Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus • Hacker News Board

Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus

#301

Post by keymone » Sun, Nov 28, 2021, 11:53 AM UTC

lottin wrote: post #292

inter_netuser wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Proof of Work does not get you any votes at all. It only buys you the right to append a block of transactions to the ledger, which is the same thing as having 100% of the votes.

Nonsense. Mining gives you zero votes. Miners don’t control the protocol. Governance is not determined by hashrate. This is just another major flaw that all PoS shitcoins have.

Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus

#302

Post by rocqua » Sun, Nov 28, 2021, 11:54 AM UTC

comex wrote: post #27

josnyder wrote: post #8

PoW systems rely on the "phone a friend method" as well. When you download a Bitcoin client from a "friend", you are trusting them to honestly introduce you to the network. If you fall asleep for a period of years, you have to trust your friends to honestly inform you of all of the PoW forks and policy changes that have occurred over that interval. The only difference is that PoS blockchain clients must be bundled wi…

Indeed. And even if you posit a PoW currency which never has policy changes, unlike Bitcoin or any other major cryptocurrency… And you assume that attackers will never have enough computing resources to execute a 51% attack – which could happen because the currency’s value falls enough that people stop mining it, because an extraordinarily well-funded entity decides to attack it, or because someone manages to hack th…

Note that for bitcoin, because of soft forks, you could take a really old client and still find the 'true' chain.

Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus

#303

Post by keymone » Sun, Nov 28, 2021, 11:54 AM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #240

inter_netuser wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not a waste, as it provides physical security, exactly the same as idle nuclear missiles on standby do, or standing armies that are "doing nothing", until a war happens. The vast majority of mining today uses sustainable energy (70%+), because it is actually cheaper. Dishwashers and heated swimming pools use WAY more energy globally, but because pleasant luxuries are quite enjoyable, nobody seems to attack them…

> It is not a waste, as it provides physical security, exactly the same as idle nuclear missiles on standby do, or standing armies that are "doing nothing", until a war happens. You don't think those get very wasteful in the real world? And there's no equivalent to a real war situation. You can set it up so you don't need to defend against the equivalent of enemy armies. > The vast majority of mining today uses susta…

There is zero waste in PoW. It’s all useful service, therefore waste term doesn’t apply.

Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus

#304

Post by inter_netuser » Sun, Nov 28, 2021, 11:54 AM UTC

keymone wrote: post #293

wcoenen wrote: post #268

Whether PoS will work, I don't know. But the author didn't realize that PoW is certainly doomed. PoW miners tend to spend more and more resources on finding blocks, until the cost approaches the rewards. But the rewards go up as the cryptocurrency becomes more popular, because the price and transaction fees go up. Therefore, a PoW cryptocurrency tends to "eat the world" as it becomes bigger. That's why Bitcoin is alr…

It’s a system with feedback loops, it’ll eventually level out at some equilibrium. You didn’t provide an actual argument for why it should definitely collapse.

Seems like he’s insinuating a global ban will occur.

Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus

#305

Post by keymone » Sun, Nov 28, 2021, 11:55 AM UTC

Kbelicius wrote: post #254

inter_netuser wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not a waste, as it provides physical security, exactly the same as idle nuclear missiles on standby do, or standing armies that are "doing nothing", until a war happens. The vast majority of mining today uses sustainable energy (70%+), because it is actually cheaper. Dishwashers and heated swimming pools use WAY more energy globally, but because pleasant luxuries are quite enjoyable, nobody seems to attack them…

> The vast majority of mining today uses sustainable energy (70%+) Do you have an source for this? I remember the same number being flaunted before but it turned out not to be true. What was true was that 70%+ of miners use any amount of renewables in their energy mix.

You’re right. The correct number is somewhere around 50%, probably over the line already, which is significantly better than any other big industry.

Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus

#306

Post by keymone » Sun, Nov 28, 2021, 11:57 AM UTC

denton-scratch wrote: post #253

inter_netuser wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not a waste, as it provides physical security, exactly the same as idle nuclear missiles on standby do, or standing armies that are "doing nothing", until a war happens. The vast majority of mining today uses sustainable energy (70%+), because it is actually cheaper. Dishwashers and heated swimming pools use WAY more energy globally, but because pleasant luxuries are quite enjoyable, nobody seems to attack them…

> standing armies that are "doing nothing" Armies have to practice. Smart generals don't let their armies do nothing; to be any good at warfighting, they have to fight wars. Effective standing armies have to constantly be finding new wars to fight.

