7 ms·

So point them out, please. One that is efficient on all levels.

by pmlnr 6y ago

ssijak 6y ago
Nano. It is also very fast, few seconds to transfer funds.
tarsinge 6y ago
Ethereum POS chain is live and the migration of the main chain is planned for the end of the year.
- mrfusion 6y ago
  Where can I learn more about this assuming I have an 85-90 IQ?
  - rauljordan2020 6y ago
    https://decrypt.co/resources/what-is-ethereum-2-0 https://decrypt.co/resources/what-is-ethereum-2-0
Paradigma11 6y ago
I like Tezos. Its has a very interesting and developed smart contract technology stack: https://tezos.com/developer-portal https://tezos.com/developer-portal and is Proof of Stake. You can run a node on a cheap laptop.
keorn 6y ago
Polkadot: https://wiki.polkadot.network/docs/en/learn-consensus https://wiki.polkadot.network/docs/en/learn-consensus
photon-torpedo 6y ago
Algorand.
openfuture 6y ago
First of all I want to preface my comment with the disclaimer that proof of stake is nonsense in many ways (vulnerable to coordinated bribery attacks - we don't know how to coordinate well enough to execute them yet but the math checks out, also plutocracy..) However it is a pretty expedient way to get something out the door fast (it's literally the simplest form of anti-sybil you can make and a cryptocurrency is anti-sybil + consensus). So given that we accept proof of stake as a good way to prototype different approaches then a cryptocurrency that meets you criteria is the avalanche cryptocurrency (AVAX). The way it works is via "stochastic gossip", whenever there is a conflict (double spend or some kind of decision problem where a node is unsure what is reality) then a consensus "game" is started. The way the game works is that you sample some reasonable sample of peers in the network (say 30-40 peers) and ask them "is A or B the legal state of the world?", now an honest participant will naively believe whatever the majority decision is. Due to how stochastic probability stuff works the network will converge if you repeat this game sufficiently often. The idea is that if the initial state is 60% think A is the correct transaction then after a few rounds (they do 17 rounds which is overkill, you get like nine nines of probability or something) the whole network will have come to that conclusion (each time you run a round of the game the majority will _probably_ grow, eventually only the byzantine nodes are still saying B and if they are not the majority then all conflicts are solved). Now bear in mind, there are some drawbacks, if someone is stubborn or does the opposite of what they should then maybe they can have some outsized influence, but in general this works pretty well and you can have a _lot_ of nodes participate in the network (much much more than in nakomoto consensus due to the different nature of the consensus mechanism). Furthermore you get finality in 3 seconds (even with the 17 rounds) so that is also quite nice (if you want to reach VISA level of transactions... A validator in the avalanche network doesn't need some crazy hardware either.. a raspberry pi is fine, the limitation is you need the machine to be online 80% of the time they stake for. That is one solution. There are others. For example amoveo, which is proof of work BUT it solves the second order byzantine fault tolerance problem (also known as the "oracle problem") which means that you can account for externalities (like energy usage) and throttle the mining rewards or adjust parameters in response. I am working on a very raw but next-gen project myself, it's called datalisp (I wrote a very bad "whitepaper" in one sitting a couple of weeks ago... it's at datalisp.is - there is a telegram channel.. we're trying to figure out a lot of hard problems and we'd rather show than tell so if the whitepaper is somewhat up your alley then there is a lot more elaborate stuff happening in the channel). The point of what I am saying is: if we want to kill bitcoin then the simplest way is to just make a better solution and change the narrative around the whole scene. I hate all this nonsense proof of stake ponzi nonsense, if a cryptocurrency is well designed then there is no advantage from being an early adopter (i.e. we solve byzantine fault tolerance _AND_ tragedy of the commons). Please don't shit all over those of us who want to solve hard problems in a good way just because there's a bunch of assholes trying to get rich quick.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
EL_Loco 6y ago
I'll second Algorand. Founded by Silvio Micali, Turing and Gödel Prize winner MIT prof who got a bunch of MIT people and now has probably solved the problems of speed, safety and energy consumption of the old blockchains. Check out their white papers if you're interested. I would also suggest checking out Hedera Hashgraph for a newer approach on distributed ledgers.
disruptalot 6y ago
The reader will find dozens of suggestion in this thread about how coin X is more "efficient". Note that efficiency would mean producing the same properties but with less resources. Not merely using less resources. While experimentation is certainly desired, it's a fallacy that any coin has actually reproduced bitcoin in a more efficient way. To name a couple, - Bitcoin had what some call an "immaculate conception" where there was no expectation that such a system would work in the first place and where the founder was anonymous. This creates a very different history in comparison with the founder led, pre mined, frothy market launches of today. - Bitcoin has stood the test of time. With each year in production that passes, there is more confidence that the system and specific implementation is sound. Once these other coins have stood in the market for 10 years straight and continued to retain the confidence in their protocol, the comparisons can start.
