3 ms·
Everything you say makes sense within the context of Bitcoin's proof-of-work paradigm, that there aren't any reasonable solutions to these problems within it (t
by AgentME 5y ago
Everything you say makes sense within the context of Bitcoin's proof-of-work paradigm, that there aren't any reasonable solutions to these problems within it (there's no good way to add negative feedback to lower the hashrate, there's no good way to calculate a better lower hashrate), but it misses that there are alternative paradigms like proof-of-stake that avoid the problem of too much energy use entirely. Once proof-of-stake cryptocurrencies become more popular and fully prove the technique works at large scale, I hope other cryptocurrencies including Bitcoin follow along.
- randomhodler84 5y agoSorry, Bitcoin will never be PoS. PoS doesn’t offer anything near the same security model, censorship resistance or decentralization. It is not a viable alternative for Bitcoin.
- AgentME 5y agoProof-of-stake has much more ability to enact censorship resistance (https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/06/06/the-problem-of-censorship/ https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/06/06/the-problem-of-censorsh...) than proof-of-work. PoW imposes huge entry barriers by restricting mining to those who can build and then operate expensive mining rigs, which are resources not equally available even to people with the same amount of money and may be monopolized (how many competitive mining rig manufacturers are there, and how many countries do they operate in?); PoS makes participating a much more level playing field by removing dependence on physical and monopolizable resources. PoW does have sheer simplicity and a proven record of working on its side, but the idea that whatever upsides to PoW over PoS that exist are and will stay worth more than 0.5% of global electricity production seems extremely biased.