If possible, could the title be modified to spell out what "PoS" means? PoS aliases to "Piece of S***" and "Point of Sale", both of which give the headline a bit of a different impression on what to expect. Though I understand the general consensus is to send in the headline unmodified.
MIT Chose Ethereum’s PoS as Top Technological Breakthrough
11–20 of 77 posts
Re: MIT Chose Ethereum’s PoS as Top Technological Breakthrough
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
People who write articles, submit articles, admin articles and comment on articles can't buy fusion reactors and profit from them. So, we have biases with cryptocurrency. Opinions about unknowable consensus mechanisms aside, I have serious doubts about PoS given there's no clear associated PoW presented alongside the staking. But what do I know? I have grey hairs. I still like Bitcoin and Lightning because the PoW an…
>One particularly large coin dropped off an outrigger on the way back from being mined and instead of taking it out of circulation, a few of the consensus makers went out and dove on it to confirm it was indeed sitting on the bottom of the ocean floor. What does this mean? A cursory Googling isn't shedding light on this metaphor for me.
Sorry, here you go!
Re: MIT Chose Ethereum’s PoS as Top Technological Breakthrough
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
>One particularly large coin dropped off an outrigger on the way back from being mined and instead of taking it out of circulation, a few of the consensus makers went out and dove on it to confirm it was indeed sitting on the bottom of the ocean floor. What does this mean? A cursory Googling isn't shedding light on this metaphor for me.
It almost reads like a GPT-3 bot wrote it, I thought I was having a stroke trying to understand it.
I've provided a link to ease your stress.
Re: MIT Chose Ethereum’s PoS as Top Technological Breakthrough
#14Lol. Ethereum is far from the first cryptocurrency to use proof of stake. Even before modern top 10s like Cardana and Solana, there was Peercoin as the original PoS coin, which at one point was a top 3 coin by market cap.
If anything, Ethereum has been dragging it's feet on this. They originally planned to roll out PoS within a couple years after launch, and we're still here 7 years later. That's years of "wasted" proof of work when plenty of other coins rolled out PoS day one.
This isn't actually about choosing the most impressive technological innovation. This just a cheap political attack on bitcoin's PoW, in some kind of attempt to shame it into transitioning to PoS too, which is never going to happen. The bitcoin mindshare is completely locked in to PoW as a mission critical feature of the system, which would destroy the entire endeavor if transitioned away from.
Re: MIT Chose Ethereum’s PoS as Top Technological Breakthrough
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't get me wrong, plenty of griftcoin junk tech exists, but Ethereum is the most capable platform and moving away from Proof Of Work is a significant step.
They may be grifters and scammers but at least they are not burning down the planet. But I am curious about this: Etherium is not the first crypto to go PoS. Are there any significant technical advantages compared to other PoS implementations?
Sure
- They have a novel BLS signature aggregation that allows for a much larger number of participating validators (roughly up to 1M) then other POS systems that top out at a couple thousand.
- It's slashing mechanism creates 'economic finality'. Any validator participating in a reorg beyond that ~12 minute economic finality window would find themselves slashed and forced exited from the validator set.
- Lengthy entrance and exit queues mean that the validator set can't be shifted faster then the community can adapt should an attacker try manipulate the network.
- Multiple independent client teams have implemented a publicly agreed upon specification (there are 6 known at the moment). This keeps insider developers from sneaking in adverse changes without causing a huge hullabaloo.
Getting all this right is why it's taken so long to roll out.
Re: MIT Chose Ethereum’s PoS as Top Technological Breakthrough
#16Lol. Ethereum is far from the first cryptocurrency to use proof of stake. Even before modern top 10s like Cardana and Solana, there was Peercoin as the original PoS coin, which at one point was a top 3 coin by market cap. If anything, Ethereum has been dragging it's feet on this. They originally planned to roll out PoS within a couple years after launch, and we're still here 7 years later. That's years of "wasted" pr…
The title is "MIT Chose Ethereum’s PoS As Top Technological Breakthrough", not "MIT declares Ethereum’s PoS As First PoS".
Implementation matters more than "first!!11!". Obviously, starting with PoS is gonna be easier than creating a network and currency on PoW and then enabling the transition from PoW to PoS.
"Dragging their feet" is a funny way of saying "taking their time to implement it correctly". None of this stuff is easy and since most of the work is novel, it makes it extra hard to make sure everything is ok implemented.
If you take a closer look at Ethereums implementation of PoS, you'll notice there are a couple of novel ideas, which I'm guessing is why they got mentioned here. Another user in this submission already expanded on it too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30515423
Re: MIT Chose Ethereum’s PoS as Top Technological Breakthrough
#17Compact fusion reactors exist and are functional… and they chose griftcoin junk tech.
Don't get me wrong, plenty of griftcoin junk tech exists, but Ethereum is the most capable platform and moving away from Proof Of Work is a significant step.
I don't see why someone needs to wait 'years' on a coin for such a move when others already exist that are neither Proof-of-Work or Proof-of-Stake, unless you just plan on speculating on the cryptocurrency.
Re: MIT Chose Ethereum’s PoS as Top Technological Breakthrough
#18Technology Review is not "MIT", it's an attempt at competing with Wired and Popular Science.
This should totally be adjusted in the title I would suggest.
Re: MIT Chose Ethereum’s PoS as Top Technological Breakthrough
#19Compact fusion reactors exist and are functional… and they chose griftcoin junk tech.
I am 100% confident that the first commercially available compact fusion reactor will win this prize too.
Re: MIT Chose Ethereum’s PoS as Top Technological Breakthrough
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't get me wrong, plenty of griftcoin junk tech exists, but Ethereum is the most capable platform and moving away from Proof Of Work is a significant step.
I don't see why someone needs to wait 'years' on a coin for such a move when others already exist that are neither Proof-of-Work or Proof-of-Stake, unless you just plan on speculating on the cryptocurrency.
Because creating a new network from scratch is easier than safely transitioning, without downtime or breaking backwards compatibility, an existing network that secures hundreds of billions of dollars in value.