9 ms·
My view is that crypto's goals (e.g. decentralized, deflationary, no transaction reversals) are non-goals, but even if those non-goals were goals, both PoW and
by Jasper_ 4y ago
My view is that crypto's goals (e.g. decentralized, deflationary, no transaction reversals) are non-goals, but even if those non-goals were goals, both PoW and PoS fail to effectively solve them, especially the decentralized part. PoS sucks more than PoW on this axis: PoS encourages centralization within the system (those with more ETH control the chain), and PoW encourages centralization outside the system (those who command more assets to buy GPUs and energy controls the system), so it's really silly and funny and pathetic both fail at the same thing, with PoS moving the needle in the wrong direction, but also, it was a non-goal to begin with so who cares I'll just go with the one that doesn't set the planet on fire please.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- epolanski 4y agoWhile I am largely against crypto it should be noted that the more ETH you have the less financial incentives you have to attack it.
- Jasper_ 4y agoSure, but that also applies to "the more USD a bank has, the less incentive it has to want to crash the economy", with all the same flaws of logic.
- meowkit 4y agoHow are the incentives described any different than any other system?
- wraptile 4y agoI think the keyword here is _stake_. As in with PoW I can migrate once the ecosystem is damaged (i.e. just mine something else, sell the hardware, w/e) with PoS I need that ecosystem to thrive to profit or to even exit it.
- MrMan 4y agoPOW is suicide, POS is doomed to fail. So let's give up and try to edit humanity such that we cure our greed and stupidity.