1/ Emin again with the BS that PoW’s role is merely a “Sybil-controlled mechanism”. (And therefore PoS is a reasonable drop-in replacement.) It’s the classic mistake domain experts make when analyzing systems purely from their Point-of-View.https://twitter.com/el33th4xor/status/1046042561067003904 …
-
-
8/ Value doesn’t come from nothing, it doesn’t arise just because a bunch of people collectively decide that some digital strings have value via their computer nodes - which is what Proof-of-Stake does.
Show this thread -
9/ Like many astutely observed, if it was possible to create money this way (by hooking up a bunch of computers together), we wouldn’t have to wait until now. Make no mistake, PoW mining & Nakamoto consensus are crucial in the creation of digital hard money.
Show this thread -
10/ P.S. This type of tunnel vision & pretense of knowledge is what spawns a bunch of ludicrous ideas in the crypto space. From PoS to Ethereum to utility tokens.
Show this thread -
11/ *Note: Unforgeable costliness is *not* the same thing as the labor theory of value:https://twitter.com/hugohanoi/status/1046105642870681600?s=21 …
Show this thread -
12/ Note #2: don’t confuse the *creation* of value with the *transfer* of valuehttps://twitter.com/hugohanoi/status/1046125820161323008?s=21 …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I see you create a lot of words, many ad hominem, but there isn't a single tangible argument here. Is the argument that, because energy is expended in the real world, the coins have value? Since the Thai Baht is colorful and expensive to print, it should be worth more than USD?
-
You're missing half the equation. Energy cost doesn't *guarantee* value, but all things valuable must cost energy. The other required ingredient is un-forgeability.
-
Both the Thai Baht and the US dollars can be easily inflated (another form of forgeability), therefore they are not good money.
-
Indeed, that's why I work on these systems. But back to your assertion: "stake" needs to be acquired by buying the tokens, and therefore requires energy expenditure, invalidating your argument.
-
It is true that buying stake implies energy expenditure (trading wealth for stake). However once you've bought a stake increasing it requires 0 additional energy expenditure. That's the difference. "The censor cannot be unseated because he has acquired majority stake"
-
Not quite,
@el33th4xor is still wrong. Staking *itself* requires little to no energy expenditure. Emin is confusing the creation of value (internally) from the *transfer* of value. -
You can transfer existing wealth into doomed projects/failed currencies, it doesn’t mean they have any inherent value. This is the sort of circular reasoning I &
@BobMcElrath referred to in our ealier thread.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

