6 ms·

Public blockchain systems are distributed databases that anyone can submit write transactions to and where you don't need preauthorisation to join the system.

Public blockchain systems are distributed databases that anyone can submit write transactions to and where you don't need preauthorisation to join the system. In order to avoid the network being taken over by sybil attacks, it's necessary for participation to be based on locking up / committing / consuming something rare. Anything that becomes cheap or easy is not suitable for basing participation on. So far I know of systems using computational work (PoW), ownership of cryptocurrency (PoS), or storage space as that rare resource. The idea of using photonics to create a low energy 'proof of time' basis is interesting but there would still be difficult economic considerations. If acquiring the photonics is too hard, then you've got a centralised system, if it's too easy then the sybil resistance and environmental impact benefit goes away (because control of the system devolves into 'who can acquire the most hardware' incentivising massive production). Perhaps surprisingly, improving the cost efficiency of the work done by a traditional PoW blockchain doesn't reduce its energy usage, because the usage is determined by a competitive market place driven by supply & demand, not by a fixed amount of work needing to be done. Increasing the cost efficiency of the calculations just results in the blockchain doing more calculations. A huge chunk of the cost is in the electricity used, so power efficiency and cost efficiency are very very similar. Ultimately I don't think you can improve matters much by attacking power efficiency of the calculations. You may be able to move the economic balance point between upfront/ongoing costs by requiring more or more expensive hardware, but reducing ongoing electricity usage isn't a clear win if it's produced more waste and power usage during the creation and ultimate disposal of the hardware.

danvayn 5y ago
I think widespread institutional adoption of crypto is pretty important in this regard.Operating a photonic miner being hard provides more incentive to be a part of those 'mining' it, as you might expect. So, if it's beyond average user scope but within say .1-1% of a companies budget and could create massive dividends, why shouldn't they invest in this? It can be a little gross to consider, because no ones like idea of 'the rich getting richer', but that isn't really different from what happens today, anyways. What matters most is that the system has a lot of nodes to work with, and that can still happen here if there's enough adoption in this scenario. Not to mention that it should be hard to abuse your control in a public blockchain system. Governments could require companies to have an use photonic miner operating license and revoke it if they did something like this, for example. I think its a decent middle ground between centralized and decentralized. And (should?) produce less electric waste overall. I'm not sure, I don't really know much about photonics.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  Using PoW crypto at all creates massive waste for no productive use. In a world struggling to avoid catastrophic climate changes, it is completely irresponsible, and should be stopped instantly. Not to mention, crypto currencies are worse than traditional currencies in every way: much more wasteful than the whole global banking system for a tiny tiny tiny fraction of a percentage of the number of transactions, much more centralized in several ways, deflationary, impossible to control if they spiral. There is no reason to keep this charade going.
  - tromp 5y ago
    > worse than traditional currencies in every way Yes, they're worse in many ways, but that is exactly the design decision they made in order to be better in one particular way; to be censorship resistant (and permissionless). Not all are deflationary; many have a tail emission that makes the supply dis-inflationary.
    - tsimionescu 5y ago
      Nothing is censorship resistant against a determined censor. If crypto sees more and more adoption, exchanges and companies accepting it will likely get pushed to implement KYC and AML just as much as banks are.
  - incrudible 5y ago
    Proof of work is wasteful in the same sense that having banks is wasteful. Imagine what it takes to operate a banking institution. It's not just electricity. It would be "efficient" to just write the word "bank" on a shack and then have one or two workers "guard" over all the deposits. Unfortunately, nobody would be willing to use such a bank. Actual banks that people use need to spend a lot of money just on maintaining the charade of being proper custodians. Yet, they can still lose your deposit, in which case they rely on the government to bail them out. Perhaps proof-of-stake is something that can mostly replace proof-of-work, but the proof is in the pudding.
    - 5y ago
acjohnson55 5y ago
One way I've come to think of it is that Sybil resistance comes from having the next block producer chosen by a raffle, with some resource used as the ticket. PoW is an example of the resource being exogenous to the system and PoS is an example of the resource being endogenous. A problem I see with both is that they are inherently plutocratic, in that the wealthiest participants will have greater economies of scale in the resources they devote to the block production process.
- kybernetikos 5y ago
  This is true, however it's also not an unusual feature - pretty much every capitalist society has the characteristic that those with capital can gain more capital with a minimum of additional work. Alternatives that don't have that feature to at least some extent would be regarded as very radical, and difficult to implement.
  - ordinaryradical 5y ago
    This has already been implemented in at least one other crypto successfully. See: Nano (formerly Raiblocks). The crypto community, however, seems to have a very narrow focus on reproducing these plutocratic systems and incentives because everyone wants that power for themselves and wants to be first in whatever the Next Big Thing is. Crypto development as a whole seems to be hampered by these incentives and by an excessive focus on the original technologies of Bitcoin as opposed to its original aims.
    - shanusmagnus 5y ago
      I don't think it's an excessive focus on BTC technology, so much as that BTC abstracts the core issues to their fundamental essence and forces the tradeoffs on those terms, without obfuscating them. For instance, POW is extremely clear: you make a sacrifice to create blocks / mint transactions. It's almost biblical -- the game theory doesn't work without the sacrifice, and sacrifice is, tautologically, a tradeoff of one precious thing for another. All other crypto projects either want free lunch someplace, or make very different tradeoffs and assumptions.
mistrial9 5y ago
> Ultimately I don't think you can improve matters much by attacking power efficiency of the calculations. citation
wyager 5y ago
> ownership of cryptocurrency (PoS) The problem is that PoS commitment isn’t binding. You can always stake your money, then if you don’t like the outcome, you can just pretend the first stake never happened and do it again. Cf “grinding” attack. PoW is unique in that any claimed commitment corresponds to a real, physical, irrevertable commitment. > or storage space as that rare resource. Every storage coin so far has been some sort of DINO scam. The most interesting one is Chia but it’s absurdly complicated, and I think that complication might mask some centralization/vulnerability. For example, the reliance on “time lord” nodes strikes me as very questionable.
- lt 5y ago
  What's a DINO scam? Couldn't google anything relevant.
  - wyager 5y ago
    DINO stands for “decentralized in name only”, which refers to the shockingly common case of a crypto-thing advertising itself as decentralized when in fact it is controlled by a single entity or cartel.

