You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Things To Consider: Is There a Meaningful Difference Between Proof of Work and Proof of Stake?
Both proof-of -work and proof-of-stake are fledgling primitive versions of how a blockchain should operate. I prefer proof-of-stake, but only because there are so few options at the moment.
Proof-of work trusts you if you have computing power. Proof-of-stake trusts you if you have stake (money). I expect much more complex reputation systems to arise that put both of these methods to shame.
Proof-of-reputation/trust will continue to evolve indefinitely. As soon as someone finds a way to exploit the current system someone will come along with a new system that is even harder to defeat.
I've been thinking about this for a while and I've yet to see something as elegant as the original Proof-of-Work consensus mechanism. Sure, it is really wasteful but the incentives align correctly. I think that any future consensus mechanism will require some wastefulness although I can't really explain at this point why I feel that way. I guess it is just a feeling.
But I'm interested to see new composite consensus systems. I'm sure that as more people enter the space there will be more creative solutions to the problem. I'm curious at what new types of cost we can come with as a security counterbalance (as opposed to electricity or stake).
Proof-of-work was the perfect solution to bootstrap the movement. Now, coins like Bitcoin are too valuable and the competition for the hash lottery is too fierce. Proof-of-stake came along just at the right time. And I expect proof-of-whatever's-next to feel the same way in retrospect.