- danShumway 6y ago
  > have stood in the market for 10 years straight At which point, Bitcoin proponents will up the requirements again. This is an excuse people use to avoid talking about the fact that Bitcoin has spent the last 2-3 years consistently proving that it doesn't scale and that it is unusable as a currency. > had what some call an "immaculate conception" Or, it was a good first try that needs iteration now that we understand that hyper-deflation is a bad thing for a currency, now that we understand that pseudononymous addresses don't provide any real privacy guarantees at all, and now that we understand that transaction speed and cost has to be something that's optimized for early on in a coin's life and that those issues can't be fixed by pasting an ad-hoc, unproven non-blockchain solution on top of the coin 10 years later. The weird, religious loyalty people have to reinterpreting Bitcoin's flaws as strengths is setting the entire crypto ecosystem back. If you want to appeal to 'stability', then banks have been around for centuries. But if you're trying to build something new, you're going to have occasionally innovate and iterate on the thing you're building.
  - nyolfen 6y ago
    > Or, it was a good first try that needs iteration now that we understand that hyper-deflation is a bad thing for a currency in what sense is bitcoin "hyper-deflation"ary? i think you are thinking of the word "deflation" but i know that doesn't sound as smart >The weird, religious loyalty people have to reinterpreting Bitcoin's flaws as strengths is setting the entire crypto ecosystem back. If you want to appeal to 'stability', then banks have been around for centuries. But if you're trying to build something new, you're going to have occasionally innovate and iterate on the thing you're building. there is nothing stopping anybody from making something better, so go on
argvargc 6y ago
XRP and Stellar were the pioneers in this regard. Since about 2013 and 2014 respectively (or thereabouts). Such systems have negligible energy usage. In general, anything using some flavour of Byzantine Fault Tolerance - of which there are a few - as a method of consensus, consumes very little energy for the payback. If appropriately deployed (similar issue to PoW, decentralisation needs to be maintained) BFT-type consensus mechanisms also exceed the consensus security offered by PoW or PoS. BTC and other PoW models are typically constrained by a 51% corruption of the network. BFT systems typically do better than that, as they often require numbers in excess of 50% to reach agreement (I believe I've seen around 80% - but it's been a while). The way the system usually works is it's constantly reassessing malicious nodes so it becomes difficult for a minority to gain a foothold to cause disruption. They also have the possibility to exhibit less destructive effects if breached (temporary network halt rather than network takeover). Finally, in such systems modifications to the network protocols are voted upon democratically by participants on the network itself, and so far - at least in XRP's case - this appears to have worked well. Ripple has proposed a few changes that have been rejected by the network using this voting process, while others proposed by them or other participants have been approved and become part of the protocol.
- runeks 6y ago
  XRP is not an alternative to Bitcoin; it's a proposed alternative to SWIFT.
  - argvargc 6y ago
    XRP is whatever any holder wants it to be. If users hold it as a store of value instead of Bitcoin, your strange opinions have absolutely no dominion over that.
webinvest 6y ago
I haven’t evaluated and run the code for these 8 cryptocurrencies but the most energy efficient cryptocurrencies with the highest market caps are: Stellar Lumens & Ripple: More centralized but that centralization means there no no wasteful proof of work needed Tezos: like a cheaper version of Ethereum for NFTs. Already powered by proof of stake. Polkadot: Many new coins are beginning to be released on polkadot’s proof of stake network just as they are on Ethereum’s network. Binance coin- centralized and proof of stake. The whole Binance Smart Chain network is powered by just 21 nodes (validates) that stake about 3.5M of Binance coin. Cardano - has a cool name and is powered by proof of stake. Has lots of PHD research papers but most of which are over my head. Algorand- a fast and cheap new cryptocurrency that is powered by two different kinds of validator nodes, one centralized and the other decentralized. Ethereum 2.0 - will probably take 2-3 years to migrate to proof of stake but once it does, it’s possible that many of the above cryptocurrencies will be rendered obsolete unless they’ve captured large amounts of the market before then. All 8 of these coins/tokens should meet your standards of being efficient on all levels. When evaluating cryptocurrencies you’ll notice this pattern. The cryptocurrencies with the cheapest transaction fees tend to use the least amount of energy.
ric2b 6y ago
Nano. It's also very fast and has no fees.

So point them out, please. One that is efficient on all levels.

by pmlnr 6y ago

So point them out, please. One that is efficient on all levels.

ssijak 6y ago

Nano. It is also very fast, few seconds to transfer funds.

tarsinge 6y ago

Ethereum POS chain is live and the migration of the main chain is planned for the end of the year.

mrfusion 6y ago
Where can I learn more about this assuming I have an 85-90 IQ?
- rauljordan2020 6y ago
  https://decrypt.co/resources/what-is-ethereum-2-0 https://decrypt.co/resources/what-is-ethereum-2-0

Paradigma11 6y ago

I like Tezos. Its has a very interesting and developed smart contract technology stack: https://tezos.com/developer-portal https://tezos.com/developer-portal and is Proof of Stake. You can run a node on a cheap laptop.

keorn 6y ago

Polkadot: https://wiki.polkadot.network/docs/en/learn-consensus https://wiki.polkadot.network/docs/en/learn-consensus

photon-torpedo 6y ago

Algorand.

openfuture 6y ago

First of all I want to preface my comment with the disclaimer that proof of stake is nonsense in many ways (vulnerable to coordinated bribery attacks - we don't know how to coordinate well enough to execute them yet but the math checks out, also plutocracy..) However it is a pretty expedient way to get something out the door fast (it's literally the simplest form of anti-sybil you can make and a cryptocurrency is anti-sybil + consensus). So given that we accept proof of stake as a good way to prototype different approaches then a cryptocurrency that meets you criteria is the avalanche cryptocurrency (AVAX). The way it works is via "stochastic gossip", whenever there is a conflict (double spend or some kind of decision problem where a node is unsure what is reality) then a consensus "game" is started. The way the game works is that you sample some reasonable sample of peers in the network (say 30-40 peers) and ask them "is A or B the legal state of the world?", now an honest participant will naively believe whatever the majority decision is. Due to how stochastic probability stuff works the network will converge if you repeat this game sufficiently often. The idea is that if the initial state is 60% think A is the correct transaction then after a few rounds (they do 17 rounds which is overkill, you get like nine nines of probability or something) the whole network will have come to that conclusion (each time you run a round of the game the majority will _probably_ grow, eventually only the byzantine nodes are still saying B and if they are not the majority then all conflicts are solved). Now bear in mind, there are some drawbacks, if someone is stubborn or does the opposite of what they should then maybe they can have some outsized influence, but in general this works pretty well and you can have a _lot_ of nodes participate in the network (much much more than in nakomoto consensus due to the different nature of the consensus mechanism). Furthermore you get finality in 3 seconds (even with the 17 rounds) so that is also quite nice (if you want to reach VISA level of transactions... A validator in the avalanche network doesn't need some crazy hardware either.. a raspberry pi is fine, the limitation is you need the machine to be online 80% of the time they stake for. That is one solution. There are others. For example amoveo, which is proof of work BUT it solves the second order byzantine fault tolerance problem (also known as the "oracle problem") which means that you can account for externalities (like energy usage) and throttle the mining rewards or adjust parameters in response. I am working on a very raw but next-gen project myself, it's called datalisp (I wrote a very bad "whitepaper" in one sitting a couple of weeks ago... it's at datalisp.is - there is a telegram channel.. we're trying to figure out a lot of hard problems and we'd rather show than tell so if the whitepaper is somewhat up your alley then there is a lot more elaborate stuff happening in the channel). The point of what I am saying is: if we want to kill bitcoin then the simplest way is to just make a better solution and change the narrative around the whole scene. I hate all this nonsense proof of stake ponzi nonsense, if a cryptocurrency is well designed then there is no advantage from being an early adopter (i.e. we solve byzantine fault tolerance _AND_ tragedy of the commons). Please don't shit all over those of us who want to solve hard problems in a good way just because there's a bunch of assholes trying to get rich quick.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

EL_Loco 6y ago

I'll second Algorand. Founded by Silvio Micali, Turing and Gödel Prize winner MIT prof who got a bunch of MIT people and now has probably solved the problems of speed, safety and energy consumption of the old blockchains. Check out their white papers if you're interested. I would also suggest checking out Hedera Hashgraph for a newer approach on distributed ledgers.

disruptalot 6y ago

The reader will find dozens of suggestion in this thread about how coin X is more "efficient". Note that efficiency would mean producing the same properties but with less resources. Not merely using less resources. While experimentation is certainly desired, it's a fallacy that any coin has actually reproduced bitcoin in a more efficient way. To name a couple, - Bitcoin had what some call an "immaculate conception" where there was no expectation that such a system would work in the first place and where the founder was anonymous. This creates a very different history in comparison with the founder led, pre mined, frothy market launches of today. - Bitcoin has stood the test of time. With each year in production that passes, there is more confidence that the system and specific implementation is sound. Once these other coins have stood in the market for 10 years straight and continued to retain the confidence in their protocol, the comparisons can start.

danShumway 6y ago
> have stood in the market for 10 years straight At which point, Bitcoin proponents will up the requirements again. This is an excuse people use to avoid talking about the fact that Bitcoin has spent the last 2-3 years consistently proving that it doesn't scale and that it is unusable as a currency. > had what some call an "immaculate conception" Or, it was a good first try that needs iteration now that we understand that hyper-deflation is a bad thing for a currency, now that we understand that pseudononymous addresses don't provide any real privacy guarantees at all, and now that we understand that transaction speed and cost has to be something that's optimized for early on in a coin's life and that those issues can't be fixed by pasting an ad-hoc, unproven non-blockchain solution on top of the coin 10 years later. The weird, religious loyalty people have to reinterpreting Bitcoin's flaws as strengths is setting the entire crypto ecosystem back. If you want to appeal to 'stability', then banks have been around for centuries. But if you're trying to build something new, you're going to have occasionally innovate and iterate on the thing you're building.
- nyolfen 6y ago
  > Or, it was a good first try that needs iteration now that we understand that hyper-deflation is a bad thing for a currency in what sense is bitcoin "hyper-deflation"ary? i think you are thinking of the word "deflation" but i know that doesn't sound as smart >The weird, religious loyalty people have to reinterpreting Bitcoin's flaws as strengths is setting the entire crypto ecosystem back. If you want to appeal to 'stability', then banks have been around for centuries. But if you're trying to build something new, you're going to have occasionally innovate and iterate on the thing you're building. there is nothing stopping anybody from making something better, so go on

argvargc 6y ago

XRP and Stellar were the pioneers in this regard. Since about 2013 and 2014 respectively (or thereabouts). Such systems have negligible energy usage. In general, anything using some flavour of Byzantine Fault Tolerance - of which there are a few - as a method of consensus, consumes very little energy for the payback. If appropriately deployed (similar issue to PoW, decentralisation needs to be maintained) BFT-type consensus mechanisms also exceed the consensus security offered by PoW or PoS. BTC and other PoW models are typically constrained by a 51% corruption of the network. BFT systems typically do better than that, as they often require numbers in excess of 50% to reach agreement (I believe I've seen around 80% - but it's been a while). The way the system usually works is it's constantly reassessing malicious nodes so it becomes difficult for a minority to gain a foothold to cause disruption. They also have the possibility to exhibit less destructive effects if breached (temporary network halt rather than network takeover). Finally, in such systems modifications to the network protocols are voted upon democratically by participants on the network itself, and so far - at least in XRP's case - this appears to have worked well. Ripple has proposed a few changes that have been rejected by the network using this voting process, while others proposed by them or other participants have been approved and become part of the protocol.

runeks 6y ago
XRP is not an alternative to Bitcoin; it's a proposed alternative to SWIFT.
- argvargc 6y ago
  XRP is whatever any holder wants it to be. If users hold it as a store of value instead of Bitcoin, your strange opinions have absolutely no dominion over that.

webinvest 6y ago

I haven’t evaluated and run the code for these 8 cryptocurrencies but the most energy efficient cryptocurrencies with the highest market caps are: Stellar Lumens & Ripple: More centralized but that centralization means there no no wasteful proof of work needed Tezos: like a cheaper version of Ethereum for NFTs. Already powered by proof of stake. Polkadot: Many new coins are beginning to be released on polkadot’s proof of stake network just as they are on Ethereum’s network. Binance coin- centralized and proof of stake. The whole Binance Smart Chain network is powered by just 21 nodes (validates) that stake about 3.5M of Binance coin. Cardano - has a cool name and is powered by proof of stake. Has lots of PHD research papers but most of which are over my head. Algorand- a fast and cheap new cryptocurrency that is powered by two different kinds of validator nodes, one centralized and the other decentralized. Ethereum 2.0 - will probably take 2-3 years to migrate to proof of stake but once it does, it’s possible that many of the above cryptocurrencies will be rendered obsolete unless they’ve captured large amounts of the market before then. All 8 of these coins/tokens should meet your standards of being efficient on all levels. When evaluating cryptocurrencies you’ll notice this pattern. The cryptocurrencies with the cheapest transaction fees tend to use the least amount of energy.

ric2b 6y ago

Nano. It's also very fast and has no fees.