4 ms·

I already said formal proofs are not sufficient, what more do you want me to say?

• runeks 9y ago
  I'm interested in knowing which assumptions these formal proofs rely on. My general point is that, without stating which assumptions lay ground to a formal proof, the statement that something has been "formally proven" conveys no useful information at all, since the assumptions in question can either make or break the proof (as in the case of WPA2).
  • drcode 9y ago
    Ok, in that case apologies for snapping back at you :) sounds like you are genuinely interested in the details I'm no expert on ethereum POS, but afaik the proofs guarantee that when two conflicting blocks reach the "finalised" state then two thirds of stake are owned by parties that failed to follow a rule in the staking protocol and therefore their deposit can be forfeited. There are also proofs relating to validator cycling and long range attacks (which can never be completely prevented with POS, clients need to sync periodically to make sure they aren't receiving bad data)
    • lostmsu 9y ago
      I am also interested in the details. The critics in my comment was basically targeted towards them not releasing the technical details on their progress on Casper. We already know there were problems with proof of stake consensus algorithms before. I would like to see them telling, that they solved them.