcoin" project, but it hasn't been very popular for some reason. Sending money is instant (as in, sub-second), doesn't require confirmations or mining. It seems too good to be true, but I've read the white paper and can't find a flaw (doesn't mean there aren't any, of course). My only criticism is that running a validator node isn't incentivized, which might be an issue, but due to the design of the coin you only need people to choose enough different validator that one doesn't have a significant percentage of people on it.

jcpham2 6y ago

Except proof of work built its own billion dollar ASIC industry while everyone was ignoring it, now it’s the gorilla in the room it was always known it would be and there exists no economical plan to migrate to proof stake - the cabal has spoken