From the whitepaper:
Loosely speaking, the PoST consists of two phases: an initialization phase (executed once), in which miners “commit” to the data that fills the space S , and an execution phase (executed repeatedly), in which miners prove that they are still storing the data. The time component of the spacetime resource is the elapsed time between successive proofs—if the interval between initialization (or the previous execution phase) and the latest execution phase is T, this proves the miner expended S · T spacetime.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18I9GPebWqgpvusI1kMnAB9nayBb...
> We provide an initial security analysis of the Chia backbone, showing that as long as at least ≈ 61.5% of the space is controlled by honest parties Chia satisfies basic blockchain security properties.
That seems to be a alarming high threshold for control of the network? So as little as 38.6% can attack the network?
The whole idea of creating artificial digital scarcity by basing it on physical scarcity of resources is just horrible.
It’s a terrible plan and very shortsighted. Making hard drives isn’t free of environmental externalities.
> if that case ever came true, the total energy waste would still remain less than PoW by orders of magnitude.
Yes less ongoing energy use, but it does reward creation and effective waste of hard drive space, which isn't without environmental knock-on effects, both some energy use and for chemical byproducts etc.
This is not an 'extremist rationale', if you give people a direct financial incentive to get as much storage as possible, what do you think would happen?