TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

In Defense of Proof of Work

15 点作者 sword_smith大约 3 年前

8 条评论

arcticbull大约 3 年前
&gt; The significant amount of electricity consumed by the mining process does not in itself emit CO2.<p>Yes it does.<p>[edit] Not only in the sense that you have to build the solar panels, build the wind farms, build the mining rigs, then throw out 97% of the mining rigs (!!) without them ever having validated a single block. [1]<p>But also in the sense that any additional proof-of-waste operations run on the side steer that renewable energy generation away from productive applications on the grid -- failing to help decarbonize the grid, something we desperately need to do.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;mobile.twitter.com&#x2F;DigiEconomist&#x2F;status&#x2F;1438896477590409227" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;mobile.twitter.com&#x2F;DigiEconomist&#x2F;status&#x2F;143889647759...</a>
评论 #31375739 未加载
FargaColora大约 3 年前
Almost surreal reading this. The article suggests that energy consumption does not need to be considered because hydro-electicity exists. It&#x27;s a fantasy that ignores any sense of economy, science and politics.
评论 #31367423 未加载
theocs大约 3 年前
Even if all PoW energy came from renewable sources, it&#x27;s extremely wasteful and I&#x27;m sure we could have used that energy on something more productive.<p>That&#x27;s not to say the allocation mechanism in PoW isn&#x27;t interesting, but that&#x27;s not really good enough in itself.<p>I&#x27;ve been experimenting with energy limited PoW, something called NuPoW [1], that reduces the reward if too much energy is collectively used. But this only works if you outsource the security to an underlying chain.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;nupow.fi&#x2F;whitepaper&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;nupow.fi&#x2F;whitepaper&#x2F;</a>
评论 #31375764 未加载
tromp大约 3 年前
While environmental damage is a serious downside to PoW, the alternative of PoS has some serious downsides as well:<p>1) It&#x27;s not a fair coin distribution mechanism. A coin that launches with PoS has the creators holding the entire supply.<p>2) It&#x27;s not objective. Resolving long range attacks requires social consensus on what is the correct chain (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;academy.binance.com&#x2F;en&#x2F;glossary&#x2F;weak-subjectivity" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;academy.binance.com&#x2F;en&#x2F;glossary&#x2F;weak-subjectivity</a>)<p>3) It&#x27;s much more complex.<p>I believe that the downside of PoW can be greatly reduced by having the emission be purely linear (fixing the block subsidy). Taking 20 years to reduce the yearly supply inflation to 5% will strongly discourage speculation and keep the price low, in turn limiting miner energy use. It would encourage use as an actual means of exchange &#x2F; currency.
评论 #31366306 未加载
评论 #31375800 未加载
dale_glass大约 3 年前
I see some issues.<p>We can discard Hydro pretty much immediately. There&#x27;s not a lot of it that&#x27;s sitting unused, there&#x27;s not much opportunity for growth.<p>If there was this much wasted energy, the problem would be solved already. If the price went negative really often, that&#x27;d be a perfect business model for building some storage. Storage on the whole should be simpler than a mining farm. Putting extra megawatts into a pump or electrolysis is a relatively simple proposition. The computer hardware needed to burn that power on demand is far more expensive and complex.<p>Mining can cross borders, but cryptocurrency usage much less so. Yes, you can mine all you want across the border, but as governments sour on crypto they&#x27;re going to make it much harder to transact in it. And your crypto isn&#x27;t good for much if you can&#x27;t sell it and get $ or Euros in your bank account.<p>The countries most amenable to this kind of thing are not all that profitable. They&#x27;ve got weak economies, bad governments and bad infrastructure. They&#x27;re also easily pressured by wealthier countries, so they can&#x27;t do whatever they want.<p>Long term if this worked it&#x27;d lead to centralization. Once you find some optimum -- which is probably a company that produces solar panels around the equator, they win the game and are hard to out-compete.<p>And of course, in the end this is still all a pointless waste. It&#x27;s still countless video cards, solar panels, ASICs, and other hardware being piled up higher and higher to just keep up a global competition going that doesn&#x27;t really achieve any improvement. It doesn&#x27;t add capacity, it doesn&#x27;t improve speed, it doesn&#x27;t solve any practical problems. It&#x27;s just an arms race where you need an extra tank because the other side made another one.
评论 #31375870 未加载
trevelyan大约 3 年前
Saito consensus is simply superior on the cases author identifies. You can still use hashing to ensure fair payments without spending 100 percent of the block reward on it.<p>Is the binding of the payment to the act of producing blocks which is the real problem.
piva00大约 3 年前
In the end, a lot of the value of PoW cryptocurrency comes from the burning of energy it takes, let&#x27;s get last year&#x27;s 110 TWh for Bitcoin, at US$ 0,10&#x2F;kWh we get US$ 10b burnt in electricity just to sustain PoW...
sword_smith大约 3 年前
Many share the conviction that proof of work mining is a relic of the past, that the future of blockchain lies with its competitor, proof of stake. I attempt to rebuke some of the criticism that proof of work faces and argue why it is here to stay.
评论 #31366221 未加载