Proof of Stake is done though a protocol. Proof of Work is done in a variety of ways, one of which, I'll admit, is done through legacy power systems, but this is increasingly dying down. Look at El Salvador. They got hounded about the environmental damage so much mining would cost so they decided to go geothermal via a local volcano. The faggots suddenly scrambled, sent the IMF after them and screeched, "YOU CAN'T DO THAT!" then Evergrande happened, people started pouting about the debt ceiling which never amounts to anything and started FUDing BTC over the energy demands (which, contrary to what you hear the Mockingbird Media espousing, is fractional compared to the glass industry and a few others, which demand significantly more energy). They were obviously punished for this move. El Salvador went Chad though and just said, "ha! We bought the dip!"
That was a rhetorical question to make you understand. You acknowledged the truth of my statement then talk around it.
Unless there is some form of block chain crypto which isn't compute intensive (which is entirely the point), it remains a petro derivative.
There is an increasing trend to move to PoS. I'm guessing you don't see the importance of that. Maybe you're right, but only to a certain point. I don't see how it matters at all, considering more than half of the industry is on the verge of a shift away from mining or already is. In fact, all of the new chains being developed are over PoS. This is an antiquated argument currently. In fact, more miners are switching off due to regulations (look at China), due to alternatives (look at hydro powered farms in Africa, Asian countries, etc. and the solar trend picking up).
You think this is a good enough excuse, but it isn't. This is a tangential and briefly temporary problem at best and it isn't good enough FUD for it to amount to anything. Like I said, the whole industry is currently pivoting and this argument is even already antiquated.
I think you'll need to explain it to me. I even double checked after your comment. Your comment addresses nothing I've stated (or I woefully misunderstand the PoS implications).
Yes, optimizations which prevent work duplication are obvious improvements but it addresses zero of my position. As such, absolutely nothing of my position is antiquated. My comment is based on the foundation of the generation of the blocks, regardless if it can be optimal dedupliclation or not.
Please feel free to correct or explain what I'm missing.
(post is archived)