Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday September 30 2019, @10:30PM   Printer-friendly
from the money-for-nothing? dept.

EPFL Researchers Invent Low-Cost Alternative to Bitcoin:

The cryptocurrency Bitcoin is limited by its astronomical electricity consumption and outsized carbon footprint. A nearly zero-energy alternative sounds too good to be true, but as School of Computer and Communication Sciences (IC) Professor Rachid Guerraoui explains, it all comes down to our understanding of what makes transactions secure.

To explain why the system developed in his Distributed Computing Lab (DCL) represents a paradigm shift in how we think about cryptocurrencies -- and about digital trust in general -- Professor Rachid Guerraoui uses a legal metaphor: all players in this new system are "innocent until proven guilty."

This is in contrast to the traditional Bitcoin model first described in 2008 by Satoshi Nakamoto, which relies on solving a difficult problem called "consensus" to guarantee the security of transactions. In this model, everyone in a distributed system must agree on the validity of all transactions to prevent malicious players from cheating -- for example, by spending the same digital tokens twice (double-spending). In order to prove their honesty and achieve consensus, players must execute complex -- and energy-intensive -- computing tasks that are then verified by the other players.

But in their new system, Guerraoui and his colleagues flip the assumption that all players are potential cheaters on its head.

What do you guys think? Will this replace Bitcoin?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday October 01 2019, @01:56AM (4 children)

    by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Tuesday October 01 2019, @01:56AM (#901078)

    I have every confidence we can, but what worries me is the people who have become fabulously wealthy from oil will react poorly to losing their power and influence and violence will ensue.

    Can you imagine (for example) anyone wanting to socialise with a Saudi sheik if they have no oil to sell?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 01 2019, @02:36AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 01 2019, @02:36AM (#901097)

    Yes, I can imagine the Saudi sheik learns to code and sells the next worthless social app for billions, becoming even more fabulously wealthy.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday October 01 2019, @04:23AM (2 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 01 2019, @04:23AM (#901130) Journal

    I have every confidence we can, but what worries me is the people who have become fabulously wealthy from oil will react poorly to losing their power and influence and violence will ensue.

    Well, looking to Iran (10% of world oil reserves) and Venezuela (largest in the world [soylentnews.org]), the "someone has interest to control the oil supplies/oil trading currency" seems like a plausible assumption.

    Especially knowing what happened with the with the last guy attempting to sell oil in a different currency [globalresearch.ca].

    I have this nagging feeling that if the oil is no longer sold only in a certain currency, the myth of "limitless and perpetual deficit, feds can print money anytime" may fall into pieces. And those time may not be very far [wsj.com], especially if China feels bullied enough by tariff wars to give international sanctions [reuters.com] a miss and go ahead with its belt-and-road until they reach the Iran oil by land.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday October 01 2019, @07:28PM (1 child)

      by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Tuesday October 01 2019, @07:28PM (#901437)

      I had not thought of any of that.

      I wonder what would happen if the US tried to prevent China from reaching Iran by road and rail?

      I cannot see that ending well.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Wednesday October 02 2019, @12:34AM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 02 2019, @12:34AM (#901601) Journal

        I wonder what would happen if the US tried to prevent China from reaching Iran by road and rail?

        That would be an aggression war US can't economically/socially sustain.

        Given that India - US relationship is not quite cozy [wikipedia.org] (understandable, as US sided with Pakistan most of the time), that would be the two most populous countries on Earth which wouldn't enjoy the adventurism.
        Incidentally, the two countries that act as a destination for most of the common goods the US outsourced their industry (trade deficit combined with the two countries [wikipedia.org]: $367B which is over 50% of US trade deficit with the entire world). An abrupt break in the trade caused by a war will immediately reflect in increased prices in US and a lack of those goods on the market. With an economy switching to war conditions, there's little chance the US economy will be able to replace those on a horizon of some 5 years or so.

        Then, looking on the geography, China is in a better position to cut the trade routes with South Korea and Japan than US is able to maintain them. One on top of the other, tell the US population they aren't gonna have their next-gen electronic gadgets or washing machines before the embedded planned obsolescence kicks in and you'll see how likely is the US population to support the war.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford