4/ Where pure-CS-type PoS people fail is a complete disregard for (a) economics (b) history & (c) physics. The same way people chased Perpetual Motion completely disregarded (a) (b) & (c), although they had a better excuse since they didn't possess the right conceptual tools.
-
Show this thread
-
5/ If an object has value, people *will* spend effort to chase it, up to whatever the object is worth. MC=MR, in other words. PoS won’t save you from PoW’s “waste”, cost just manifests in a different way. “Nothing is cheaper than PoW”. h/t
@Truthcoin http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/ …2 replies 6 retweets 54 likesShow this thread -
6/ PoW is what gives Bitcoin “unforgeable costliness”, something few CS people would even try to analyze.
@NickSzabo4 spent years researching & elaborately explained in his study on the Origin of Money: (Good) money *must* have unforgeable costliness. https://nakamotoinstitute.org/shelling-out/3 replies 13 retweets 59 likesShow this thread -
7/ PoW is a lot more than Sybil-control, it gives digital blocks real-world weight, the same way Gold has real weight. What are blocks but simply a bunch of 1s & 0s? PoW is the _bridge_ between the digital & the physical.https://bitcointechtalk.com/the-anatomy-of-proof-of-work-98c85b6f6667 …
2 replies 9 retweets 60 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @hugohanoi
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?
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @el33th4xor
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.
2 replies 1 retweet 12 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @el33th4xor
Both the Thai Baht and the US dollars can be easily inflated (another form of forgeability), therefore they are not good money.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi
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.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @el33th4xor @hugohanoi
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"
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @SGBarbour @el33th4xor
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.2 replies 0 retweets 12 likes
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.
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.
