> New technologies start out less efficient than existing technologies
For PoW to work, they necessarily must be inefficient, there is no future possible where they become more efficient. Inefficiency is a necessity for them to exist.
For PoW to work, they necessarily must be inefficient, there is no future possible where they become more efficient. Inefficiency is a necessity for them to exist.
> humans figuring out how to do something they want to do
Humans don't want tulips that much (or monkey GIFs, or Amway toothpaste, or whatever the scheme du jour is). They want to get rich quick, and to show off their status to their peer group.
If collecting tulips however is destroying the planet, you and I have a responsibility to make this scheme unfeasible.
[0] https://yanmaani.github.io/proof-of-stake-is-a-scam-and-the-...
I'm not going to pretend I'm expert enough to tell if that blog post is right or not. Vitalik Buterin and a lot of other very well informed people seem to disagree. I suppose we'll find out. As someone mentioned in the comments when that was posted, if you think you have a way to double-spend on a Proof-of-Stake system, then go onto one of the many existing PoS chains and prove it. Talk is cheap.
> Vitalik Buterin [...] seem to disagree
Vitalik is quoted twice in this blog post to drive the entire point home, you can quickly Ctrl+F for his name.
Like, I said, I'm not going to pretend I fully understand all the math and everything behind it because I don't. If it doesn't work, prove it. Otherwise you can look at the trillions of dollars worth of value being moved around the world right now on blockchain networks and you can surmise that the current approach is very much working.