Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus
yanmaani.github.io
Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus
1–10 of 822 posts
Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus
#2The most important part of this post doesn't even have anything to do with cryptocurrency:
> If the broad masses of people disagree with the platform landlord, their opinion will be altered to conform with the rules, or else they will no longer have a voice.
We really need to fix that problem.
Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus
#3The most important part of this post doesn't even have anything to do with cryptocurrency: > If the broad masses of people disagree with the platform landlord, their opinion will be altered to conform with the rules, or else they will no longer have a voice. We really need to fix that problem.
Something about means of production and who owns it. This is most obvious on social media. The people participating on the platform do not get to decide the rules for how it operates. Which is a little ironic given that most people on social media are ostensibly in favor of democracy.
Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus
#4The most important part of this post doesn't even have anything to do with cryptocurrency: > If the broad masses of people disagree with the platform landlord, their opinion will be altered to conform with the rules, or else they will no longer have a voice. We really need to fix that problem.
It’s already fixed to some extent. On Reddit, you make a new subreddit of your own. On GitHub, you fork. The problem is that some projects are too big to effectively fork (or forking would over leverage the community) or people are lazy and don’t want to do the forking themselves despite accurately identifying the presence of a problem.
Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus
#5Proof of work has always had an economic flaw that you could theoretically temporarily rent enough mining power to perform double spends of more value than the cost of renting those devices.
But this attack has never been performed because the reality of all these cryptocurrencies is that the security depends only relatively weakly on proof of work. Instead it relies on trust between the main stakeholders: miners, big nodes and developers. This is just like any other human organisation. That trust is only reinforced by proof of work, making it easier for new parties to become trusted.
Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus
#6The most important part of this post doesn't even have anything to do with cryptocurrency: > If the broad masses of people disagree with the platform landlord, their opinion will be altered to conform with the rules, or else they will no longer have a voice. We really need to fix that problem.
It’s already fixed to some extent. On Reddit, you make a new subreddit of your own. On GitHub, you fork. The problem is that some projects are too big to effectively fork (or forking would over leverage the community) or people are lazy and don’t want to do the forking themselves despite accurately identifying the presence of a problem.
What about when it's the Reddit or GitHub admins who judge you to be guilty of thoughtcrime?
Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus
#7The most important part of this post doesn't even have anything to do with cryptocurrency: > If the broad masses of people disagree with the platform landlord, their opinion will be altered to conform with the rules, or else they will no longer have a voice. We really need to fix that problem.
It’s already fixed to some extent. On Reddit, you make a new subreddit of your own. On GitHub, you fork. The problem is that some projects are too big to effectively fork (or forking would over leverage the community) or people are lazy and don’t want to do the forking themselves despite accurately identifying the presence of a problem.
Or more realistically, you get banned from Reddit and Github.
Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus
#8PoW 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 with a modestly-recent block hash along with the thousands of lines of code that you have no practical way to audit.
The problem eventually reduces to Ken Thompson's "Trusting Trust" [1] problem. There's no way to externally validate the honesty of any system (cryptocurrency, or otherwise).
[1] https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rdriley/487/papers/Thompson_1984_Ref...
Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus
#9Proof of work has always had an economic flaw that you could theoretically temporarily rent enough mining power to perform double spends of more value than the cost of renting those devices. But this attack has never been performed because the reality of all these cryptocurrencies is that the security depends only relatively weakly on proof of work. Instead it relies on trust between the main stakeholders: miners, bi…
https://www.crypto51.app/
To execute a double spend, you the one sending the transaction and the miner must coordinate.
For large transactions, it is recommended to wait for six confirmations. (six blocks that agree with the transaction and have not been 51%ed.)
The 1 hour 51% cost of Bitcoin is 1.9m$. However, you would need much more time than that to find six consecutive blocks alone, without the help of the network. So, while the network is 6 blocks ahead, you need to find 7 blocks. The network moves forward a block, you must move forward more than one block to catch up. This could take a long time, and longer the more confirmations required- each confirmation makes each previous transaction exponentially more secure. Simply controlling the mining power momentarily only puts recent transactions vulnerable.
However, that much hardware is available for rent-see “Nicehashable.”
Re: Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus
#10The most important part of this post doesn't even have anything to do with cryptocurrency: > If the broad masses of people disagree with the platform landlord, their opinion will be altered to conform with the rules, or else they will no longer have a voice. We really need to fix that problem.
It’s already fixed to some extent. On Reddit, you make a new subreddit of your own. On GitHub, you fork. The problem is that some projects are too big to effectively fork (or forking would over leverage the community) or people are lazy and don’t want to do the forking themselves despite accurately identifying the presence of a problem.
Have we already forgotten what happened to youtube-dl at the hands of GitHub?
I know GitHub were only following the DMCA but it shows they have the capability to not only remove the project but also all of its forks.