[hundreddaysoff]

Naive related question from a crypto n00b that a lazygoogle failed to answer:

I just plotted some Chia. I left my laptop open to do this. Usually I would just put the laptop in power save mode all night.

My understanding is that to actually make any Chia, I would need to wait ~1 year with my one 100GB plot with full-power mode enabled. Vs mostly with the case closed, as it is now, while I do other things.

And this doesn't even account for the rare elements etc needed to fabricate my hard disk.

So, general naive questions:

1. Vs Proof of Work, just how much better are Proof of Space/Proof of Stake/$HDOS_SUPER_AWESOME_PROOF in terms of energy consumption but also other standard measures of environmental impact?

2. How much worse, if at all, are they vs the null hypothesis of "modern" pre-crypto finance?

Has anyone run credible numbers on these things?

[colinmhayes]

Proof of stake has no mining, no datacenters. If proof of stake ends up working it would probably be almost as effective as Visa currently is. Visa is always going to be more efficient due to it's centralized nature. Currently one bitcoin transaction uses the same amount of energy as driving a tesla 2000 miles, so POS is quite an improvement.

[cwkoss]

Proof of stake still requires cryptographic validation of each block by each node, so it uses much less energy than PoW, but not none.

I think "no miners, still (distributed) datacenters" would be more accurate.

[ardme]

Proof of stake is not secure, there is no way to recover from a 51% attack. Proof of work and proof of space are much better.

[Nursie]

Proof of space/time is a bad idea and you're right, it will put incentives on manufacture and hoarding of storage space.

Proof of stake involves using staking of cryptocurrency to secure the currency. In theory it avoids the resource usage of the other types of proof. In theory.