Subnostr

Someone help me out here, am I missing something?

Proof of work = money is backed by an intrinsically valuable and scarce asset (electricity, compute power, etc.)

Proof of stake = a coin is only backed by itself, is not produced from a scarce asset with intrinsic value, and usually has no cap on supply making it inflationary (e.g. WEFereum).

So... how exactly is proof of stake any different in a real sense from fiat, aside from not being issued by a government? Seems identical in every other aspect.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

GenX57-ou812 2y ago

Copied and shared on gettr! Hope ya don't mind? 😎🖖🤙⚡️

Pablo Xannybar 2y ago

Don't mind at all 👌

+boldmouse096⚡️ 2y ago

I'd say Bitcoin is backed up by nothing, and it doesn't need to be backed by something.

It's a pure digital bearer instrument with no counterparty risk.

Computational proof-of-work makes transections on the timechain immutable/irreversible.

The idea that #Bitcoin needs to be backed by something comes from the fiat 🤡 world where each asset is someone else's liability.

There's also no yield on Bitcoin, it's the value of the monetary network which accrues.

Pablo Xannybar 2y ago

The idea that money should be backed by something actually comes from the era of the gold standard, which was pretty much all of history before 1971.

Fiat money is literally defined as money that isn't backed by anything tangible.

However wrt Bitcoin, it is very much open to debate and your view of the role PoW takes is just as valid as mine.

And ofc Bitcoin has other unique qualities that make it more valuable than fiat, most obvious is the 21 million supply limit.