SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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?
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Monday September 30 2019, @11:16PM (17 children)
Simplest secure solution is stable government backed cash.
"It is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them that they have been fooled" Mark Twain
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 30 2019, @11:27PM (13 children)
How is the USD "secure"?
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday September 30 2019, @11:44PM (9 children)
How is it not?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday October 01 2019, @12:05AM (7 children)
"It's a trap."
Will fall when the Saudi/petrodollars fall (in general, when the dependency on fossil fuels of the entire world goes low enough).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday October 01 2019, @12:25AM (6 children)
You might be right, but I think we will have more serious things to worry about when the oil runs out.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday October 01 2019, @01:19AM (5 children)
Maybe a naive one, but I hold the hope we can get weaned on dino-juice/-farts before they run out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday October 01 2019, @01:56AM (4 children)
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?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 01 2019, @02:36AM
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)
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
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday October 01 2019, @07:28PM (1 child)
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
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
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 01 2019, @02:30PM
Depends on the full faith and credit of the US. And the US keeps track of virtually all money transactions (by dollar amount) that aren't cash.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 01 2019, @12:37AM (1 child)
He said government backed. The USD is owned by the the federal reserve, which despite its name, is a privately-owned company.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday October 01 2019, @03:00PM
FTFY. Ownership hasn't changed.
Much of the operations of the Federal Reserve has been delegated to private banks and such. They can be replaced either by Congress writing new law or by someone with a better lobbying effort. Temporary control is not ownership.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday October 01 2019, @02:32PM
Secure it with Wombat Cubes of highest quality.
If you think a fertilized egg is a child but an immigrant child is not, please don't pretend your concerns are religious
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 01 2019, @12:40AM
lmao. fuck your jew slave money.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday October 01 2019, @01:58AM (1 child)
It's simple in the way that "that's how we've always done it" is simple.
It's secure in the way that the U.S. Secret Service has always (ineffectively) thwarted counterfeiters and various other fraudsters. You mention cash, cash can be strong-arm stolen. Serious room for improvement there.
It's stable like the government that backs it... some better than others.
And, cash is convenient like carrying gold bullion - not at all, particularly in a global networked economy.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday October 01 2019, @06:54AM
Unless you mean that it's hard finding denominations worth much less than $50, not at all. I can walk around with a several hundred dollars worth of bullion kept safe in a wallet the size of a USB key. And if you did think that it's hard finding denominations much less than $50, you're doing cash wrong.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves