• MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      While that is an inherent component of how proof-of-work cryptos work, and utterly stupid, it’s not an inherent part of how to do blockchains.

      You can have a blockchain without consuming stupid amounts of energy.

    • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      24
      ·
      8 months ago

      you’ve just demonstrated your lack of depth of understanding of blockchains. congratulations, your opinion was correct about 15 years ago. the technology has moved on

      • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        8 months ago

        and the “solutions” are all objectively worse security wise. And by thinking blockchains need proof of anything, you too misunderstand what a blockchain even is. Proof of whatever is needed by the concensus algorithm, not the blockchain.

        • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          no; they all have trade-offs and that’s different… you can have trust less proof amongst semi-trusted parties like a consortium of banks: they don’t entirely trust each other, but trust each other enough to keep an eye on the other members of the consortium

          there are plenty of situations like this that are non-public

          • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            they are objectively, mathematically weaker.

            Joining ethereum now implies trusting a complete stranger to get you up to speed. It is objectively subjective.

            • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              i wasn’t talking about ethereum, and i don’t think anyone was saying they don’t have TRADE OFFS. in the world of consensus protocols, there are many different trade offs that build a network that suits your needs

              however the consensus protocol has little to do with how mathematically secure a network is: the security of the consensus protocol comes down to a lot of complex things

              it also has nothing to do with how you bootstrap a node

              these things are all different, albeit interconnected things

              • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                the consensus algorithm is the only thing that contributes to the network’s security. That, and because it’s trying to solve an impossible problem, it also needs the psychological element exploiting humans’ greed (and therefore want to hoard currency).

      • eskimofry@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        You say so but I guess it’s hard to convince a lot of people who recognize it’s folly to try to fix a social/human problem with a technological solution.

        Git is a merkle-tree based system like a blockchain. People have no problem with the tech. They’re just tired of the hype train.