Proof of work is such a dumb way to secure a system.

"You must waste this much compute time to participate."

How about literally anything else? Maybe something that doesn’t waste an enormous amount of energy doing nothing useful?

@alexbuzzbee you are misunderstanding the purpose of proof-of-work, but don't ask me to explain it to you.

@theruran I am simplifying for the purposes of making the post short enough to fit. You will have to explain your complaint if you want to challenge my position.

@alexbuzzbee your position is: repeat the same uninformed and propagandized bullshit that bitcoiners have been hearing for the past 10 years.

and I don't wish to debate your bullshit other than calling out it's bullshit.

@theruran In that case, we are at an impasse and I will maintain my position, since I have not been told what is wrong with it other that that you don’t like it.

@alexbuzzbee I see. So you are a fascist! since you intentionally spread disinformation with no regard for its effect or the truth.

suggest you log the fuck off, first read about the thing you criticize, and reconsider your life choices.


@theruran I know you probably won't see this given that you blocked me, but I am willing to listen to (and want to hear) a counterargument, if you have one. But you didn't present a counterargument; you just told me that I was wrong and then got angry when I continued to hold my position. You have to present a reason for someone to change their position, and you did not do that.

@alexbuzzbee @theruran
I will try the same that I tried with the Gab people, but I suspect it will have the same effect - you have already decided your position and are ready to counter any information, that I send your way. Also, the arguments for proof-of-work are all out there, one google query away, but you weren't really interested in investigating. I'll keep an open mind though and direct your attention to these videos: and

@chebra @theruran I'm not arguing in favor of proof of stake. I just think we can do better than a system that has to be fed a megawatt of energy at all times to remain secure. That seems to me like an excessive waste of a limited resource.

@chebra @theruran I obviously have to concede that proof of work does function, and it does work as advertised, but the fundamental concept (energy in -> security out) simply has to waste enormous amounts of power, and power generation is currently a major world problem, so we shouldn't be making that worse.

@alexbuzzbee @theruran You think we can do better, but why do you think so? What better proposal do you have in mind?
And it's not a waste. For many people it's a valuable service which they are willing to pay for, and are paying. All that spent energy is useful. It secures a distributed trustless money system, that's a big thing.

@chebra @theruran I am not advocating for a particular alternative. I think we should find a better option and hold off on cryptocurrency until we find an option that does not expend large amounts of an important resource. Proof of work wastes energy in comparison to other possibilities, such as but not limited to proof of stake.

@chebra @theruran I think we just have different priorities. That's fine. I don't think we're going to come to an agreement given that, however.

@alexbuzzbee @theruran this reasoning sounds rather confusing - you say we can do better, but should hold off on cryptocurrencies until a better solution is found (so we cannot do better at this time?) You say you are not advocating for proof of stake, yet you mention it as a better alternative. And that's after you saw two videos explaining how it in fact isn't better, isn't selfbalancing, and existing POS coins are either premined or have a central authority.

@chebra @theruran Proof of stake is better in the specific domain of energy consumption, but it is probably less secure. I do not think we should use PoS. I believe we can find a better solution, not that we necessarily have one right now, and that we should stop burning enormous amounts of power until we find said solution.

@alexbuzzbee I'm sure it's not an original opinion, but I do wonder how much crypto-mining has actually been using distributed CPU/GPU power to help national security agencies break encryption algorithms

@alexbuzzbee Remember that Science@Home project that allowed you contribute CPU power to solve scientific problems? That.

@dajbelshaw Crypto mining is not that. It’s just generating nonces and hashing with them until you get the result you want. There’s no way to leverage that to do actual computing work.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Fosstodon is an English speaking Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.