BitVM: Compute Anything on Bitcoin [pdf]

Re:BitVM: Compute Anything on Bitcoin [pdf] by dleeftink on Tuesday October 17, 2023 @10:11AM (#37915335)

I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the linked sources, though. Similar to the authored pieces, I don't assume energy is 'wasted' on a perceived goal, but that actual waste is produced (e.g. mining devices are discarded quite frequently) as well as waste energy due to protocol implementation inefficiencies and infrastructural limitations (i.e. many compute cycles for little gain).

Both can be accounted for: would you not rather see a version where these issues are accounted for? PoS is a sure way forward, but there are still many legacy chains around that do not benefit from this [0].

[0]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:BitVM: Compute Anything on Bitcoin [pdf] by toenail on Tuesday October 17, 2023 @10:32AM (#37915715)

> PoS is a sure way forward

No, PoS is a total failure. As it is not tied to reality the history of the ledger can be modified at will. There is no independent way of knowing which chain is the "real" one. There is no independent way of knowing which "validators" are valid. You can not leave the network and rejoin and be sure about the history without trusting some third party. This is the problem that PoW solved and PoS doesn't.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:BitVM: Compute Anything on Bitcoin [pdf] by dleeftink on Tuesday October 17, 2023 @10:37AM (#37915813)

What would then be a more optimal trade-off compared to current implementations, in your opinion?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:BitVM: Compute Anything on Bitcoin [pdf] by toenail on Tuesday October 17, 2023 @11:03AM (#37916258)

I'm not sure what you mean by your question. PoW solved a problem no other known system solves. There is no trade-off here.

[ Parent | on HN ]