danvayn 5y ago

I think widespread institutional adoption of crypto is pretty important in this regard.Operating a photonic miner being hard provides more incentive to be a part of those 'mining' it, as you might expect. So, if it's beyond average user scope but within say .1-1% of a companies budget and could create massive dividends, why shouldn't they invest in this? It can be a little gross to consider, because no ones like idea of 'the rich getting richer', but that isn't really different from what happens today, anyways. What matters most is that the system has a lot of nodes to work with, and that can still happen here if there's enough adoption in this scenario. Not to mention that it should be hard to abuse your control in a public blockchain system. Governments could require companies to have an use photonic miner operating license and revoke it if they did something like this, for example. I think its a decent middle ground between centralized and decentralized. And (should?) produce less electric waste overall. I'm not sure, I don't really know much about photonics.

tsimionescu 5y ago
Using PoW crypto at all creates massive waste for no productive use. In a world struggling to avoid catastrophic climate changes, it is completely irresponsible, and should be stopped instantly. Not to mention, crypto currencies are worse than traditional currencies in every way: much more wasteful than the whole global banking system for a tiny tiny tiny fraction of a percentage of the number of transactions, much more centralized in several ways, deflationary, impossible to control if they spiral. There is no reason to keep this charade going.
- tromp 5y ago
  > worse than traditional currencies in every way Yes, they're worse in many ways, but that is exactly the design decision they made in order to be better in one particular way; to be censorship resistant (and permissionless). Not all are deflationary; many have a tail emission that makes the supply dis-inflationary.
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    Nothing is censorship resistant against a determined censor. If crypto sees more and more adoption, exchanges and companies accepting it will likely get pushed to implement KYC and AML just as much as banks are.
- incrudible 5y ago
  Proof of work is wasteful in the same sense that having banks is wasteful. Imagine what it takes to operate a banking institution. It's not just electricity. It would be "efficient" to just write the word "bank" on a shack and then have one or two workers "guard" over all the deposits. Unfortunately, nobody would be willing to use such a bank. Actual banks that people use need to spend a lot of money just on maintaining the charade of being proper custodians. Yet, they can still lose your deposit, in which case they rely on the government to bail them out. Perhaps proof-of-stake is something that can mostly replace proof-of-work, but the proof is in the pudding.
  - 5y ago

acjohnson55 5y ago

One way I've come to think of it is that Sybil resistance comes from having the next block producer chosen by a raffle, with some resource used as the ticket. PoW is an example of the resource being exogenous to the system and PoS is an example of the resource being endogenous. A problem I see with both is that they are inherently plutocratic, in that the wealthiest participants will have greater economies of scale in the resources they devote to the block production process.

kybernetikos 5y ago
This is true, however it's also not an unusual feature - pretty much every capitalist society has the characteristic that those with capital can gain more capital with a minimum of additional work. Alternatives that don't have that feature to at least some extent would be regarded as very radical, and difficult to implement.
- ordinaryradical 5y ago
  This has already been implemented in at least one other crypto successfully. See: Nano (formerly Raiblocks). The crypto community, however, seems to have a very narrow focus on reproducing these plutocratic systems and incentives because everyone wants that power for themselves and wants to be first in whatever the Next Big Thing is. Crypto development as a whole seems to be hampered by these incentives and by an excessive focus on the original technologies of Bitcoin as opposed to its original aims.
  - shanusmagnus 5y ago
    I don't think it's an excessive focus on BTC technology, so much as that BTC abstracts the core issues to their fundamental essence and forces the tradeoffs on those terms, without obfuscating them. For instance, POW is extremely clear: you make a sacrifice to create blocks / mint transactions. It's almost biblical -- the game theory doesn't work without the sacrifice, and sacrifice is, tautologically, a tradeoff of one precious thing for another. All other crypto projects either want free lunch someplace, or make very different tradeoffs and assumptions.

mistrial9 5y ago

> Ultimately I don't think you can improve matters much by attacking power efficiency of the calculations. citation

wyager 5y ago

> ownership of cryptocurrency (PoS) The problem is that PoS commitment isn’t binding. You can always stake your money, then if you don’t like the outcome, you can just pretend the first stake never happened and do it again. Cf “grinding” attack. PoW is unique in that any claimed commitment corresponds to a real, physical, irrevertable commitment. > or storage space as that rare resource. Every storage coin so far has been some sort of DINO scam. The most interesting one is Chia but it’s absurdly complicated, and I think that complication might mask some centralization/vulnerability. For example, the reliance on “time lord” nodes strikes me as very questionable.

lt 5y ago
What's a DINO scam? Couldn't google anything relevant.
- wyager 5y ago
  DINO stands for “decentralized in name only”, which refers to the shockingly common case of a crypto-thing advertising itself as decentralized when in fact it is controlled by a single entity or cartel.