4 ms·
I understand your point but it does gloss over the fact that the calculations are useful to the bitcoin network in terms of security.
by celticninja 6y ago
I understand your point but it does gloss over the fact that the calculations are useful to the bitcoin network in terms of security.
- ohgodplsno 6y agoSo, absolutely useless for 99.99% of the world.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- lmilcin 6y agoThis was discussed before on HN. The issue is building consensus protocol (in this case consensus that a transaction happened or did not happen). There exist no physics law that says that achieving this requires burning extraordinary amounts of energy.
- Graffur 6y ago> This was discussed before on HN. You say that like the conversation is resolved?
- ForHackernews 6y agoIt is resolved. Everyone except bitcoin bagholders can see that the BTC proof-of-work protocol is obscenely wasteful. There are already superior cryptocurrencies that use different consensus algorithms and have similar or better security/anonymity properties.
- afarrell 6y agoI think you might be underestimating the amount of work required to achieve real consensus among humans.
- Spivak 6y agoLook the actual problem as solved by BTC which is digital cash with no protections like chargebacks requires only one single trusted entity (can be more if we want) maintaining a very simple ledger of transactions operating in the open with auditing done by interested parties. This is plenty achievable given that banking, which is far more complicated and messy, works. It doesn't not require a small country's energy usage to achieve human consensus. BTC is super cool having created an pseudoanonymous digital voting system that's resistant to ballot stuffing but we're allowed to make stronger assumptions for our financial systems.
- Geee 6y agoWhat happens when banks break the consensus and what is needed to prevent that?
- abeppu 6y agoI think the banking regulator and or justice system in the relevant country step in. Being in a modern society with laws seems to be the main, partly effective preventative measure. If we're going through the work to have laws and courts and regulatory bodies anyway, and if we have the FDIC etc, why shouldn't we get a partly-trustworthy financial system out of it? I mean, of course, not that the people are trustworthy, but that records of what you deposited, withdrew, transferred etc will be respected. Even if you own crypto, I'm guessing you have a bunch of money in other assets in accounts managed by financial institutions. How often has the bank just decided that you don't own that?
- celticninja 6y agoit is not about physics, it's about security.
- xvector 6y agoIn other words, when the last Bitcoin is mined, Bitcoin is well and truly fucked. Bitcoin and other non-inflationary proof-of-work coins need to switch to proof-of-stake if they want any hope of longevity.
- hvidgaard 6y agoIt is assumed that transaction fees will be enough to incentivize miners.
- user-the-name 6y agoOnly if you assume the conclusion.