Sonalder @ sonalder @lemmy.ml

Posts

11

Comments

276

Joined

3 yr. ago

Sorry but you can't compare the physical ressources of PoW and PoS, mining isn't buying a shit tons of ASICs and getting bitcoins.

How it's recovery model is more flexible ? How does mining can't adapt to issues ?

51% on Bitcoin has been highly improbable from decades now, miners will see it comming fast enough to adapt. Forks and 51% attacks are two very different concept. You had it with ETH PoW and you'll probably get new fork even after PoS chains.

Again I never said that PoS was less secure, I said it was more neutral and resilient. Bitcoin needs to be neutral and resilient as a network. PoS is a different consensus mechanism that have different tradeoff.

I don't have a source, I've made those assumptions after countless conversation with various actors across the blockchain space both from PoW chains and PoS ones.

It's not much about security but more about permissionless, neutrality and resilience. PoS isn't insecure but it's less resilient and tend to have neutrality issue that we don't have seen yet on Bitcoin PoW for exemple.

There is different things here. First with PoS you don't have a link to the real world, atoms and stuff. You don't really have a physical cost to secure the network, you don't have external factors like you have on mining farms. The competition is completely different where you have to find the cheapest energy source and the most stable places to mine. In PoS validator gets richer and gets more influence, in PoW this isn't exactly the case due to physical reasons.

If for some reasons like a bug or a global disaster and that all the nodes went offline when the validator start to come back online they will have to communicate and choose what is the real chain. With PoW miners will simply mine the longest chain as it's the consensus. Bringing more resilience.

Also in PoS like on Ethereum an issue is centralization of the validator, on PoW this is more about concentration while not an ideal thing this isn't as bad as Lido and AWS centralisation.

I was looking for such a thing for my ChimeraOS machine. I like the dev's honesty about his skills and will maybe do some bug reporting !

Proof-of-Stake is not a great match for Bitcoin because it fails at being neutral, it's a plutocracy system and is not as resilient as PoW.

You know what other global industries consume more than small countries ? All of them, including banking. This is an unfaire comparison in my opinion. Also the energy consumption is not the most interesting factor, the source of the energy is more interesting in my opinion.

Here is a comment I just made under OP's post to list a few academic peer-reviewed paper about the positive environmental impact of Bitcoin's PoW for financing renewable energy production and cleaning methane from the atmosphere. I've also included some articles from mainstream media.

The goal of PoW is to be resilient and neutral in order to build a secure consensus from parties that don't know or trust each others and it's the most efficient way to achieve that goal. We currently don't know other consensus mechanism that would be as resilient or neutral. There is Proof-of-Less-Work which is an interesting innovation from Alephium but it's still based on PoW.

How the bourgeois controls money in Bitcoin ? How can infinite growth happen on a fixed supply ? How consumption would increase if money tends to gain value over time ?

Money ≠ Capitalism

Money is a primitive technology discovered by human way before scribing. In fact the first form of scribing appearing is money. It's so old and so embeded in our civilization that we don't really know how it works or how it emerge. We have no proof that bartering existed before money, the idea that money was made to fix bartering issues is false.

Bitcoin ≠ currency

Bitcoin is not a currency, it's a decentralized p2p network of trust building a consensus over a common immutable history that qualify as truth. Money is the first application of it but we already have other usecase such as the free software OpenTimeStamp used during Guatemala's election for exemple.

Edit : Grammar

No it's more complex than that, actually Bitcoin mining could help financing the energy transition and cleaning methane from the atmoshpere.

Peer-reviewed scientific papers :

• https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/2025/cambridge-study-sustainable-energy-rising-in-bitcoin-mining/
• https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/sites/default/files/publications/rethinking-load-growth.pdf
• https://en.odfoundation.eu/content/uploads/2024/05/20.05.2024_odf_bitcoin_mining_eu_elect_grids_eng-1.pdf
• https://www.theirm.org/news/bitcoin-and-the-energy-transition-from-risk-to-opportunity/

Mainstream media coverage

• https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly4xe373p4o
• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-30/bitcoin-btc-miners-like-bit-digital-draw-from-iceland-s-renewable-energy-surplus
• https://www.reuters.com/technology/cryptominer-mara-taps-us-shale-patch-power-generation-new-pilot-program-2024-10-08/
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/07/07/everything-you-need-to-know-about-bitcoin-and-the-environment/
• https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/05/05/bhutan-has-secretly-mined-bitcoin-in-the-himalayas-for-years-and-it-did-so-sustainably

Edit : added more sources because I published it before finishing by mistakes

NymVPN maybe ?

I disagree with you however I find it attrocious than when you upgrade (exemple from ZorinOS 16 to 17) if you own a Pro licence you have to buy a new licence (with a discount) and can't "downgrade" to non-Pro (except from reinstalling it from scratch). I think the way the Pro is sold shouldn't put upgrade behind a paywall.

Selling a (bloated) Pro version to bring cash isn't necesseraly cancer it really depend on what you get and how you're treated. And with ZorinOS I was somewhat disapointed...

ZorinOS or the recent AnduinOS can be very Windows like with modernish windows sex appeal as you call it.

Edit: If a gamer you could add Nobara with its own theme or bazzite with KDE.

Mastodon doesn't feel that decentralized but yeah we need to decentralize the web !

I totaly agree with you, I am somwheat new to the fediverse, I discovered it somewhere between 2018 and 2020 and discovered nostr a few years later, I didn't got it at first but today I understand how interesting it is to build social network or plateformes, even though that Nostr can do far more than social media.

1. Because the admin don't have to manage the authentification process of its users.
2. Because users don't rely on a central server to keep their social graphs or interact with them.
3. Because owning some private keys makes you owning your digital identities.

Of course the UX isn't as great as the fediverse or not close to centralized opaque surveillance plateforme but it has rapidly improved and I had much joy discovering the bridge builded by soapbox and really want their Ditto servers project to become a thing.

I really think that we should teach kids asymetrical cryptography at school because if we want to build a digital society we need strong encryption, true authentifications and data integrity checks. But I'm a dumb utopist...

I also think there's some really valuable ideas in [...] Nostr [...]

I think that too but when I brought that up to fedivers folks they always yell at me : IT'S A CRYPTOBRO PLATEFORM ! or THE FOUNDER IS RIGHT WING !

I really do think that digital identites on p2p network thanks to asymetrical cryptography is a better design that accounts tied to a central server. I am glad that I am not alone and will follow your project closely (I will try to at least). Interesting read thank you !

Do you know that using most P2P messenger you still rely on multiple ISP and big tech owned communication wire in order for your message to get delivered, even if there is no central server ?

I am referring at man-in-the-middle attacks

Honestly european bankster telling me they won't replace cash with CBDC (while removing more and more ATM in rural areas) and that we will be anonymous (while attacking privacy respecting companies in order to protect citizens from terrorist and money laundering) sounds like propaganda to me. But I will keep using cash as long as possible alongside Bitcoin, Lignting Network and Monero and NEVER ever enter this CBDC system.

I already did haha

What did you tweaked to achieve that ? I only had crashs with joycons when I tried to use two of them as seperate controllers but still don't know why.

I never experienced such a thing on GNU/Linux after connecting a DualSense controller. However I had to update the firmware of the controller using a Windows PC (as I don't own a PS5 myself), I am pretty sure your could easily install the firmware-updater app using Bottles (wine).

Hope this will help.

Looks like I've discovered a great source of news that I will follow. Good work thanks !

End-to-end encryption have been designed so that a "middleman" such as Signal can't read your conversation. Signal goes even further by encrypting metadata protecting other information such as who you're talking too and at what time (some technical and targeted attack could however determined these).

In asymetrical cryptography we tend to assume that what we call middleman is a third-party placed between the two peers during the public key exchanges (such as handshake). Signal is indeed a middleman on the infrastructure level but the software has been designed to protect you from middlemen having access to the raw, unencrypted data.

That say if you don't verify your peer's public key it's not impossible that someone has done a man-in-the-middle attack and that you're sending message to him and he's rerouting them to your peer, etc... However this is unrealistic for the average person.

So even if it's not a p2p infrastructure but some centralized servers we can assume that there is no middleman thanks to e2ee.