/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>54566857
*Unless AGI replaces biological civilisation in 2027

- Subjectivity: Exponential advances in ASICs entail history rewriting has some probability of happening in both PoS and PoW. None of which are objective, the observer has to make itself aware of all possible forks in order to attest the potential validity of a state. PoS platforms can adopt fallback Proof-of-Work schemes in order to solve conflicts involving attacks acquiring significant voting power close to genesis or checkpoints, with greater efficiency than a maximalist approach.
- Tragedy of the common: All actors in PoW strategically minimize value lost in shared security. (Imagine a country where citizens are free to exploit any tax evading scheme, nobody would pay for its army.) Bitcoin's future is uncertain because deflationary tokenmomics and L2s are self-conflicting with the large fee volume requirement to cover security expenses. Furthermore if you try to save Bitcoin with inflation, maximalism is busted. Other PoW networks who depends on inflation are hazardously over-reliant on perpetual investment inflow to capture fundamental funds, which aggravates the inevitable exposure to financial meltdown. In contrast to PoS which benefits from the inertia of reputation systems and its preserved financial mass relative to external systems.
- Succinctness: Recursive ZKP allows constant-time consensus independently of chain growth. Network synchronization in PoS is faster than PoW.
- Ethics: Profit-seeking miners are incentivized to use their position in ways benefiting their survival, with uncertain outcomes in the context of unregulated monopolistic competition. Game theory structures can not completely eliminate bias as it is fundamental to life.
- Environment: More than 70% of Bitcoin's global energy consumption is generated from non-renewable sources such as coal.