Earlier quoted context omitted.
You aren’t following. The hard fork lets me double spend the tokens from those blocks.
Indeed, I'm not following your argument.
Stop asking people to do your homework.
Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus
681–690 of 822 posts
Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus
#682Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "leader" has no choice after they win the current round but they do have a choice as to what to include in the winning block before they start hashing. Maybe they act like all the other rational miners and optimize by mining fees. Maybe they include no transactions and only take the miner reward. Maybe they they don't like the Dutch so all their transactions are excluded. It really doesn't matter as all y'all hav…
Everybody has that choice before they win the election, so are they all leaders? You really don’t see how this terminology is completely incoherent for this scenario?
They become a "leader" when they get elected, so only one of them becomes the "leader". There's nothing incoherent about this terminology.
Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus
#683Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if Buffett just wants to see the world burn and doesn't care about getting the money back out? Or if a nation state or the central banks see it as an existential threat, they could consider it the cost of doing business? Maybe $30B to take out Algo or Solana and destroy trust in all PoS networks? That's a rounding error for them.
Everyone gets paid! > Proof-of-Stake attacks aren't about having 51% of the CPU that overwhelms a Proof-of-Work system, but about having 60-70% of the _value_ in the network. If a nation buys 2/3 of the coin and destroys the network, investors (as a whole) take a 1/3 loss. Then they can (re)start another PoS coin. Ironically the nation would be up against the old saying that the market can stay irrational longer than…
Hell, they might not even take a loss at all. A nation-state-level actor trying to buy a majority of the monetary supply would represent a substantial increase in demand and therefore price.
Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus
#684Earlier quoted context omitted.
What’s delayed? Beacon chain has been running on mainnet since last December-ish. http://beaconcha.in
The merge was going to happen by the end of this year, but miners complained https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26441399 and then it was delayed again. https://www.coinhighlight.com/2021/10/ethereum-eth-devs-look...
The merge was expedited over miner concerns, prioritizing it over sharding as originally planned, so it’s actually the opposite of what you are saying.
Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus
#685Earlier 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…
> but they need to be happy letting their machines be turned off a large fraction of the time
Or they need batteries. Or some other means of energy storage, for that matter; at the scale of a large mining farm, thermal (e.g. heating water) or kinetic (e.g. spinning a flywheel) might be practical.
Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus
#686Earlier quoted context omitted.
... or people going to the gym. The problems start, of course, when you take a concept to its logical extreme.
I'm less concerned with wasting resources (which is highly subjective), than with ecological and systemic harms. I don't care whether a terawatt is "wasted" on pointless SHA256 hashes, or calculating triangles for Yet Another Marvel Movie, so long as the externality is being paid for [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax
Exactly. And by forcing the internalization of that externality, that forces the market to consider things which lack that externality.
The trick is to enforce it in such a way that it can't be easily dodged via e.g. offshoring.
Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus
#687> Proof of stake is a scam. When I say that, I mean that proof of stake is (1) claimed to be a consensus system, and (2) constitutionally incapable of actually producing a consensus. Ok. Go break one of the many existing systems that operates using proof of stake then. If you've done this, you should be leading your article with it. If you haven't, you shouldn't be speaking. Proof of stake is not some theoretical thi…
If you'd read the article till the end, perhaps you'd understand where the author is coming from: PoS systems aren't getting hacked today because they aren't truly decentralised. You can't have decentralisation and security with POS, you have to choose one of these. All the projects currently active have chosen security for obvious reasons - they control the majority of validators to make sure nobody steals, and are…
Except that they are though...You can go run a validator on Eth or Cardano right now.
Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus
#688Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes PoW is way better because miners need to constantly expend resources to maintain their right to participate. PoS validators keep their throne for life at virtually no cost.
But like PoS, PoW returns all spent resources and more back to the miner - both are designed to be profitable and self-sustaining. I don't see much difference between a PoW mining setup that does $1000/day gross, $990/day expense, $10/day profit and a PoS staking setup that does $12/day gross, $2/day expense, $10/day profit. Both earn $10/day, both require maintenance, and both are run not at a net cost but at a net…
The main difference is that the top miners don’t stay the top miners. There is constant churn. The top stakers remain the top stakers at virtually no cost, and they will almost always be custodians/financial institutions.
Additionally mining isn’t always profitable. There is financial risk and miners can go bust and take financial risk. Staking is basically always profitable if you don’t misbehave.
Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus
#689(my day job is developer on Proof-of-Stake Algorand block chain, I'm a developer, this may not be polished official PR) Article's theory about malicious old blocks doesn't hold up. Let's say I start a new node and verify history since the beginning. Somewhere along the line I'm connected to a malicious node which hands me a fictionalized block. It would need to have been signed by not just one but about 30-45 account…
What if Buffett just wants to see the world burn and doesn't care about getting the money back out? Or if a nation state or the central banks see it as an existential threat, they could consider it the cost of doing business? Maybe $30B to take out Algo or Solana and destroy trust in all PoS networks? That's a rounding error for them.
They wouldn’t need to spend money to ‘destroy the blockchain’, just legislate against it. For example, what would happen to the value of crypto-currencies if the US government simply banned them outright for entities within its jurisdiction, and also made it so if any foreign entity touches cryptos they get cut off from the US financial system (similar to how ‘sanctions’ work today). I imagine the destruction would be near total.
Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus
#690Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can fork decentralized over (crypto) collateralized stablecoins even if you can't force a fork of a centralized stablecoin operated by incorporated entity to be recognized by them. Unless we're going to pretend that there is only one way on and off networks and only in one currency denomination…
how do I send a wire to DAI?
You don't. You send a wire to someone who's willing to send you some DAI in return.