• coffee_with_cream@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    PoW is necessary to financially disincentivize attacks on the network.

    Programmable money can achieve everything a bank does and more. Imagine automations that have their own wallets and can pay people (or other bots) to do things.

    • msage@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      What are you talking about?

      How in the hell does PoW better disincentivize attacks than PoS?

      And programmable anything is a big mistake. As a software developer, I want LESS programmable things, specially in life-threatening scenarios.

      Remove humans from equation, wonder later why there’s nobody do blame for the catastrophy.

      And fuck every system that enables such state.

      • coffee_with_cream@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Attacking a PoW system costs more than a bad actor would receive in reward for attacking the system.

        There’s good book I can recommend that you might enjoy as a programmer if you want to learn more about this: Mastering Bitcoin by Andreas Antonopolis. He is a Greek CS nerd who got into it during the Greek financial crisis and explains this all very well.

        It’s strange to me to be a professional programmer and have no interest in highly secure programmable money and distributed systems for consensus, but you do you. I am not here to change your mind.

        • msage@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Because if you know one thing about software as a developer, it’s that it’s never secure, not even now.

          I have no desire to automate everything and let bad actor disrupt the global system of anything.

          Remember crowdstrike?

          Also, PoWs have been split in the past thanks to cloud, what are you talking about.

          • coffee_with_cream@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Never secure? Maybe you and I have a different definition of secure. Billions are currently secured in BTC, and have been for years.

            Crowdstrike is an argument against your point - single point of failure and too much power in one actor.

            Please send me the example you mentioned about Bitcoin’s PoW being “split by cloud” - not sure what that means.

            • msage@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Yes, we obviously have different definition of security, as you imagine at being ‘outside the traditional banks’, not ‘guaranteed to be at your disposal and accepted by the rest of the world’.

              Bitcoin is just one crypto, which is still being developed, and if you think CrowdStrike is an argument against thousands of banks versus one git repo, I have a bridge to sell to you.

              It gets really exhausting talking to people with minimum technical knowledge at best about this stuff. 51% attacks have been done in the past, acting like it’s not possible is just plain stupid.

              PoW is a huge energy black hole with nothing to show for it.

              Bitcoin by itself has done very little for the general public, its biggest achievement was spawning other coins, which was the idea from the start. BTC should have died a decade ago.

              Crypto is and should remain a niche past time for some techical folk, once big money goes in, it will kill the retail (non-business) users. Big players will make (or already made) PoW and PoS irrelevant for basic users. At least stop them from killing the planet.