Asklemmy

44672 readers

1492 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Is there a way to make a currency like Bitcoin credible as a store of value or means of payment, without impinging on the privacy of the currency creators or holders? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 3 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

31 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 years ago (2 children)

Proof of stake easily solves that

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 years ago (1 children)

Proof of stake is fundamentally regressive. Literally, whomever has the most tokens also has the most governance weight. It is basically "1 dollar, 1 vote" rather than "1 person, 1 vote".

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 children)

On proof of work, whomever has the most tokens (I guess you mean "money"?), can have the best hardware, so also has the most governance weight. But on proof of work, it seems like you get discounts the more money you are ready to invest. So PoW would also be worse in those terms. Anyway, both algorithms work by providing more voting power to the richest, one a little more than the other. So I wouldn't personally argue about proof of stake being bad because of that reason. Both algorithms are basically shit (in terms of democracy or whatever). I don't have much knowledge about that, but there might be a better alternative than Proof of stake, don't know.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 years ago

I am not aware of any crypto consensus algorithm that is not regressive. This is an argument against all cryptocurrencies and blockchains, not just Proof of Stake.

What has proven far more equitable than any decentralized consensus algorithm is a fiat currency issued and controlled by an institution accountable to a democratic constituency.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 years ago

The problem is there isn't a cryptocurrency that is both private and uses proof of stake