[tylercubell]

Algorand has been Proof of Stake for years (2019 MainNet launch) and it's actually carbon-negative [1]. It's a shame more people don't know about it. Its founder is a Turing-award-winning MIT professor (Silvio Micali) who solved the blockchain trilemma [2] with the Pure Proof of Stake consensus algorithm. The tech is leaps and bounds ahead of other cryptos.

[1]: https://www.algorand.com/resources/news/carbon_negative_anno...

[2]: https://www.algorand.com/resources/blog/silvio-micali-lex-fr...

[mtlynch]

That sounded interesting but I couldn't understand from the links how a blockchain can be carbon negative:

>To achieve a carbon-negative network, Algorand and ClimateTrade will implement a sustainability oracle which will notarize Algorand’s carbon footprint on-chain for each epoch (a set amount of blocks). With its advanced smart contracts, Algorand will then lock the equivalent amount of carbon credit as an ASA (Algorand Standard Asset) into a green treasury so that its protocol keeps running as carbon-negative.

I'm pretty familiar with the basics of cryptocurrency and blockchains, but the above paragraph makes almost no sense to me.

[nscalf]

They're going to buy carbon credits to offset the carbon emissions derived from using the network, then lock them away so they can't trade them off at a later time. That is definitely some marketing lingo tied around "we buy carbon credits".

[fumblebee]

It's times like this I ask myself whether I'm slow, or whether the text in question is needlessly complex.

My pessimistic side suggests this could be purposeful obfuscation of implementation by using complex language. No one will question their solution if no one can understand it.

On the other hand, I'm a big proponent of the Algorand project and based on the general quality of their work (the tech, docs, tutorials, etc.), I'd be surprised if there were anything malignant going on.

[smaddox]

I just read about it. It seems highly susceptible to disruption by a minority stake, via the birthday paradox.

If only a fraction of the stake holders are validators at any given time, but the set of 1000 validators is selected randomly from token holders, then all you technically need is 1000 tokens (or more) and given enough time you will be selected as the only validator, right? You can then validate a fraudulent transaction, breaking security.

Now perhaps the amount of time it would take for this to occur would be longer than the heat death of the universe if you only have 1000 tokens, but at the very least, this substantially reduces the stake required to mount such an attack below the 51% required in a PoW system, right?

[RhodoGSA]

thats why currently the minimum stake amount is 32 eth. Also, you'd learn you were the validator for the cycle only when you are awarded eth. If you try to push through a false transaction you can get slashed (Losing some of your stake). all in all, makes it impractical at best.

[miohtama]

The first proof-of-stake coin was PeerCoin from 2012. Also Algorand is not leaps ahead of the competiton. More in my presentation:

https://capitalgram.com/posts/history-of-cryptocurrencies/

[tylercubell]

Would it be reasonable to assert pure proof of stake is less risky than delegated proof of stake? I don't claim to be an expert in crypto but from what I've read it seems like pure proof of stake is a leap ahead of other consensus algorithms in terms of security, energy usage, etc.

[hanniabu]

> It's a shame more people don't know about it

It's a shame people don't understand that there's multiple aspects. Ethereum is much more decentralized, secure, have more dev mindshare, better community, tooling, and ecosystem. Let's also not forget that Algorand is powered by and centralized around team-run nodes.

[capableweb]

I don't think the initial "It's a shame more people..." is meant to make people forget about Ethereum. I think it's to signal that not a lot of people know about Algorand, and doesn't anything about other projects.

Since you seem to indicate that you know what you're talking about, care enough to make a proper argument? You say Ethereum is more decentralized, secure and better tooling, but you never actually make a cohesive argument, only giving a list of "reasons" without any backing. I'm mostly interested in why you think Ethereum is "more secure" than Algorand, and what threat model are you considering here even?

> Algorand is powered by and centralized around team-run nodes

Hm, I run a Algorand node but I don't work for the Algorand team. What do you mean that Algorand is run by team-run nodes really? How do you even know which node belongs to who in the first place?

[lancemurdock]

i'll check back on this coin when its tokenomics have improved. I am not interested in something with 70% of the total supply not yet in circulation.

[runeks]

> The tech is leaps and bounds ahead of other cryptos.

How is it “leaps and bounds” ahead of e.g. PoS Ethereum?