• GregorA
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    I agree that a lot of cryptocurrencies are scams, but if you’re worried about inefficiency, you can use proof of stake crypto, such as Polkadot. It uses as much energy as 5 households iirc. Even if everyone can see transactions, no one can take that money away from you, which banks can easily do.

    • RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Proof of Stake only shines compared to Proof of Work. There’s no consensus algorithm that isn’t blown out of the water by conventional database tech performance-wise and there never will be because of the network character of blockchain tech.

      Token-bros (I refuse to give you the term “crypto”, it stands for cryptography) ignore this, maybe even rightly so, since the benchmark cannot be conventional tech if you’re trying to implement trustlessness (the DB would be controlled by some entity like a bank) but since there is no trustlessness (trust the network, the devs, the exchange for real money, etc), it’s a baseless idea.

      • GregorA
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Proof of Stake only shines compared to Proof of Work. There’s no consensus algorithm that isn’t blown out of the water by conventional database tech performance-wise and there never will be because of the network character of blockchain tech.

        Why do you use Lemmy, which is far less efficient than a centralized system, because of its network character?

        • RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Lemmy’s waste of energy is negligible compared to crypto token systems. Also transaction throughput isn’t a requirement - if my shitpost comments take an hours to get through, literally nobody cares.

          That gotta be the worst false equivalency argument I’ve ever seen.