5 ms·

Can anyone explain why my genuine question below -- "When will BTC move to an energy efficient protocol?" -- was flagged? Seems a bit gratuitous?

by nanna 5y ago

sowbug 5y ago
I didn't flag, but if that's what you wrote, it's off-topic. It's also tedious. We get it. It uses energy by design. You can count on any HN Bitcoin discussion to bring out the environmentalist in almost anyone.
- The_Colonel 5y ago
  It's not that much off-topic given that this discussion is about Bitcoin protocol upgrade and switch to PoS is a potential protocol upgrade as well.
- sanderjd 5y ago
  It's not off-topic at all. But I can see how it's tedious.
Gosper 5y ago
I don't know why you were flagged, but if your question was in earnest: Bitcoin almost certainly won't move. Because those touted energy efficient protocols come at the cost of much weaker security guarantees which undermine a key point of Bitcoin. Proof of stake, the forerunner of energy efficient protocols, may work better for networks that have different aims, although smart contract oriented blockchains still need good security to be trusted. The stupendous levels of complexity involved in trying to hammer out proof of stake into a viable method of energy efficient mining make the approach look ever more unpromising. Ethereum keeps delaying the switch and the touted 2022 migration has once again been kicked into the long grass after this paper from a few weeks ago: https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.10086 https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.10086 Lead to: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-42764 https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-42764 https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-42765 https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-42765 https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-42766 https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-42766
- nanna 5y ago
  It really was in earnest! I don't keep up with crypto news so just assumed this was something being worked on somehow. Your answer would have fitted well with the thread that responded to my question! As difficult as the vulnerabilities of PoS are to solve, at least there's nothing yet to say that they can't be solved given enough work; wheras, from what everyone is saying, the energy problem is essential to PoW as such?
  - aeternum 5y ago
    With PoW all that burned energy creates a strong root of trust. How do you establish that root of trust with PoS? Currently approaches are ultimately circular, IE trust it because the majority holders of the coin are continually voting to trust it.
    - Tepix 5y ago
      You need a good initial distribution. With Bitcoin mining pools it looks like there's just as much centralization (if not more) as with proof of stake.
      - atweiden 5y ago
        The difference being you don’t need to ask existing Bitcoin miners for permission to begin mining Bitcoin yourself. Conversely, staking is inherently impossible without first obtaining “stake” — and how can you obtain stake without the approval of existing stakers?
        Tepix 5y ago
        You don't need permission, but you do need money to buy mining hardware. Might as well buy a stake for that money instead. Same thing, isn't it?
        atweiden 5y ago
troyvit 5y ago
I don't know but I came here with the same question in mind. Like, "Oh maybe they upgraded to suck less coal out of the ground?" Nah, other reasons entirely it seems.
dang 5y ago
That's a classic flamewar topic, so if your comment didn't have anything new and interesting to say, users will tend to flag it as flamebait. (I haven't seen the comment.)
randomhodler84 5y ago
Because it is offensive. Bitcoin is, always will be, a proof of work cryptocurrency. If you do not understand why, take time to learn why.
baby 5y ago
It's highly unlikely that Bitcoin will move towards a proof of stake protocol without strong incentives (like regulations). The whole point of the proof of stake was to make the protocol censorship resistant.
- atweiden 5y ago
  > Overcoming censorship is not possible in a PoS system, as the censor has acquired majority stake and cannot be unseated. As such PoS systems are not censorship-resistant and the theory is therefore invalid. https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Proof-of-Stake-Fallacy https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Proof-o...
  - baby 5y ago
    I meant proof of work :) Although in theory you still need to find who owns these accounts in a proof of stake system. So it’s not as bad as what people think.
drexlspivey 5y ago
Because it’s a loaded question and an attempt to start a flamewar. The genuine answer to the question is ‘never’.
- benzible 5y ago
  You're assuming the motive of the commenter, who followed up and clarified that it was asked in earnest. It's a reasonable question for someone who doesn't follow crypto closely to ask

Can anyone explain why my genuine question below -- "When will BTC move to an energy efficient protocol?" -- was flagged? Seems a bit gratuitous?

by nanna 5y ago

Can anyone explain why my genuine question below -- "When will BTC move to an energy efficient protocol?" -- was flagged? Seems a bit gratuitous?

sowbug 5y ago

I didn't flag, but if that's what you wrote, it's off-topic. It's also tedious. We get it. It uses energy by design. You can count on any HN Bitcoin discussion to bring out the environmentalist in almost anyone.

The_Colonel 5y ago
It's not that much off-topic given that this discussion is about Bitcoin protocol upgrade and switch to PoS is a potential protocol upgrade as well.
sanderjd 5y ago
It's not off-topic at all. But I can see how it's tedious.

Gosper 5y ago

I don't know why you were flagged, but if your question was in earnest: Bitcoin almost certainly won't move. Because those touted energy efficient protocols come at the cost of much weaker security guarantees which undermine a key point of Bitcoin. Proof of stake, the forerunner of energy efficient protocols, may work better for networks that have different aims, although smart contract oriented blockchains still need good security to be trusted. The stupendous levels of complexity involved in trying to hammer out proof of stake into a viable method of energy efficient mining make the approach look ever more unpromising. Ethereum keeps delaying the switch and the touted 2022 migration has once again been kicked into the long grass after this paper from a few weeks ago: https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.10086 https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.10086 Lead to: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-42764 https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-42764 https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-42765 https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-42765 https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-42766 https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-42766

nanna 5y ago
It really was in earnest! I don't keep up with crypto news so just assumed this was something being worked on somehow. Your answer would have fitted well with the thread that responded to my question! As difficult as the vulnerabilities of PoS are to solve, at least there's nothing yet to say that they can't be solved given enough work; wheras, from what everyone is saying, the energy problem is essential to PoW as such?
- aeternum 5y ago
  With PoW all that burned energy creates a strong root of trust. How do you establish that root of trust with PoS? Currently approaches are ultimately circular, IE trust it because the majority holders of the coin are continually voting to trust it.
  - Tepix 5y ago
    You need a good initial distribution. With Bitcoin mining pools it looks like there's just as much centralization (if not more) as with proof of stake.
    - atweiden 5y ago
      The difference being you don’t need to ask existing Bitcoin miners for permission to begin mining Bitcoin yourself. Conversely, staking is inherently impossible without first obtaining “stake” — and how can you obtain stake without the approval of existing stakers?
      - Tepix 5y ago
        You don't need permission, but you do need money to buy mining hardware. Might as well buy a stake for that money instead. Same thing, isn't it?
        atweiden 5y ago

troyvit 5y ago

I don't know but I came here with the same question in mind. Like, "Oh maybe they upgraded to suck less coal out of the ground?" Nah, other reasons entirely it seems.

dang 5y ago

That's a classic flamewar topic, so if your comment didn't have anything new and interesting to say, users will tend to flag it as flamebait. (I haven't seen the comment.)

randomhodler84 5y ago

Because it is offensive. Bitcoin is, always will be, a proof of work cryptocurrency. If you do not understand why, take time to learn why.

baby 5y ago

It's highly unlikely that Bitcoin will move towards a proof of stake protocol without strong incentives (like regulations). The whole point of the proof of stake was to make the protocol censorship resistant.

atweiden 5y ago
> Overcoming censorship is not possible in a PoS system, as the censor has acquired majority stake and cannot be unseated. As such PoS systems are not censorship-resistant and the theory is therefore invalid. https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Proof-of-Stake-Fallacy https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Proof-o...
- baby 5y ago
  I meant proof of work :) Although in theory you still need to find who owns these accounts in a proof of stake system. So it’s not as bad as what people think.

drexlspivey 5y ago

Because it’s a loaded question and an attempt to start a flamewar. The genuine answer to the question is ‘never’.

benzible 5y ago
You're assuming the motive of the commenter, who followed up and clarified that it was asked in earnest. It's a reasonable question for someone who doesn't follow crypto closely to ask