Live data from Hacker News

Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus

yanmaani.github.io

201–210 of 822 posts

Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus

#201

This is a silly article. Only working in a weaker security model does not, a priori, mean that proof of stake is a scam; it just means you need to convince yourself that the weaker security model holds. You can read the post linked ( https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/11/25/proof-stake-learned-lov... ) and decide for yourself. Personally, I think this kind of "quiescent" knowledge, letting you differentiate the real chai…

> Essentially, VDFs take a certain amount of steps to compute and cannot be parallelized. However, the correctness of their output can be verified efficiently. this...sounds exactly like proof of work? Indeed, you can probably fix plutocracy with some PoW.

It is not. At least, not in the usual environmentally destructive sense that people tend to mean by PoW. The idea behind VDFs is that they can only be computed in a single-threaded fashion, so you don't gain any benefit from computing them on giant server farms. This is the exact opposite of PoW which is designed to be computable massively in parallel. In this context, of course, not benefiting from giant server farms is good, because it means people won't wreck the environment to compute them.

The tradeoff is fundamental: because VDFs don't benefit from throwing computational resources at them, there is no disadvantage to computing a bunch of them in parallel. So if you had bad intentions from the getgo (and you had a majority of stake at the time), you could still secretly compute a fake bad chain starting at time t, and then release an alternative at time t+n that was as long or longer than the real chain; the security they provide is that if someone compromises your keys later (after you already lost your majority), they can't do this. Since in practice proof of stake chains start very centralized and then distribute over time, this is a useful practical thing to care about!

With PoW, on the other hand, computing a fake chain requires you to not use all your hashpower, which opens you up to economic attacks from someone else who is willing to use that hashpower. When someone uses more hashpower than you were, they'll be able to make a longer chain faster (before the difficulty readjusts again), so now all your secret chains have been made useless (and in cases of equal chain length, people tiebreak by hashpower, so you can't just maintain a little side network that eventually catches up when hashpower decreases, either). That's the theory, anyway: it's heavily based on economic incentives, so if some government decided that they didn't really care about the economics and just wanted to screw over chain users by pumping out hashpower, they could do so quite easily. Note that by contrast, proof of stake is not susceptible to this: you actually do have to compromise a majority of the active stakers no matter how much money you have.

Personally, I think this is a distinction without a difference because I don't think any cryptocurency can stand up to sustained attacks by large nation-states (which is part of why I don't think it's very useful). But like I said, that's an assessment of the threat model, so it's subjective and up to you to decide.

Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus

#202

This is a silly article. Only working in a weaker security model does not, a priori, mean that proof of stake is a scam; it just means you need to convince yourself that the weaker security model holds. You can read the post linked ( https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/11/25/proof-stake-learned-lov... ) and decide for yourself. Personally, I think this kind of "quiescent" knowledge, letting you differentiate the real chai…

[deleted]

Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus

#203

Can't wait for the day all PoW mining activities are declared illegal. To be honest, I don't understand why it hasn't been banned already. Sweden has recently called for a EU wide ban because it identified PoW mining as a threat to transition their economy to renewable energy. https://www.fi.se/en/published/presentations/2021/crypto-ass...

[deleted]

Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus

#204

As far as I am aware, these long-range forks can be hindered by using verifiable delay functions (VDFs) [1, p. 6]. Essentially, VDFs take a certain amount of steps to compute and cannot be parallelized. However, the correctness of their output can be verified efficiently. Now if a proof of stake includes a VDF that needs to be computed for every block, then a long-range attack needs to recompute the VDF outputs as we…

> Essentially, VDFs take a certain amount of steps to compute and cannot be parallelized. However, the correctness of their output can be verified efficiently. this...sounds exactly like proof of work?

No, a VDF just proves that, given a certain input, you spent a certain amount of time to compute the unique (!) VDF output. As said, this computation must be carried out sequentially. Of course, it can still be sped up by creating an ASIC (the same technology used for Bitcoin miners nowadays). However, there is not point in running multiple ASICs (like a Bitcoin mining farm) because the computation cannot be parallelized and the output is unique. Thus, running one ASIC has exactly the same effect as running thousands ASICs and there is no energy waste.

Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus

#205
post #197

Not really, its unfair but not a scam. Can we talk about the actual scam known as layer 2 rollup chains? Optimism is completely centralized and even Vatalik is shilling it like a good thing. At least the PoS shill makes sense, it artificially benefits early adopters.

Amazing clarity.

Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus

#206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Proof of Work is better because the haves buy equipment the have-nots can't buy to vote? Unless you have a citizenship based voting of some short where a single person gets a single vote and they actually vote (automatically I guess and assuming without delegating to the big whale because "I am bored") what do you think agreement via resource scarcity implies? P.S. Also lobbying...

This is a common misunderstanding. Proof of Work does not get you any votes at all. PoW is a service to the network, to create an immutable ledger. It comes with a very real nuclear option that will bankrupt miners if you misbehave and get fired by hashing algo change. It's just a boring industrial business, like smelting aluminum or iron.

Smelting metals actually produces something, proof of work just burns electricity for the random chance of winning a lottery

Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus

#207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But...if you no longer have value on the network, doesn't that mean you no longer have enough stake to control the network?

a coalition of wealthy interests can trivially dictate the consensus rules with very little to no recourse on your part. Even if the chain splits, they can maintain their share on both chains, and even suppress the minority chain. In PoW miners risk going bankrupt overnight for egregious behaviour like that. I'd like to see how one defines "slashing" programmatically that is impartial, works algorithmically, and does…

No, no, back up a second. The argument being made in the parent comment is that once there is one entity with enough stake in the network to dictate where it goes, they can just pull out before tanking the network.

But my understanding was that you can only have enough stake in the network to make decisions...by having that stake in the network. If you un-stake your crypto and cash out, by definition, you no longer have any stake in the network. If you no longer have any stake, how do you have a controlling stake?

Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus

#208

He lost me at the part where he thinks you can sign messages after withdrawing your stake. The whole point of proof of stake is that you can only sign blocks or messages while you have something staked. When you withdraw you are no longer allowed to sign anything. He also didnt need to spend 1000 words going on about the history of bitcoin and proof of work. This is literally just a filler piece with a provocative cl…

You can withdraw your stake. Withdrawing a gigawatt plant and a silicon foundry is a little more involved, you see.

Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus

#209
Speaking of POS scammers, what ever happened to Richard "Dodge Dodge" Heart, winner of the "Golden Pump Award" for "Best New Scam" for his POS get-rich-quick pyramid scheme called "HEX", who falsely claims that proof of stake is a proven successful replacement for proof of work, and who shills HEX and tries to recruit unsuspecting developers and victims here on HN and many other places, by making illegal false claims of providing CDs (certificates of deposit)?

To be fair, I'd love to hear him chime in on this discussion, and tell his side of the story, relate his exploits and prosecution as a viagra spammer, and finally answer all those unanswered questions people have asked him, to which he replied "Dodge Dodge".

Not that he's unique or special: POS shills like him are a dime a dozen. But he hangs out here and shills on HN, and has won awards for his deceptive scams (and also lost court cases too), and claims to "help people" on his web site, so I hope to hear from him again.

https://richardheart.com/

His real name is actually Richard J Schueler, under which he is famously known as the "Spam King", for being one of the first people in the world to be successfully sued for online spam, specifically the Viagra spam scheme that he ran from Panama (which he lost).

Richard Hart (aka "Spam King" Richard J Schueler) wins the "Golden Pump Award" for "Best New Scam" for his POS shitcoin Ponzi scheme "HEX":

https://twitter.com/JuanSGalt/status/1233242355995750400

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=857&v=tf-lJu5iDh...

Peacefire.org beats spammers in court.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/peacefire-org-beats-spammers-i...

>Free-speech group Peacefire.org wins a legal round in its fight against unsolicited e-mail, invoking Washington state's anti-spam law.

>The King County District Court in Bellevue, Wash., on Monday granted Peacefire $1,000 in damages in each of three complaints filed by Peacefire Webmaster Bennett Haselton. The small-claims suit alleged that Red Moss Media, Paulann Allison and Richard Schueler [who now operates under the pseudonum "Richard Hart"] sent unsolicited commercial messages to Haselton that bore deceptive information such as a forged return e-mail address or misleading subject line.

