Lee Duna to News@lemmy.worldEnglish • 5 months agoOver 2 percent of the US’s electricity generation now goes to bitcoinarstechnica.comexternal-linkmessage-square150fedilinkarrow-up1429arrow-down132cross-posted to: news@hexbear.nettechnology@lemmy.worldhackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fanscyberpunk@lemmy.mltech@kbin.social
arrow-up1397arrow-down1external-linkOver 2 percent of the US’s electricity generation now goes to bitcoinarstechnica.comLee Duna to News@lemmy.worldEnglish • 5 months agomessage-square150fedilinkcross-posted to: news@hexbear.nettechnology@lemmy.worldhackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fanscyberpunk@lemmy.mltech@kbin.social
minus-square@vrighter@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilink3•5 months agoit is now provably not secure. Because pos is provably not objective. Making the whole thing moot. Also, it is literally a system explicitly designed around “the rich get richer”.
minus-square@zergtoshi@lemmy.worldlinkfedilink1•5 months agoSecurity is relative - always! Can you name one consensus scheme that isn’t?
minus-square@vrighter@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilink2•5 months agoproof of work is objective. It sucks for other reasons, but I do not need to trust anyone to start participating.
minus-square@zergtoshi@lemmy.worldlinkfedilink1•5 months agoEven if it is (I don’t see your reasoning explaining that) that doesn’t mean the resulting security scheme is objective.
it is now provably not secure. Because pos is provably not objective. Making the whole thing moot. Also, it is literally a system explicitly designed around “the rich get richer”.
Security is relative - always!
Can you name one consensus scheme that isn’t?
proof of work is objective. It sucks for other reasons, but I do not need to trust anyone to start participating.
Even if it is (I don’t see your reasoning explaining that) that doesn’t mean the resulting security scheme is objective.