▲ | sunshine-o 5 days ago | |||||||
> Because literally the only point is to avoid the existing banking system and you can do that with a postures database with much less cpu involved. Ethereum is actually very low resource intensive nowadays. You can run a validator node on a RPI, a full sync node on a Intel N100 minipc with a big fast SSD and the "light clients" can probably run on something very small. I have seen banks having to bring semi-trailers full of diesel generators to plug them to their mainframe because the current requirements were too high for the grid during big batch jobs. | ||||||||
▲ | ChadNauseam 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
I like crypto (I'm formerly in the industry), but that's not quite a fair comparison. 1. Running a validator is inexpensive in terms of compute, but there are 1,000,000 validators or something, which adds up to a lot of CPU usage. Of course, I think it's insanely awesome that you can run some code on Ethereum and it'll be replicated on 1,000,000 independently-operated machines, but it's not a very CPU-efficient strategy. 2. Banks doing those batch jobs probably had much higher TPS than ethereum. | ||||||||
| ||||||||
▲ | topranks 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
Just because they ditch the proof-of-work doesn’t make it efficient. The blockchain structure, the validation mechanism etc are still a very inefficient way to do general compute or database type functions. |