Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Most proponents of Proof of Work don't celebrate the use of energy. They celebrate the use cases that PoW enables. I don't know of any other way to trustlessly establish a consensus ordering, and I believe that being able to trustlessly establish a consensus ordering is very valuable, therefore I believe PoW is worth the expense.

These decisions get made on an open market, it's not like anybody is forced to put money into a wasteful system if they aren't getting value out of that system.

I personally don't feel like identity & naming want or need concensus ordering. I cited HIP & Wireguard, which don't require that total ordering.

The issues of control & power that come into play when we create distributed systems then make them all agree & work in the same way seems antithetical, to me, to the very idea of distributedness itself. I'm far more interested in systems that can range & explore possibility spaces untethered from any notion of root consensus. I would have us rely on informal weak trust models, friend of a friend, web of trust relations, rather than distributed-but-totalizing.

Thank your for your reply. I've talked some about my questions & what I want to explore, but I appreciate your comment a lot. Talking about what proof of work buys us, that it's there for total ordering, is I think a wonderful assessment, & even though it's not my priority or desire, I do think it buys a lot of interesting technical capabilities & assurances we may otherwise not be able to have.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact