PoS vs PoW tweetstorm that digs into the fundamentals. Great overview of the argument:https://twitter.com/hugohanoi/status/951762596255838209 …
-
-
Everybody is missing your point because you failed to make it. You misused physics to make people believe you understand economics, while trying to explain the difference between 2 techs. Try sticking to the tech, and state real differences, not abstractions you don't fathom.
-
How did Hugo misuse physics?
-
Trying to apply COE to money (or anything with subjective value - to which there are no limits). It's not a closed system, and that is required. It starts out as an inequality, and just gets worse from there. A consequence of his argument would be static prices.
-
Money is subjective, but immutability in PoW is *not* subjective due to the properties of one-way hash function. All I'm saying is there is a direct, 1-to-1 relationship between mining energy usage and immutability. Remove the energy, and you remove the immutability.
-
First law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to algorithms. Ex: Quicksort uses recursion to sort a billion integers with 50,000 times fewer operations than bubble sort. A better algorithm can get you something for nothing! No cosmic constant controls energy needed to secure 1 BTC
-
Ehh no. It still does. The fact that a new algo / new hardware allows you to perform a task more efficiently, simply means that the old algo / hardware wasted more electricity / kinetic energy than necessary. But you still use energy. It's not "nothing".
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Every hash in PoW goes to secure the ledger. 1 hash mined == 1 hash harder to revert. You can improve the hardware that performs the hashing op itself, but there’s no getting around the fact that to rewrite history you have to spend an equiv amount of hash ops. 100% efficiency.
-
Whereas one joule of horse energy != one joule of kinetic energy. One joule lightbulb used != one joule of photons released. Huge inefficiencies.
-
Ehh yes but most of these joules are turned into heat in mining farms. How is this efficient?
-
Like I said, the mining hardware can be inefficient, and there’s room for improvement there (faster, generate less heat etc.). But the hashing operations themselves are 100% efficient for the purpose of protecting the ledger from being rewritten. One hash in, one hash out.
-
No: energy goes in, hashes are produced, security is the result. However, security can be achieved without those hashes, for example by PoS.
-
Its like u want not to understand
-
Well, enlighten me.. . Proof of stake protects the ledger from being rewritten with a fraction of the energy cost. That is what I call efficient.
-
It doesn't protect it as PoW, not as safe, period.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
A car uses less energy than a horse? Hmm.
-
Nope, the energy used/kinetic energy generated ratio is different between a horse and a ar. A car generates a lot more kinetic energy (Movement) with a smaller energy input
-
Because that concentrated energy output of gasoline might have came from 10 dead horses which decomposed millions of years ago.
-
Nope, because the car uses the gasoline energy to produce kinetic energy in an efficient way. The thing with oil and gasoline is that they pack a lot of energy in a reduced space, but you can have inefficient machines running on fossil fuel too
-
The two of you are trying to say the same thing.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
People offering up alternative perspectives doesn't necessarily mean they are missing your point. It just means they are sharing their thoughts with you. You should be proud to have incited such discussion.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.
