4 ms·

PoS creates a system by which block nomination and chain-tip extension is an elective procedure. Meaning companies could censor transaction at effectively 0 ma

PoS creates a system by which block nomination and chain-tip extension is an elective procedure. Meaning companies could censor transaction at effectively 0 marginal cost. Under a legal mandate, that method of consensus is untenable. See Szabo's tweet.

nootropicat 8y ago
If by elective you mean that validators can easily ignore past blocks, that can be solved by a commit/reveal algorithm or multi party computation.
- DINKDINK 8y ago
  >commit/reveal algorithm or multi party computation Which is out-of-band work that erodes the claimed 'savings' of PoS, relative to PoW, and would have been better spent increasing the security of all transactions on the chain. It also means that I have to be online see those orphaned blocks and to ensure those solutions algorithms acted. Example: US Government to Coinbase: "Thou Shalt never honor a block that originates from an 'IP out of' Iran" Coinbase to miners: "Hey Sorry we can't sell any eth from blocks that originate out of Iran" Miners: "Ok well if you promise to use the new chain, I'll create a costless alternate version, But you have to promise!!" Business A to Business B: "Wait I just got two chains, Which one is the real one? Has to check news hmmm this USGOV edict is bad. So which chain are you going to go with? Hmm I dunno Coinbase is so important, I Dunno maybe the coinbase chain. Ok I'll go with the coinbase chain if you go with the coinbase chain, But you have to promise!!" Move social consensus churn that erodes social scalability Business B: "Well, we're going to have to compensate the miners for this roll back some how" Business C: "Hey wait I accepted a transaction (15 blocks deep), shipped my products and then went offline and now had my payment rolled backed!" Total Not Centralizing Foundation: "The Foundation will cover all losses....again"
  - nootropicat 8y ago
    It's not possible to orphan blocks that are already in the chain you confirmed, as that's a contradictory vote. So at best one generator could orphan a few blocks, but then, what if the next block generator doesn't ignore them? Anything longer than a few blocks would require cooperation among majority and that's a failure mode in PoW too.
    - DINKDINK 8y ago
      >It's not possible to[...] Because there is no time-value trade off associated with delaying block create in PoS you can play games in the interim period of time. In PoW you pay a penalty for not building on a block. PoS basically tells network participants that there is 0 cost to not building on a block. See the lecture: Formal Barriers to Proof-of-Stake Protocols[1] for other failings of PoS. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGrWGMRbdvw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGrWGMRbdvw

nootropicat 8y ago

If by elective you mean that validators can easily ignore past blocks, that can be solved by a commit/reveal algorithm or multi party computation.

DINKDINK 8y ago
>commit/reveal algorithm or multi party computation Which is out-of-band work that erodes the claimed 'savings' of PoS, relative to PoW, and would have been better spent increasing the security of all transactions on the chain. It also means that I have to be online see those orphaned blocks and to ensure those solutions algorithms acted. Example: US Government to Coinbase: "Thou Shalt never honor a block that originates from an 'IP out of' Iran" Coinbase to miners: "Hey Sorry we can't sell any eth from blocks that originate out of Iran" Miners: "Ok well if you promise to use the new chain, I'll create a costless alternate version, But you have to promise!!" Business A to Business B: "Wait I just got two chains, Which one is the real one? Has to check news hmmm this USGOV edict is bad. So which chain are you going to go with? Hmm I dunno Coinbase is so important, I Dunno maybe the coinbase chain. Ok I'll go with the coinbase chain if you go with the coinbase chain, But you have to promise!!" Move social consensus churn that erodes social scalability Business B: "Well, we're going to have to compensate the miners for this roll back some how" Business C: "Hey wait I accepted a transaction (15 blocks deep), shipped my products and then went offline and now had my payment rolled backed!" Total Not Centralizing Foundation: "The Foundation will cover all losses....again"
- nootropicat 8y ago
  It's not possible to orphan blocks that are already in the chain you confirmed, as that's a contradictory vote. So at best one generator could orphan a few blocks, but then, what if the next block generator doesn't ignore them? Anything longer than a few blocks would require cooperation among majority and that's a failure mode in PoW too.
  - DINKDINK 8y ago
    >It's not possible to[...] Because there is no time-value trade off associated with delaying block create in PoS you can play games in the interim period of time. In PoW you pay a penalty for not building on a block. PoS basically tells network participants that there is 0 cost to not building on a block. See the lecture: Formal Barriers to Proof-of-Stake Protocols[1] for other failings of PoS. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGrWGMRbdvw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGrWGMRbdvw