3 ms·

I'm not sure I see how this relates to cryptocurrency. It misses the core attributes that give crypto value: scarcity, and the fact that it can be exchanged for

I'm not sure I see how this relates to cryptocurrency. It misses the core attributes that give crypto value: scarcity, and the fact that it can be exchanged for other things of value. If there's no shortage of bricks, and those bricks can't be used (or exchanged) for anything other than the material for making the tower taller, then of course that would be pointless. But that's not how cryptocurrency works. The whole purpose of proof-of-work is to protect the attribute of scarcity in a distributed way where one actor can't control (or change) the rules.

capnorange 6y ago
the bricks are the blocks not the currency, here the value is in able to write their own names on the bricks with a sharpie.
- dperfect 6y ago
  Still doesn't make sense to me. > If they add their brick to the top, other students will pay them (in bricks) to write their own names on it with a sharpie Other students are paying in bricks? Is that supposed to be transaction fees, mining (that's the sudoku puzzles), or what? And is there any indication that a name on a brick means anything (or can be exchanged for anything)? Is there a limit to the number of names on bricks? Can those names be verified at any instant, anywhere in the world with near 100% confidence? I know it's a simplification for the purpose of making a point; it's just that the point becomes invalid when the simplification throws out the central characteristics of the thing that's being represented.
  - capnorange 6y ago
    sorry, I read it wrong trying to compare it to bitcoin. I think the author is only demonstrating PoW/PoS and not Bitcoin itself. > Other students are paying in bricks? This is the transaction fees. > Is there a limit to the number of names on bricks? Not necessary. > And is there any indication that a name on a brick means anything (or can be exchanged for anything)? Pride, having taken part in building the biggest building. > Can those names be verified at any instant, anywhere in the world with near 100% confidence? This is only about PoW/PoS, not decentralisation. Ofcourse, PoW/PoS is meaningless if participants are not able to validate. So, in the end it's all about the pride in being able be a part of the tallest set of bricks, hah!

capnorange 6y ago

the bricks are the blocks not the currency, here the value is in able to write their own names on the bricks with a sharpie.

dperfect 6y ago
Still doesn't make sense to me. > If they add their brick to the top, other students will pay them (in bricks) to write their own names on it with a sharpie Other students are paying in bricks? Is that supposed to be transaction fees, mining (that's the sudoku puzzles), or what? And is there any indication that a name on a brick means anything (or can be exchanged for anything)? Is there a limit to the number of names on bricks? Can those names be verified at any instant, anywhere in the world with near 100% confidence? I know it's a simplification for the purpose of making a point; it's just that the point becomes invalid when the simplification throws out the central characteristics of the thing that's being represented.
- capnorange 6y ago
  sorry, I read it wrong trying to compare it to bitcoin. I think the author is only demonstrating PoW/PoS and not Bitcoin itself. > Other students are paying in bricks? This is the transaction fees. > Is there a limit to the number of names on bricks? Not necessary. > And is there any indication that a name on a brick means anything (or can be exchanged for anything)? Pride, having taken part in building the biggest building. > Can those names be verified at any instant, anywhere in the world with near 100% confidence? This is only about PoW/PoS, not decentralisation. Ofcourse, PoW/PoS is meaningless if participants are not able to validate. So, in the end it's all about the pride in being able be a part of the tallest set of bricks, hah!