How is proof of stake as wasteful as proof of work? The main issue is electricity / energy use that scales up as the network does with proof of work systems, because validating transactions require intensive CPU work.
Proof of work isn’t even close to what original cryptocurrency is about because whoever controls the mining pools controls the blockchain. If you are going to give control of the blockchain to whoever owns crypto vs. whoever owns the most compute, I would think the former is closer to the original idea. I don’t know too many details but I think DPoS looks promising. There’s probably no perfect approach though.
Maybe it worked for a little while, but it clearly doesn’t anymore, and there is no real solution to make POW and co. sustainable, either environmentally or in terms of control of the infrastructure.
Then again, POS gave us NFTs and shit like that.
Basically, trying to improve cryptos is trying to polish a turd either way.
No, I don’t think it is better at all, when you look at, in bitcoin for example, just how much of the mining is done by a handful of pools. They are both of the same form. They are both capitalistic, and so you can say there is a stake in proof of work. Instead of using crypto, miners use compute as a stake they invest for the chance of getting the blockchain reward.
The difference is what is at stake. In PoW, compute being the stake means lots of energy waste and harder for gamers to get their 4k 60fps raytracing fix, among other issues. Also I’d venture to bet that the distribution of compute resources is much more unequal than the distribution of currency in these PoS coins.
Again, neither are ideal, but they are the same in form.
I really only dislike proof of work. Otherwise I think crypto is cool.
deleted by creator
How is proof of stake as wasteful as proof of work? The main issue is electricity / energy use that scales up as the network does with proof of work systems, because validating transactions require intensive CPU work.
deleted by creator
ohh my bad, I hadn’t even heard of that lol. I’ll check it out.
It’s what the IPFS people made to cash in on their software… Doesn’t really have a good use case honestly
Proof of work isn’t even close to what original cryptocurrency is about because whoever controls the mining pools controls the blockchain. If you are going to give control of the blockchain to whoever owns crypto vs. whoever owns the most compute, I would think the former is closer to the original idea. I don’t know too many details but I think DPoS looks promising. There’s probably no perfect approach though.
deleted by creator
Maybe it worked for a little while, but it clearly doesn’t anymore, and there is no real solution to make POW and co. sustainable, either environmentally or in terms of control of the infrastructure.
Then again, POS gave us NFTs and shit like that.
Basically, trying to improve cryptos is trying to polish a turd either way.
No, I don’t think it is better at all, when you look at, in bitcoin for example, just how much of the mining is done by a handful of pools. They are both of the same form. They are both capitalistic, and so you can say there is a stake in proof of work. Instead of using crypto, miners use compute as a stake they invest for the chance of getting the blockchain reward.
The difference is what is at stake. In PoW, compute being the stake means lots of energy waste and harder for gamers to get their 4k 60fps raytracing fix, among other issues. Also I’d venture to bet that the distribution of compute resources is much more unequal than the distribution of currency in these PoS coins.
Again, neither are ideal, but they are the same in form.