Hacker News Reader

Comment by lappa | Hacker News Reader

I agree and don't plan on using PoW other than in the proof of concept. V0.2 should use PoS because proof of burn (as a believe you are suggesting) is bad for the Bitcoin network (large number of unnecessary tx) and expensive (you don't want to pay the tx fee every time you view a listing). PoS doesn't require any tx in the Bitcoin network (ignoring those you used to earn the stake).

Thanks for the comment. Let me know if you have any other concerns.

View on HN

> V0.2 should use PoS because proof of burn (as a believe you are suggesting) is bad for the Bitcoin network (large number of unnecessary tx) and expensive (you don't want to pay the tx fee every time you view a listing).

My suggestion was related to ratings, not viewing listings. I think that if the network reaches a sufficient size (thousands of nodes), retrieving listings won't be a problem. Hosts can simply throttle connections, and refuse to send out more than a certain number of listing to a single host in a certain time frame.

I don't see proof-of-burn as bad for the Bitcoin network. Proof-of-burn transactions are instantly pruneable, so they don't really put a burden on nodes (other than the 200 bytes they take up in storage space).

Yes, every object, listings, ratings, etc. should be PoS instead of PoW. I suppose the hosts can define their throttling in the contract they make with the seller, so that isn't my decision.

PoB tx usually do require a change output along with it's burn output, and even if we weren't concerned with that, 200 bytes is 1/5000th of a block meaning only 5000 objects can be broadcasted per 10 minute period (assuming everything in the bitcoin block is a PoB tx). In other words, it doesn't scale.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com