"As PoS merely involves the temporary lockup of existing capital and does not consume said capital, it does not satisfy the unforgeable costliness requirement" - @hugohanoi
Excellent post!https://medium.com/@hugonguyen/work-is-timeless-stake-is-not-554c4450ce18 …
-
-
I see you conveniently ignore my point about the difference in cost *after* taking majority control :-)
-
If we are to be rude I could just point out that geographically decentralized is a nonsense term—you mean distributed—and that dispersion is ineffective given the game of scale + energy use signals location. But no—I am not conveniently anything. I gave you time. Remove your ego.
-
lol why do you bring up ego I’m addressing your _argument_
- and no you still have not addressed my 2nd point. Not sure what you mean by ineffective. Hard for Chinese govt to seize hardware in China AND Iceland. That’s what I mean by geographically decentralized. -
-Because of your response. -Which 2nd point? -Not in the grand scheme —plus you are limiting the problem arbitrarily, it is not only a risk of seizure and it is not only state actors one must worry about.
-
> Not in the grand scheme Can you elaborate? You still have not given any reasons to back up your argument that hardware dispersion is ineffective against the state.
-
Can illustrate. Saudi Arabia just killed a journalist at their embassy. What was US response? Again the scope is false but question is then in which scenarios would state seize hardware (under what pretext). Some would lead countries to cooperate others would not. Lex Pirate Bay.
-
(Never said dispersion is ineffective—i.e. censorship resistant—I am saying that dispersion logics contradict the scale logic on which your overarching claim is made. If we take dispersion as positive then something in your argument is absurd logically speaking).
- 5 more replies
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.

