Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ouroboros: A Provably Secure Proof-of-Stake Blockchain Protocol [pdf] (2019)

eprint.iacr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 72 posts

Re: Ouroboros: A Provably Secure Proof-of-Stake Blockchain Protocol [pdf] (2019)

#21

Post by sp821543 »

Geee wrote: post #18
gvhst wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if you are claiming that BTC currently solves the "more wealth -> more power in system" problem but it clearly doesn't. The current state of affairs is more wealth -> more ASICS R&D and infrastructure budget -> more hash power -> more power in the system.

There's a difference. You can't physically centralize energy production. Local energy price will increase when more energy is used. This ensures that no one can get in a position of control. In PoS, it's possible to get > 50% ownership, and it's game over.

Aren't 65% of all bitcoin miners in China? Couldn't the CCP sabotage the network at any time? Say, a month before the launch of their digital currency?

https://cbeci.org/mining_map

Re: Ouroboros: A Provably Secure Proof-of-Stake Blockchain Protocol [pdf] (2019)

#22

Post by ypeterholmes »

Important paper here because almost all the next gen blockchains will be using POS. Ethereum is trying to switch mid-flight (yikes) but others like Cardano have incorporated it foundationally.

If you're a no-coiner or Bitcoin maximalist, none of this really matters. But if you accept the premise that the future of financial infrastructure is moving towards decentralized, blockchain based systems, then a secure, scalable, performant, and energy efficient approach like this is pretty darn awesome.

Re: Ouroboros: A Provably Secure Proof-of-Stake Blockchain Protocol [pdf] (2019)

#24

Post by wmf »

dane-pgp wrote: post #17
martindale wrote: post #8

Proof of Stake not only replicates the same dynamics that Bitcoin was designed to eliminate (more wealth -> more power in system) but also can only be made secure against a maximum of ⅓ byzantine actors, compared to Proof of Work's superior ½. As for using it for Layer 1 systems, Andrew Poelstra nailed it in his conclusion [0]: "We showed that by depending only on resources within the system, proof of stake cannot be…

> only be made secure against a maximum of ⅓ byzantine actors What is the threat model here, and in particular what is the outcome of a successful attack? For example, if the only "power in the system" the attacker has is the ability to prevent transactions from occurring, then the attacker is damaging the value of their own coins. The honest majority could, as a last resort, also decide to manually fork the currency…

There are concerns (or concern trolls) about an attacker buying old keys for almost nothing, trashing the chain, then profiting by shorting. And there are concerns that the honest majority can't figure out how to switch to the honest fork.

Re: Ouroboros: A Provably Secure Proof-of-Stake Blockchain Protocol [pdf] (2019)

#25

Post by regisg »

wmf wrote: post #24
dane-pgp wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> only be made secure against a maximum of ⅓ byzantine actors What is the threat model here, and in particular what is the outcome of a successful attack? For example, if the only "power in the system" the attacker has is the ability to prevent transactions from occurring, then the attacker is damaging the value of their own coins. The honest majority could, as a last resort, also decide to manually fork the currency…

There are concerns (or concern trolls) about an attacker buying old keys for almost nothing, trashing the chain, then profiting by shorting. And there are concerns that the honest majority can't figure out how to switch to the honest fork.

That's why there are KES keys.

Re: Ouroboros: A Provably Secure Proof-of-Stake Blockchain Protocol [pdf] (2019)

#26

Post by regisg »

martin1975 wrote: post #12
martindale wrote: post #8

Proof of Stake not only replicates the same dynamics that Bitcoin was designed to eliminate (more wealth -> more power in system) but also can only be made secure against a maximum of ⅓ byzantine actors, compared to Proof of Work's superior ½. As for using it for Layer 1 systems, Andrew Poelstra nailed it in his conclusion [0]: "We showed that by depending only on resources within the system, proof of stake cannot be…

was this submitted to any crypto journals for peer review (CCS, Eurocrypt) or did the author arrive at this conclusion in isolation?

Ouroboros Genesis ? Yes : CCS 2018.

Re: Ouroboros: A Provably Secure Proof-of-Stake Blockchain Protocol [pdf] (2019)

#28

Post by BluSyn »

martindale wrote: post #8

Proof of Stake not only replicates the same dynamics that Bitcoin was designed to eliminate (more wealth -> more power in system) but also can only be made secure against a maximum of ⅓ byzantine actors, compared to Proof of Work's superior ½. As for using it for Layer 1 systems, Andrew Poelstra nailed it in his conclusion [0]: "We showed that by depending only on resources within the system, proof of stake cannot be…

Fundamentally Proof-of-Work relies on the laws of thermodynamics and mathematics to secure the network.

Fundamentally Proof-of-Stake relies on a high-level abstract game theory of social interactions between selfish players.

One of these is not like the other.

Re: Ouroboros: A Provably Secure Proof-of-Stake Blockchain Protocol [pdf] (2019)

#29

Post by T0Bi »

Geee wrote: post #18
gvhst wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if you are claiming that BTC currently solves the "more wealth -> more power in system" problem but it clearly doesn't. The current state of affairs is more wealth -> more ASICS R&D and infrastructure budget -> more hash power -> more power in the system.

There's a difference. You can't physically centralize energy production. Local energy price will increase when more energy is used. This ensures that no one can get in a position of control. In PoS, it's possible to get > 50% ownership, and it's game over.

With proof of work you have economy of scale working in your favor. You'll get different deals on asic, power, server farms, etc. the more you buy.

PoW by design leads to centralization and we can see it happening live with bitcoin mining. At least with proof of stake there's no economy of scale. Everyone can participate fairly easily.

Re: Ouroboros: A Provably Secure Proof-of-Stake Blockchain Protocol [pdf] (2019)

#30

Post by DennisP »

ypeterholmes wrote: post #22

Important paper here because almost all the next gen blockchains will be using POS. Ethereum is trying to switch mid-flight (yikes) but others like Cardano have incorporated it foundationally. If you're a no-coiner or Bitcoin maximalist, none of this really matters. But if you accept the premise that the future of financial infrastructure is moving towards decentralized, blockchain based systems, then a secure, scala…

Ethereum's PoS is a completely new chain that's currently running in parallel. After watching it run in production for about a year they'll merge in the old chain.
Post reply on HN