Official
1:42
188.5K views
187
163
481
Conversation
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Don't confuse the means with the end. The goal is to create an immutable ledger where write-access is provably costly
6
49
exchange CEOs being anti PoW and pro PoS (where they have, and will continue, to be able to exert disproportionate control over these systems) is a perfect distillation of why PoW is necessary
14
56
436
yikes think you're missing the ball here
we're not staking in most PoS networks, and I'm not anti-PoW
something can have downsides without being bad
Quote Tweet
Replying to @SBF_FTX @SquawkCNBC and @FTX_Official
ok sorry this was really poorly phrased -- the fact that it takes energy is a downside to it
it's also the security mechanism, so it's not clear what it would mean to say 'PoW without energy usage'
sorry about that, I get that this seems contradictory!
Nic owns a lot of bitcoin basically and doesn't want to diversify
1
1
Show replies
Energy consumption isn’t a downside… have you carefully weighed the data from all aspects?
You can't argue with a zealous cult. Bitcoin will hopefully push renewable infrastructure. It is already centralized and will become more so
We're not staking in "most" PoS networks.....given there's thousands of them.
🚨 SBF IS A SCAMMER 🚨
1
6
Imagine thinking that the energy component of POW is a downside 😅
1