3 ms·
A short summary of the argument as I understand it: With proof of work, you can only mine on any one block. You make sure this is the last block in the chain b
by rocqua 10y ago
A short summary of the argument as I understand it:
With proof of work, you can only mine on any one block. You make sure this is the last block in the chain because otherwise you'd need to mine 2 blocks in a row to convince everyone. This ensures it is really hard to rewrite history.
With proof of stake, nothing is preventing you from 'mining' on multiple base blocks on the same time. Anytime you spend a coin and get the goods, you might as well try and see if you can 'mine' 2 new blocks to erase your transaction.
- jbpetersen 10y agoThis is known as the "nothing at stake" problem and is solved at this point: just require a deposit for mining and treat it as a bounty for proving someone tried to mine on more than one continuation of the PoS blockchain. The kicker is part of the deposit is burned to avoid shenanigans of someone claiming the bounty on theirself and not having to suffer any consequences.
- nullc 10y agoThe above paper discusses that 'solution' (it isn't one.). The system remains circular, and participants can still grind for alternative histories which grant them more control over time.
- rocqua 10y agoHow would anyone get such a proof? Seems like mining would need to be collaborative, with no possibility of choosing the collaborators.