5 ms·
It is dishonest to mention > proof-of-time-and-space construction used by Chia as reason to reduce importance of induced waste. Chia just wastes something dif
by matkoniecz 4y ago
It is dishonest to mention
> proof-of-time-and-space construction used by Chia
as reason to reduce importance of induced waste. Chia just wastes something different and is not improvement in any form.
- sumy23 4y agoIt's dishonest to call the author dishonest for this one sentence. They mention Chia in passing at the end of a paragraph on proof-of-work alternatives.
- matkoniecz 4y agoI have called this mention dishonest, not the author.
- sumy23 4y agoYou said it's "dishonest to mention." The author is the mentioner. If the mention is dishonest, then it necessarily follows that the author is dishonest.
- matkoniecz 4y ago> if the mention is dishonest, then it necessarily follows that the author is dishonest. Not really. If someone did something stupid it does not follow they are stupid. The same for evil, dishonest or irritating acts. Though maybe "weird" would be better than "dishonest"? I posted in this form in comments on the original article.
- sumy23 4y agoThe issue with "dishonest" is that honesty implies intent. A statement has no intent, so it can't be honest or dishonest. A statement can only be right or wrong. An author can be honest or dishonest. An honest author can be wrong, and a dishonest author can be right. But to say that a statement is "dishonest" is to call the author, in the context of writing the statement, dishonest.
- andrewflnr 4y agoNo, it really does follow for "dishonest". It's definitionally a character lapse at best.
- andrewflnr 4y agoNot really. It manifestly wastes something with, at worst, a much longer runway toward making the planet uninhabitable for humans. That's the important point about PoW waste.
- matkoniecz 4y agoSSD/HDD also require energy to produce and overall their production is causing the same type of damage as energy prodction.