Nice to see you rationalizing expenditure that goes towards murdering people. Are you the people talking down to bitcoiners about being wasteful and not caring about future of humanity? Give me a break.

Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus

#307

Post by snet0 » Sun, Nov 28, 2021, 11:57 AM UTC

drclau wrote: post #299

wcoenen wrote: post #268

Whether PoS will work, I don't know. But the author didn't realize that PoW is certainly doomed. PoW miners tend to spend more and more resources on finding blocks, until the cost approaches the rewards. But the rewards go up as the cryptocurrency becomes more popular, because the price and transaction fees go up. Therefore, a PoW cryptocurrency tends to "eat the world" as it becomes bigger. That's why Bitcoin is alr…

> Bitcoin is already approaching 1% of global electricity consumption, if it hasn't passed that point already And this is the reason why I cannot take any climate change conversation seriously unless it includes the topic of cryptocurrencies. Whatever the promises of cryptocurrencies were, now most (all?) degenerated into a mechanism for speculation, and effectively into a self-sustaining and self-promoting mechanism…

You can't take a discussion of climate change seriously unless it specifically addresses a single-percentage problem?

Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus

#308

Post by somebodythere » Sun, Nov 28, 2021, 11:57 AM UTC

keymone wrote: post #293

wcoenen wrote: post #268

Whether PoS will work, I don't know. But the author didn't realize that PoW is certainly doomed. PoW miners tend to spend more and more resources on finding blocks, until the cost approaches the rewards. But the rewards go up as the cryptocurrency becomes more popular, because the price and transaction fees go up. Therefore, a PoW cryptocurrency tends to "eat the world" as it becomes bigger. That's why Bitcoin is alr…

It’s a system with feedback loops, it’ll eventually level out at some equilibrium. You didn’t provide an actual argument for why it should definitely collapse.

The existence of feedback loops very much doesn't imply a stable equilibrium. Actually, any system that is not overdamped will necessarily not reach an equilibrium.

Or maybe the equilibrium is that no country bans it, and PoW currencies don't die on their own due to lack of financial rewards, and PoW artificially inflates the demand and therefore price of energy, leading first to widespread economic issues, then widespread ecological issues, until there is no one left buy pizza from with your BTC. Very compelling equilibrium.

Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus

#309

Post by lottin » Sun, Nov 28, 2021, 11:57 AM UTC

anonporridge wrote: post #63

josnyder wrote: post #8

PoW systems rely on the "phone a friend method" as well. When you download a Bitcoin client from a "friend", you are trusting them to honestly introduce you to the network. If you fall asleep for a period of years, you have to trust your friends to honestly inform you of all of the PoW forks and policy changes that have occurred over that interval. The only difference is that PoS blockchain clients must be bundled wi…

You really don't need to trust a "friend" while bootstrapping into the network with PoW, because the proof of work is irrevocably embedded within the blockchain, and the real world cost of creating those blocks can be pretty easily estimated. So long as you have a general idea of how much hash power is being used currently for the network, or even just how efficient ASIC computing is in general at your point in histo…

Same thing applies to PoS.

Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus

#310

Post by ogogmad » Sun, Nov 28, 2021, 11:57 AM UTC

lottin wrote: post #295

ogogmad wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> PoW in this context is a bit worse because PoW miners can rent out their hash power maliciously without being slashed. Sounds wrong. Slashing is a means to prevent people from staking on multiple chains. In PoW, computing power is scarce, so if you allocate some compute time to one chain then you have less of it on another chain. You automatically get slashed. The difficulty in designing a PoS chain is in artificia…

Where is the difficulty in making miners expend their tokens (i.e. in a way that is irrevocable) instead of merely depositing them somewhere?

In a blockchain, the chain keeps splitting. Your tokens live on multiple competing chains simultaneously. In PoW, you are forced to pick one of those chains to mine on. In PoS, you can stake on all of them simultaneously.

The splitting is unavoidable and happens constantly. Multiple competing future states are constantly being created, and the network has to eventually arrive at a consensus about which possible future is the true one.

> Where is the difficulty in making miners expend their tokens (i.e. in a way that is irrevocable) instead of merely depositing them somewhere?

Figuring out how to make spending your tokens irrevocable is the whole point of PoW/PoS. Your question reads to me like "In trying to solve problem x, why don't you assume that you've already solved problem x, and use that to solve problem x."