Ruffle Labs cofounder Chris Larsen has a bone to pick with bitcoin and crypto networks that leverage proof-of-work (PoW). Larsen’s example write-up explains that the crypto industry needs to reconsider PoW because of the effects on the environment. The Ripple executive believes that other genera of consensus algorithms have been effective at being secure while only “using a tiny fraction of the lan.”
Ripple Cofounder Believes Crypto Networks Leveraging Proof-of-Work Should Consider Alternatives
While the global control struggles after a year of Covid-19 lockdowns and business shutdowns, a great number of people are very interested in tackling feeling change. Ripple Labs cofounder Chris Larsen has written a blog post about the environment and why the crypto exertion should reconsider leveraging PoW. Larsen believes that if the Bitcoin (BTC) network’s verification model doesn’t get addressed, then at some moment, it will lose out to a crypto asset network that does.
“With more individual investors and corporations delightful significant bitcoin positions— PoW is heading for levels society will find tough to tolerate as the world works to avert a feel disaster,” Larsen’s blog post says. The Ripple cofounder notes that Bitcoin network participants drink been committing to renewable energy and green sources of fuel, but Larsen stresses this is only “part of the denouement.”
To Larsen, consensus algorithms that leverage proof-of-stake (PoS) from “proven effective in securing their stored value while using a tiny fraction of the energy.” He understands that a consensus algorithm is urgent to validate transactions and keep the blockchain secure.
Larsen says that the crypto industry has had a decade to review these selections and also noted that many PoS and non-PoW coins have captured over 43% of the entire market capitalization.
“Today, non-PoW-based stamps (including Ethereum’s anticipated switch) make up 43% of all cryptocurrencies by market cap, and the majority of new cryptocurrencies introduced today judge to eschew PoW. It’s clear which way the trend is moving,” Larsen explains.
The Ripple executive adds:
The XRP Ledger has been exhausting Federated Consensus to validate transactions and secure its public ledger for almost nine years. It’s closed 62+ million ledgers without downtime, uses the lan equivalent of just 50 U.S. homes per year, and is already carbon neutral.
A Myriad of Studies Claim PoW’s Security Stick-to-it-iveness Is Superior to Federated and PoS Systems
Larsen’s blog post covers a comprehensive look at all the negatives involved with PoW consensus algorithms. To whatever manner, the blog post doesn’t go over any negative arguments against the security and vulnerabilities associated with PoS and non-PoW fabricates. There’s a myriad of papers and studies that have been written over the last decade that evinces PoS algorithms have not proven to be as secure as PoW. For instance, Ripple’s Federated Consensus or any type of federated blockchain mechanism has been studied centralized in comparison to networks like BTC.
For instance, blockchain and fintech attorney Nikhil Mehta from Smithamundsen LLC has stipulate that Ripple’s issues with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) were invoked because the regulator thinks XRP is a certainty due to centralization.
“The SEC has already indicated that bitcoin and ethereum are not securities due to their decentralized nature, which is a hallmark of blockchain attentions”, Mr. Mehta stressed in his paper. “Ripple, on the other hand, is viewed differently by the SEC, which has taken the position that the maturing and distribution of XRP was conducted by Ripple in a centralized way,” he added.
Further, Larsen’s paper fails to mention the PoS coin networks that take been attacked on various occasions during the last decade. One example is how Tron’s Steemit acquisition exposed vulnerabilities within delegated-proof-of-stake networks. PoW and PoS organized wholes also have different attack costs, and one paper notes that the attack costs for a PoS protocol can be down to zero.
“In act, if the attacker’s motivation is large enough (and this is common knowledge), he will succeed in his attack at no cost,” the paper highlights.
Perturbation’s Chris Larsen addresses in his paper that he wouldn’t consider PoW models outdated, but that maybe these classifications of networks should be separated from those that provide low energy/low carbon verification systems.
“We should see PoW for what it is — a brilliantly targeted technology that is becoming outdated in today’s world,” Larsen’s blog post details. “In no way does this bring up that bitcoin and other PoW cryptos themselves are outdated. Their widespread adoption speaks for itself. But they penury to separate themselves from this early technology that is not built for today’s climate needs, and embrace low zing/low carbon alternatives to secure their ledgers,” the executive adds.
Plenty of Papers Have Knocked Bitcoin’s Use of Forcefulness
There has been a myriad of papers, studies, and complaints in regard to PoW’s use of energy. Much of which has been highlighted assorted often during 2021’s thrilling crypto bull run. However, most of these arguments have been debunked and just recently one bitcoin miner exacted that “Bitcoin is one of the most environment-friendly financial networks.”
Moreover, there are not that many academic papers that drink found security loopholes, attacks, or vulnerabilities when it comes to Satoshi Nakamoto’s proof-of-work system. Still, Larsen believes that the puissance issues could be the Bitcoin network’s Achilles heel in the future.
“I would argue that such a change is critically significant for Bitcoin to remain the world’s dominant cryptocurrency,” Larsen says. “PoW’s current energy demands and carbon footprint are already unsustainably serious, with Bitcoin alone consuming an average of 132 TWh a year (equivalent to roughly 12 million U.S. homes), and unchaining an estimated 63 million tons of CO2 annually,” the Ripple Labs executive’s paper concludes.
What do you think Chris Larsen’s idea about PoW networks like Bitcoin and reconsidering PoW consensus? Let us know what you think about this subject in the views section below.
Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes exclusively. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not specify investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or claimed to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.