4 ms·
So if a blockchain was leveraging a proof of stake [1] along with zero-knowledge rollups [2] for scalability/ compute you would have no arguments for it? In tha
by ianm98 4y ago
So if a blockchain was leveraging a proof of stake [1] along with zero-knowledge rollups [2] for scalability/ compute you would have no arguments for it? In that hypothetical example it seems like a much better alternative to IPFS with no moral qualms.
1. https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/consensus-mechanisms/pos/ https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/consensus-mechanisms...
2. https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/scaling/zk-rollups/#:~:text=Zero%2Dknowledge%20rollups%20(ZK%2D,scalable%20transparent%20argument%20of%20knowledge) https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/scaling/zk-rollups/#....
- pornel 4y agoFrom the environmental perspective PoS blockchains are acceptable (merely very slow and inefficient rather than outright planet-eating). They're still pretty dystopian long term, since they're fundamentally plutocratic and naturally leading to an oligarchy. Ethereum PoS is perpetually "almost there" like Star Citizen and the Year Of Linux Desktop. I don't think anything they say matters until they actually shut down the PoW system (which I don't think they can). Either way you will still have to pay gas fees to the staking overlords for the permission to do anything on the blockchain they control. I'd rather have a federated/self-hosted system, and drive it down to as close to free-of-charge as possible by improving its efficiency.
- everfree 4y agoDo you have any specific questions or concerns about how they are going to shut down Ethereum's PoW system? I've been following development very closely, and to me, the process is pretty straightforward. They've already run the process several times successfully with production data in shared development environments.