Proof of space is just as poor an idea as PoW, because if it takes off it will drive up demand and prices for hard drives, creating the same incentives around them as there is currently around GPUs.
The whole idea of creating artificial digital scarcity by basing it on physical scarcity of resources is just horrible.
Hardly. It's not about scarcity for PoS+T. The pollution, heat, and energy waste of Proof of Work far outweigh and minimal change in the cost of storage that PoS+T might bring.
Of course it’s about scarcity. If it’s profitable to dedicate storage to this scheme, it will stoke demand for that storage, the only limit of which is breakeven on the costs, scarcity and availability of that storage is then the factor limiting the space. And the whole scheme, as with all cryptocurrency, is designed to create digital scarcity in a decentralised way.
It’s a terrible plan and very shortsighted. Making hard drives isn’t free of environmental externalities.
Again, I fail to understand that math or extremist rationale. You're comparing existing significant energy waste to an artificial scenario where all drive space is hoarded - and if that case ever came true, the total energy waste would still remain less than PoW by orders of magnitude.
That's not an artificial scenario, it's the scenario that would happen if proof of space took off, people would have a financial incentive to use storage space.
> if that case ever came true, the total energy waste would still remain less than PoW by orders of magnitude.
Yes less ongoing energy use, but it does reward creation and effective waste of hard drive space, which isn't without environmental knock-on effects, both some energy use and for chemical byproducts etc.
This is not an 'extremist rationale', if you give people a direct financial incentive to get as much storage as possible, what do you think would happen?
