3 ms·
> Full PoS decentralization does not exist yet. How do you define "full PoS decentralization"? That sounds a bit no-true-Scotsmany. > Sadly, the complexity (r
by StavrosK 6y ago
> Full PoS decentralization does not exist yet.
How do you define "full PoS decentralization"? That sounds a bit no-true-Scotsmany.
> Sadly, the complexity (rube goldberg) of PoS far outweighs the simplicity of PoW.
Yes, and the huge energy usage of PoW far outweighs the zero energy usage of PoS. That's the tradeoff.
- latchkey 6y agoIt doesn't exist because ETH2 doesn't exist. It is the one blockchain that I see as being focused on full decentralization, instead of just stopping at variations of tendermint and a bunch of "approved" validators. Contrary to popular belief, PoS isn't zero energy usage. My very very very large ETH1 gpu mining operation sits next door to the same large data centers powering all the cloud providers. All getting power from the same hydrodams that would just go to waste otherwise. It isn't like the power can be easily used in other ways... transmission of power is expensive and intrusive. Bitcoin is an issue because of supply/demand... when the reward goes away, so will the miners. Difficulty will drop to more acceptable levels to cover the loss. ETH1/ethash at least tries to peg to a specific type of hardware that actually has a better roi with older models and doesn't need the latest / greatest. The tricky bit to make ETH2 work will be the use of zkSnarks. What nobody talks about is how compute (energy) heavy they are currently. It is a bit of moving the goal post if we're going to just end up building asic's again.