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 …
-
-
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 -
-
-
so if someone buys crypto with fiat does that mean it is PoW? because energy was spent
-
No, that would not be proof of energy spent. Nothing external is flowing into the system. If A creates a token from thin air, then B buys the token from A, then A buys the token back from B, no energy was spent.
-
Unless computers, servers, internet etc run on perpetual motion energy, energy is always spent
-
Sure, a trivial amount of energy must be spent for PoS. Hence its low demand from rational wealth savers.
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.