Confronting Richard Heart of HEX - SPAM KING and Crypto Scammer

https://www.cointelligence.com/content/confronting-richard-h...

>During ANON Summit 2020, I participated in a “fireside chat” with Richard Heart, founder of HEX. HEX is one of the most sophisticated, if not THE most sophisticated scams I have ever seen.

>Why was I so aggressive with Richard? I have a lot of experience fighting with scammers, at events, and in online discussions. I’m familiar with their bullshit techniques. Richard is the sort of “master debater” who will answer a question without actually answering the content of the question. I watched more than 6 hours of his previous talks and learned how to tell when he was trying to avoid a real answer.

>If you don't want to sit through hours of interviews yourself, this 4 minute video not only sheds light on Heart's motivation for establishing HEX, but also shows just how abrasive and crude he can be. This video was not created or edited by Cointelligence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MIdlXHedlU

>I want to draw your attention to the quote in the video above: "What am I going to make more money doing? Promoting my token, that I own a whole ton of? Or promoting bitcoin, where I own one-one zillionth of the available supply?" He's clearly in this to make money for himself in any way possible. [...]

>When asked why HEX was not categorized as a security, at around the 21 minute mark, Richard offered an explanation that has no legal grounding. On the website, HEX claims that it is "The first high interest blockchain certificate of deposit." However, HEX has no legal authority to issue CDs. Richard is illegally claiming to provide CDs when in fact the instruments are nothing but glorified savings accounts.

More quotes: "What's up now, fggot? What are you going to do now, you little btch? Get the fuck out of here! That's the dumbest piece of shit I've ever seen in my fucking life. [...] Let me give you some more bullshit, ok?" -Richard Heart aka Richard J Schueler

Richard Heart - Spam, ICOs, and Death Threats

https://imnotdead.co.uk/blog/richard-heart

Richard James Schueler - Friggin Spam King

https://web.archive.org/web/20190416235350/http://www.panama...

Why HEX is a Ponzi and not a solid investment (Part 2): Richard Heart

https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/kwhjxa/why_...

>During the interview at ANON, Richard confirmed that he was one of the first people in the world to be sued for online spam, back in 2002. This shows us Richard has experience abusing unregulated markets, as he is doing with crypto these days.

Richard: this an accurate quote of your own words?

>When I pressed the matter and asked for a simple “yes” or “no” as to whether he, as the FOUNDER of HEX, knows who benefits from the funds sent to the “Origin Address” he flat-out said “I’m dodging your question.” Dodging the question! He proceeds to repeat “Dodge, dodge.”

Richard, your tag-line "Do you want to develop my new cryptocurrency?" is the new "Do you want to develop an app?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVy0JWX5XEY&ab_channel=Adult...

"Dodge, dodge." -Richard Heart aka Richard J Schueler

Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus

#210
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The block 200 will be adding validation to the previous blocks, and will be validated by the future ones. Without other types of checks, nothing stops you from rewriting the previous 199 blocks and using block 200 to validate them. This is not FUD, it's the most obvious PoS flaw, called long range attack, and the reason PoS chains often need more checks to be more trustworthy (e.g. keeping hardcoded checkpoints, choo…

Here’s a recent ETH2 block: https://beaconcha.in/block/2604970#votes It was voted for by 8000+ validators. Many of them have been validating since beacon chain genesis a year ago. There are like 260k validators active right now. I find it highly unlikely some entity is going to come along and try to pretend their alternate history, with a whole new set of hundreds of thousands of validators (which wouldn’t be support…

ETH2 was years in the making, with multiple delays and not fully migrated yet precisely because of how unsafe standard PoS is. Vitalik and co spent years researching the best mitigations.

Right now, it seems to be one of the best protected PoS chains. It's still fairly new, with novel mitigations, so it still doesn't stand the test of time against all possible attack vectors.

In that sense, it still can't be considered as secure as a PoW chain with high hashrate, which is protected by thermodynamics (you can't produce more hashes than the physical energy you have access to allows).

Post reply on HN