3 ms·

> > Ethereum (functioning as a distributed VM: boring, and funded by VCs: double boring) > [...] Many enforce scarcity and are non-programmatic, without being

by sshine 4y ago

> > Ethereum (functioning as a distributed VM: boring, and funded by VCs: double boring) > [...] Many enforce scarcity and are non-programmatic, without being "boring". The word "boring" has a very not obvious meaning here. Clearly there's nothing boring about Ethereum, since it's a high-stakes experiment involving computer science, economics and a lot of money. Ethereum is really "too interesting". > [...] huge amount of energy [is] completely unnecessary to the enforcement of scarcity. Saying otherwise is a harmful lie - you've been duped. Care to back that up? To my knowledge, PoW offers an unambiguous measure of what block to bet on. On the other hand, PoS is either subvertible (capable of being overthrown), or subjective (not objectively verifiable) when determining what block to bet on. Maybe you are referring to a proof-of-something-else-entirely. > Acting as if [Bitcoin's] so-call "organic" emergence puts it ahead of subsequent evolutions is bizarre I totally agree. Bitcoin's origin is atypical in that there weren't widely adopted cryptocurrencies before it. Any subsequent cryptocurrency happened in the light of Bitcoin. But a hype train is a hype train, and there was one for Bitcoin. It just didn't enter with an ICO or a similar financing model delivering promises, which makes it seem less scammy.

mandmandam 4y ago
> Care to back that up? Block Lattice crypto. It's neither PoW or PoS. Here are the top two DDG results for "block lattice explained": https://medium.com/swlh/what-you-need-to-know-about-block-lattice-19641a8d8ff1 https://medium.com/swlh/what-you-need-to-know-about-block-la... https://blog.metalpay.com/metalpay/understanding-block-lattice/ https://blog.metalpay.com/metalpay/understanding-block-latti... Some hard numbers for Nano, as an example of block lattice tech: > Nano uses 0.000112 kwh hours per transaction compared to Bitcoin’s 950 KWH > The entire Nano network is so efficient that, operating at 7000tps, it can be powered by a single wind turbine - https://cryptodaily.co.uk/2018/09/is-nano-really-the-most-eco-friendly-cryptocurrency https://cryptodaily.co.uk/2018/09/is-nano-really-the-most-ec... Nano is feeless (with anti-spam mechanics), with all (minimal) costs per transaction borne by the "nodes" that keep the network running. Transactions are often confirmed in less than a second. This isn't bullshit or vaporware, it's running right now and you can try it yourself - https://www.trynano.io/ https://www.trynano.io/ As far as security, no one has broken it in 7 years. While I'm not equipped to evaluate the maths, I hear block lattice is more "quantum resistant" than ECC. Bitcoin outperforms Nano in sunk costs, hype / false info, and held bags. On every other objective and useful measure, it's not even remotely close.
- rakoo 4y ago
  > It's neither PoW or PoS. The first link literally says: "What determines the voting power of a single representative? The amount of coins delegated to it by users.". Is this not PoS ?
  - mandmandam 4y ago
    Open Representative Voting (ORV) vs Proof of Stake (PoS): While Nano uses a weighted-voting system (ORV) that can be compared to PoS, it differs from traditional PoS because: * There is not one monolithic blockchain that requires leader selection (i.e. a staker or a miner) to extend * Representatives do not create or produce shared blocks (groups of transactions) * Each Nano account has its own blockchain that only the owner can modify (representatives can only modify their own blockchain) * In Nano, a block is a single transaction (not a group of transactions). Transactions are evaluated individually and asynchronously * Users can remotely re-delegate their voting weight to anyone at any time * Anyone can be a representative * No funds are staked or locked up * Representatives do not earn transaction fees * Representatives cannot reverse transactions that nodes have locally confirmed (due to block cementing). - from https://docs.nano.org/protocol-design/orv-consensus/ https://docs.nano.org/protocol-design/orv-consensus/
    - dlubarov 4y ago
      In my opinion it's still (delegated) PoS. PoS doesn't imply any particular blockchain structure; it's just about using stake as a Sybil-resistant method of selecting certain users for certain roles.
    - rakoo 4y ago
      This all sounds very good and I must admit nano looks like the first thing that starts to make sense in the crypto world. My only point of interrogation is whether having more money can give you more voting power, like PoS, in which case I can't align with it
sebastien_b 4y ago
> Bitcoin[……] which makes it seem less scammy. Seem.

by sshine 4y ago

mandmandam 4y ago

> Care to back that up? Block Lattice crypto. It's neither PoW or PoS. Here are the top two DDG results for "block lattice explained": https://medium.com/swlh/what-you-need-to-know-about-block-lattice-19641a8d8ff1 https://medium.com/swlh/what-you-need-to-know-about-block-la... https://blog.metalpay.com/metalpay/understanding-block-lattice/ https://blog.metalpay.com/metalpay/understanding-block-latti... Some hard numbers for Nano, as an example of block lattice tech: > Nano uses 0.000112 kwh hours per transaction compared to Bitcoin’s 950 KWH > The entire Nano network is so efficient that, operating at 7000tps, it can be powered by a single wind turbine - https://cryptodaily.co.uk/2018/09/is-nano-really-the-most-eco-friendly-cryptocurrency https://cryptodaily.co.uk/2018/09/is-nano-really-the-most-ec... Nano is feeless (with anti-spam mechanics), with all (minimal) costs per transaction borne by the "nodes" that keep the network running. Transactions are often confirmed in less than a second. This isn't bullshit or vaporware, it's running right now and you can try it yourself - https://www.trynano.io/ https://www.trynano.io/ As far as security, no one has broken it in 7 years. While I'm not equipped to evaluate the maths, I hear block lattice is more "quantum resistant" than ECC. Bitcoin outperforms Nano in sunk costs, hype / false info, and held bags. On every other objective and useful measure, it's not even remotely close.

rakoo 4y ago
> It's neither PoW or PoS. The first link literally says: "What determines the voting power of a single representative? The amount of coins delegated to it by users.". Is this not PoS ?
- mandmandam 4y ago
  Open Representative Voting (ORV) vs Proof of Stake (PoS): While Nano uses a weighted-voting system (ORV) that can be compared to PoS, it differs from traditional PoS because: * There is not one monolithic blockchain that requires leader selection (i.e. a staker or a miner) to extend * Representatives do not create or produce shared blocks (groups of transactions) * Each Nano account has its own blockchain that only the owner can modify (representatives can only modify their own blockchain) * In Nano, a block is a single transaction (not a group of transactions). Transactions are evaluated individually and asynchronously * Users can remotely re-delegate their voting weight to anyone at any time * Anyone can be a representative * No funds are staked or locked up * Representatives do not earn transaction fees * Representatives cannot reverse transactions that nodes have locally confirmed (due to block cementing). - from https://docs.nano.org/protocol-design/orv-consensus/ https://docs.nano.org/protocol-design/orv-consensus/
  - dlubarov 4y ago
    In my opinion it's still (delegated) PoS. PoS doesn't imply any particular blockchain structure; it's just about using stake as a Sybil-resistant method of selecting certain users for certain roles.
  - rakoo 4y ago
    This all sounds very good and I must admit nano looks like the first thing that starts to make sense in the crypto world. My only point of interrogation is whether having more money can give you more voting power, like PoS, in which case I can't align with it

sebastien_b 4y ago

> Bitcoin[……] which makes it seem less scammy. Seem.