3 ms·
The pro-proof-of-stake argument is that every other system is inherently already like that: For example with proof-of-work, the richest can already afford the m
by shawnz 6y ago
The pro-proof-of-stake argument is that every other system is inherently already like that: For example with proof-of-work, the richest can already afford the most hardware which gets them the most earnings. But actually with proof-of-work it's even worse, because it is a non-linear relationship as to what kind of mining hardware you can afford (richer can afford exponentially more efficient hardware). So proof-of-stake is actually better, because at least it's linear.
- nullc 6y agoFor proof of work the cost of the hardware is substantially irrelevant, it's eclipsed by energy costs after a month or two of operation. POS proposals all have participatory floors. E.g. the ethereum proposal requires participants lock up about $60,000 worth of ethereum to participate.
- shawnz 6y agoTrue, but staking pools might help mitigate the latter issue.
- nullc 6y agoThat's equivalent to saying that you can invest in a cloud mining operation or pool funds with friends to by a larger mining device than you otherwise would alone-- in both cases you lose control of your influence in the consensus and essentially end up paying someone else to centralize the system more on your behalf.