If you actually read it you would see I’m using the same methodology of the PoW analysis. We have quite a bit up on the Chia blog about what we are doing with underutilized and reused storage - which covers ewaste, manufacturing, etc.
The white paper covers why proof of stake is a step backwards in blockchain technology. People invested in Chia understand this. #cowcoin
The storage is literally securing the blockchain, doing what it is designed to do. The trade off is intentional. Yes it’s real capital expenditure securing the blockchain, which makes it more secure.
Proof-of-stake also requires real capital expenditure to secure the blockchain. It is more direct capital-to-secure-blockchain and thus far superior. Why does the proof have to take a detour to something else when in the end it all comes down to capital? I have yet to see one good argument why proof-of-stake is worse than any of the other consensus protocols. I understand that Chia is doing everything they can to promote and market their coin.
That argument holds true for pretty much any cryptocurrency, at least those not directly controlled by a government. It is not an argument against proof-of-stake, or that proof-of-space is better than proof-of-stake. I totally agree that the fact that cryptocurrency is not directly controlled by governments is a good thing. That is also true for bitcoin, ether, …
You may get what you wish for, but then again I am not so sure if you are happy buying at $200 when the coin may end up being worth $20 or just $2 or $0.2, who knows?
I wasted time writing in this thread. Shame on me. Next time I will know better. People looking for water from a rock who have a lack of knowledge is just a sad combo–especially when it’s under the guise of a useful conversation.
People with dissenting opinions are not trolls. It’s actually helpful to listen to them if you’re into Chia. My opinion happens to be quite different than theirs, but I do admit Chia is very different than any other crypto project and it takes time to understand this stuff.
If Chia truly is superior, we should continue to listen to these opinions and come up with some good, constructive responses.
yeah i dont think people really grasp this point. Proof of stake is also proof of waste, if you consider monetary velocity to be useful economically (i do). Tying up large amounts of capital is good for the price of a currency but not for the actual economic productivity it can create.
No, it’s only an argument against proof of stake. In PoW and PoST, one would need to acquire a large amount of equipment in order to attack the chain. In PoS, all one needs is money.
Imagine an authoritarian regime that wants to promote its own CBDC and get citizens to stop using other cryptos. The regime can’t easily jail everyone for using crypto, so a different approach might be to attack a currency and bring it down, thus convincing the citizenry that the CBDC is superior.
The easiest route to doing this would be to buy up half the stake of a major PoS chain. You might scoff at the amount of money required to do so, but a few billion dollars isn’t much to a large government that wants to prove a point.
Attacking bitcoin in this manner would be significantly more difficult because the equipment required to do so simply doesn’t exist yet. It might still be possible to run a similar attack against Chia for now, but acquiring and plotting 36 EiB of storage would be an extremely difficult task, one that will only get more difficult as the network continues to grow.
The OP is either trolling or they’re just lazy. Chia is no meme coin, it’s a next-gen blockchain. If the OP can’t see that, I don’t really care, and I’m not wasting my time explaining what a prudent investor would’ve figured out for themselves.
Full disclosure: I have investments in PoW, PoS, and PoST blockchains.
And what do you think all the capital locked into HDDs is going to do for the economy? It is good only for HDD manufacturers. That is so narrow that one can’t really say it is economically useful. Just look around how much money is sitting idle in various bank accounts (saving, checking, etc.) That could all be staked without any impact to ‘money velocity’. In the end this actually is good for staking because it means there is a ‘cost’ to stake money as it should be. It shouldn’t be free.
I see you are not capable to think two steps ahead. What do you think one can do with lots of money? Buy equipment. With really lots of money you can even manufacture the equipment you need. Just look at what happened with bitcoin mining. Once the really big players got in they setup their own chip design team and manufactured their own mining hardware. It is only a matter of capital. Governments can easily do that. It all comes down to capital. No type of consensus algorithm is protection for that. They are all equally vulnerable. The only thing that can help here is size. Once a crypto market capitalization is beyond the reach of even the biggest governments then it would be protected against such manipulation. We are very far away from that happening to any cryptocurrency.
We seem to be somewhat in agreement on the “how to attack” argument. I’ll summarize. Let’s say we have two blockchains of equivalent market cap. One is PoW, the other is PoS.
How to attack PoW:
Raise capital.
Use capital to build factories and manufacture equipment.
This is a separate argument and a big advantage of Chia’s. Yes, there are bitcoin ASICs. But Chia is ASIC-resistant. It only relies on storage of random data, which by definition is not compressible.
5 years and $24 Billion in R&D and they couldn’t get a product to market.
If someone wanted enough space even today to attack the network they would be on a year waiting list.
I suggest you read the IDC report that’s on the Chia homepage to understand what slow process and Netspace growth will look like from underutilized storage.
