[greenkey]

> a year or two behind the times

How exactly?

I agree with you that use of blockchain on its own is not fully secure, but that can be mitigated for the most part through the same sorts of proof-of-work and proof-of-stake mechanisms and entities that Etherium, etc. use. with adjustments.

This might be exactly the time for Woz and co. to get into this given that there are others handling those problems, right?

[codetrotter]

> I agree with you that use of blockchain on its own is not fully secure, but that can be mitigated for the most part through the same sorts of proof-of-work and proof-of-trust mechanisms and entities that Etherium, etc. use.

None of that does anything to prove that the energy consumption data you are submitting is true.

[greenkey]

That’s what proof-of-work and proof-of-stake are about. I’m saying that the problem has been solved and would need to just be applied to this use case.

[pjc50]

Nope: those only apply to elements on the blockchain, not elements in the real world. You'd need proof-of-not-work for a real energy efficiency business.

[cocktailpeanuts]

> That’s what proof-of-work and proof-of-stake are about

Nope. No amount of "proof of X" will help if you put false data on the blockchain in the first place. They will do a great job securing the false data though. Good luck with that.