[aww_dang]

> criticizing Bitcoin for its "proof of work" algorithm only converys a serious lack of understanding of how crypto currencies actually work

Other algorithms exist and further innovations are likely. I don't agree that BTC's design features are beyond criticism.

[G3n0t]

I didn't mean to imply Bitcoin shouldn't be criticized. But saying Bitcoin simply wastes energy by applying a "proof of work" scheme is totally naive. It's not easy to replace and the advantages and risks of "proof of stake" are not clear, yet, I belive.

BTW: For others who have never heard of "proof of stake" and "proof of work" ...

"Proof of work" requires miners to solve a cryptographic puzzle taking the giant share of all computing time required to validate a block of transactions. This is to assure nobody gains complete control over the blockchain and, hence, keep it being a decentralized effort. On the other hand, by providing a miner fee and a reward (currently about 6 BTC) the system creates incentive for miners to keep on validating Bitcoin transactions despite the costs. It's a careful balance and probably the most difficult aspect of the Bitcoin system to grasp.

"Proof of stake" means the miner with the highest monetary stake receives the largest share of the mining fees. In this scheme a miner needs to deposit quite a lot of money to be allowed to compete in the creation of the next transaction block. So it's not computing power enabling a successful miner but his or hers prior investment in the crypto currency. I think you understand now, why such a scheme would have been impossible to implement in Bitcoin 12 years ago.

Ethereum is preparing to switch over to "proof of stake" at the same time as they're preparing to run multiple block chains at the same time. Ethereum 2.0 hopes to save a lot of cost in maintaining its block chain and at the same time to boost its transaction turn over significantly. But it's also a risky undertaking. Keep that in mind if you plan to invest in Ethereum.

[aww_dang]

Nano has no fees or mining. Instead of traditional distributed proof of stake, it uses open representative voting.

https://docs.nano.org/what-is-nano/overview/#representatives...

If nano (or any other tech) achieves greater utility for transactions without using proof of work, then it is arguable that BTC's use of energy is wasteful.

However, to be specific I would defend the consumer/miner's choice to use energy in whichever way he subjectively feels brings him the most value. I'd say it is debatable whether BTC's proof of work is wasteful. Calling this claim naive appears as short sighted. Tech is a constantly evolving landscape. Increases in efficiency are arguably already here.

[1ark]

Nano, and many other projects, have much better and efficient tech than BTC. The problem with most of them are the screwups in various proportions (premines, developer fee, foundations), and how they are developed.

BTC development is RFC based, and users approve by running own nodes, and miners have to comply in between. Until a project comes along which doesn't try to swindle its user base BTC will stay dominant.

[aww_dang]

Nano users run their own nodes, but the main incentive for running a node is for service providers, developers and merchants.

There's no swindle in my view. As a user of the technology perhaps I'm biased. Although because I approached it from purely to solve a problem and not as an investment, I don't think I am as biased as others.

XRP would be a good example of a swindle surrounded by hype and marketing. Altcoins are rightfully scrutinized, but I think in the case of Nano there's unfair generalization without actual investigation into the technology.

What is popular isn't always the best technology.