[lagniappe]

I'd say the majority of the modern non-fork networks don't use proof of work and sha256. I'm on a team building one at the moment and we're using sha3.sum512 and no proof of work for production. Some "blockchains" aren't even blockchains of sequential blocks, they are forest DAGs of just transactions.

I think the author's heart is in the right place and I'm thankful that it's being discussed on HN, as blockchain discussions can be a bit hit or miss here.

[zenmac]

Cool, is it open sourced? how are you guys achieving consensus for different nodes? DHT over gossip protocol? Just thought Nostr over BitTorrent and/or tor network night be a good way to go.

[lagniappe]

It's not open source, we use a system that is similar to delegated proof of stake with a deterministic leader selection algorithm. dht via libp2p.

Bittorrent would be a cool way to do it. The trials I've seen with other networks over tor work in practice, however, its more fit for slower proof of work block driven networks with slower block times and less expectation for fast finality.

The shift away from PoW is largely driven by the need/expectation for semi-instant finality, which isn't feasible in 1st generation networks, systems where your transaction goes to a tx pool, waits for fee market acceptance, and then is mined into a block in an interval based in minutes with multiple confirms needed. There are pros and cons and use cases for both strategies, however the trend in defi, which is our niche, is finality in under a second, so that's the motivator behind that design decision. It's not without its faults, you're trading mining and difficulty adjustment algorithms for deterministic leader selection and absence/latency plans.