4 ms·

My gut tells me the opposite. Here are some unscientific reasons why. Proof of stake: the mechanism to secure the coins, uses the coins it's trying to secure.

by Rauchg 10y ago

My gut tells me the opposite. Here are some unscientific reasons why. Proof of stake: the mechanism to secure the coins, uses the coins it's trying to secure. Circular. Proof of work is simpler to describe and implement, which is attractive. Joining, then leaving, then joining and catching up is easy. Blockchain reorgs are easy. Compare the length of Bitcoin's whitepaper and any PoS whitepaper, or the cited link even. It'd be interesting for the author to share his intuitions for why it might be better.

splintercell 10y ago
>Proof of stake: the mechanism to secure the coins, uses the coins it's trying to secure. Circular. I think the term you're looking for is 'bootstrapping'. Once we have enough cryptocurrency via PoW, we can (and only then) implement PoS.
- wmf 10y ago
  You can initially distribute a currency any way you want, like an auction.
- Taek 10y ago
  No, it's not that simple. After you switch to a PoS system you still have all the problems. For example, who is allowed to vote is decided by who is currently voting. For example, PoS is typically signature based. What's to stop me from making more signatures after the fact? And how can a newbie tell which signatures I made first? These are hard problems, and they aren't the only ones, and solving the bootstrapping issue alone is not sufficient.
SkyMarshal 10y ago
>Circular. Circular, self-referential. Works great until it doesn't, then fails catastrophically. Most people don't think about the kind of risks that have low odds of occurrence but drastic consequences when they do occur (coughGFCcoughFukushimacough), especially not when blinded by $$$ in their eyes and/or the idea of being part of the next big thing. One interesting line of research in the field is in ways to anchor the security of the system or value of the network to something external. PoW does this by anchoring the value of the token and the security of the network in the cost of electricity. There are other experiments going on trying to anchor it to a basket of fiat currencies, for example, or other forms of cryptographic randomness. PoW I think will remain the most robust, but worth experimenting.
- jcoffland 10y ago
  coughDOAcough

by Rauchg 10y ago

splintercell 10y ago

>Proof of stake: the mechanism to secure the coins, uses the coins it's trying to secure. Circular. I think the term you're looking for is 'bootstrapping'. Once we have enough cryptocurrency via PoW, we can (and only then) implement PoS.

wmf 10y ago
You can initially distribute a currency any way you want, like an auction.
Taek 10y ago
No, it's not that simple. After you switch to a PoS system you still have all the problems. For example, who is allowed to vote is decided by who is currently voting. For example, PoS is typically signature based. What's to stop me from making more signatures after the fact? And how can a newbie tell which signatures I made first? These are hard problems, and they aren't the only ones, and solving the bootstrapping issue alone is not sufficient.

SkyMarshal 10y ago

>Circular. Circular, self-referential. Works great until it doesn't, then fails catastrophically. Most people don't think about the kind of risks that have low odds of occurrence but drastic consequences when they do occur (coughGFCcoughFukushimacough), especially not when blinded by $$$ in their eyes and/or the idea of being part of the next big thing. One interesting line of research in the field is in ways to anchor the security of the system or value of the network to something external. PoW does this by anchoring the value of the token and the security of the network in the cost of electricity. There are other experiments going on trying to anchor it to a basket of fiat currencies, for example, or other forms of cryptographic randomness. PoW I think will remain the most robust, but worth experimenting.

jcoffland 10y ago
coughDOAcough