Hacker News Reader

Comment by geekpowa | Hacker News Reader

The energy usage of itself is a red herring.

My issue is just how incredibly wasteful and inefficient PoW is. It's resource requirements completely disproportionate to the the underlying problem/solution space.

It offends my sensibilities and aesthetic appreciation of elegance in design. It is like contemplating a trillion record bubble sort.

View on HN

I'm not a fan of the economic incentives of Proof of Stake. Are there any new alternate proof systems that have been developed recently?

Hard to see the interesting projects in such a crowded field of crapcoins.

How are the economic incentives of Proof of Stake any different from Proof of Work?

The fundamental problem is that with PoS it's possible to dispose of your holdings yet still retain voting power (in the past, from the blockchain's perspective), whereas the same can't be done with PoW's mining equipment.

With PoS, withdrawing your stake (read: disposing of your holdings) withdraws your ability to act as a validator. And pretty much every mainstream PoS implementation imposes a delay on stake withdrawal to give the rest of the network time to make sure that whoever is withdrawing their stake hasn't already validated fraudulent transactions.

That's still fundamentally a weaker system, no? Specifically, still possible to double spend, the only difference is that we assume that the network wouldn't accept block re-orgs that are that long.

It’s the most secure way to do it, which unfortunately requires the most energy... I have gone back and forth when considering PoS but fact of the matter is, PoW is the most secure today. Doesn’t mean there isn’t a better solution, so I totally agree that we need to try to find ways to trim the energy cost.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com