Hacker News Reader

Comment by debbiedowner | Hacker News Reader

A really innovative coin would be a coin that must be mined in a low energy way.

I could envision a special new processor, eg something neuromorohic, that can perform unique algorithms at low power that are expensive to simulate on cpus or GPUs. Then if these are cheap enough to manufacture, the mining must be done on the special device to be worthwhile, and then the mining would have tiny energy impact. I would hope it would be a milliwattcoin. It would only take a milliwatt to mine a block and create a coin, but it could still take 10 mins.

Somehow I think there is a contradiction here, but at the same time it sounds alluring.

View on HN

We already have an answer to this, it’s called proof of stake. The logic is that mining is to distribute votes and make it very difficult (expensive) to have the majority of the votes.

Proof of work does this since it takes a lot of money to buy and run miners, the mining proves you spent this money so you get your votes.

The idea behind proof of stake is that you skip the mining entirely and just say the users with the most coins under their name get the most votes in the system. It achieves the same result without having to buy hardware or electricity.

Like the sibling says, Nano doesn't even require proof of stake. It's an impressive design, much more innovative than the average "let's fork Bitcoin" project, but it hasn't been very popular for some reason.

Sending money is instant (as in, sub-second), doesn't require confirmations or mining. It seems too good to be true, but I've read the white paper and can't find a flaw (doesn't mean there aren't any, of course).

My only criticism is that running a validator node isn't incentivized, which might be an issue, but due to the design of the coin you only need people to choose enough different validator that one doesn't have a significant percentage of people on it.

Except proof of work built its own billion dollar ASIC industry while everyone was ignoring it, now it’s the gorilla in the room it was always known it would be and there exists no economical plan to migrate to proof stake - the cabal has spoken

There's an even better alternative than Proof-of-Stake, which is Open-Representative-Voting (ORV) consensus, used by Nano. No fees, no inflation, no mining.

https://docs.nano.org/protocol-design/introduction/

This is, according to this link you posted yourself, a work-in-progress. There's no evidence this system is resilient to attacks or that it will work at scale. Only time will tell that.

While this is definitely better than the outrageous waste of energy promoted by BitCoin and other proof-of-work crypto coins, the fact that BitCoin has been so popular for so long proves that it doesn't matter if it actually is "good" as a crypto coin or not: all that matters is whether people believe its price will keep going up - even on HN you see people who couldn't care less if its energy consumption is on par with Argentina's as long as they can make a few bucks betting on it.

The documentation is a work-in-progress. Nano network has been running succcessfully since inception 5 years ago, its core mechanics unchanged. It's no more a work-in-progress than Bitcoin.

Each attack vector and its risks are addressed in detail: https://docs.nano.org/protocol-design/attack-vectors/

There is IOTA, which is technically proof-of-work, but there are no "miners" validating large blocks of transactions like with Bitcoin. Each person creating a new transaction in the Tangle validates two existing transactions and does a small bit of PoW, and by doing it this way, there are no fees.

Early in the project there was even an effort to create a different kind of specialized processor like you mention, something low-power that could be used in the wild in sensors and whatnot.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com