4 ms·

If you wanted to have a system where data can be decrypted if there is a consensus, why not use proof-of-stake for managing that? That way the integrity of your

If you wanted to have a system where data can be decrypted if there is a consensus, why not use proof-of-stake for managing that? That way the integrity of your data is dependent on who you invite into the system. The idea of arbitrarily requiring consensus among nine people doesn't make much sense to me.

maaku 11y ago
Stake in ... what?
- Alex3917 11y ago
  A blockchain created for the purpose of controlling the decryption process.
  - eximius 11y ago
    There are much, MUCH better ways of a group controlling a decryption process than the block chain.
  - dsl 11y ago
    So ... people with massive amounts of computing power can decide what to decrypt? Isn't that the exact opposite of what we want?
    - Alex3917 11y ago
      > people with massive amounts of computing power can decide what to decrypt? No. That would be proof of work.
    - coderzach 11y ago
      You're thinking of proof of work. Proof of stake means people with lots of money (cryptocurrency) can decide what to decrypt. Which is imo even worse.
droffel 11y ago
PoS has a fatal flaw: a person who wants to fork a PoS network simply needs to pay other people in the network for the private keys to their older, spent, transactions. Alternatively, any kind of security breach giving access to used private keys would work. After you have enough keys that had coins in them at a certain point in time, you can "grind" the history forward, and create an alternative chain with your chosen transaction history.