• 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.