5 ms·

That's not true. Pure, non hybrid PoS has never been deployed on any crypto at scale. The fact that Ethereum is on their 3rd iteration and still can't figure ou

That's not true. Pure, non hybrid PoS has never been deployed on any crypto at scale. The fact that Ethereum is on their 3rd iteration and still can't figure out how to make it work years after promised delivery should be alarming at least.

TylerE 8y ago
This news is good for Bitcoin.
cdiddy2 8y ago
Is Tezos not pure PoS?
- anthonybsd 8y ago
  Tezos uses delegated PoS, so no, I don't think it qualifies. D-PoS is sort of antithetical to the idea of decentralized blockchain due to a small number of nodes and very questionable process of node (witness) selection.
  - wmf 8y ago
    Won't any pure PoS system naturally evolve stake pooling that looks like DPoS?
    - murbard2 8y ago
      There are two attractors, it could push people to do it themselves but I think it's more likely that it evolves in stake pooling. Stake pooling in pure PoS involving trusting the pool operator to a great deal and I'm concerned it degenerates to a very centralized system. Adding optional delegation is a safety valve that takes this into consideration. What Tezos does is merely let you lose a different key to custody funds and to create blocks. By itself this creates the possibility of delegation. Last but not least, with trusted hardware the difference blurs even more.
      - aey 8y ago
        Just my personal opinion, but designing a system that doesn’t allow for secure pooling will only enable insecure pooling. So making the choice to force people to share private keys as the only way to delegate capital will make the overall system a lot less secure, and just seems really irresponsible.
        w1nt3rmu4e 8y ago
        Delegation does not require sharing private keys. Nor does it require transferring XTZ to anywhere other than your own wallet. Ever. Period. The only risk associated with delegation is that the baker will run off with the baking rewards instead of distributing them. Of course, the incentive is low since this can only be done once. The community is active is discussing the trustworthiness of bakers (which, to date, has been pretty much all of them). The staking risk (risk of losing a bond) is entirely on the baker. This incentivizes them to make sure they're not double baking or otherwise running misbehaving nodes.
        aey 8y ago
        My point exactly. Without delegation the only way to pool capital is to give up ownership.
    - josu 8y ago
      Unless they somehow integrate PoS in the wallets, yes.
    - DennisP 8y ago
      In Ethereum there's one disincentive to stake pooling: if a staker misbehaves, perhaps because it got hacked, the penalty depends on how much stake misbehaves at once. A large amount of misbehaving stake could be completely destroyed, while a small amount will lose only a small portion. This is mainly because a small amount does no damage and is presumed to be accidental, but also helps decentralize since you're safest not using a large staking pool, the most popular client, the most popular hosting service, etc. Running as a small staker is feasible because the minimum stake is only 32 ETH, you're profitable if you're online at least 2/3 of the time, and the load on an individual node is feasible for a laptop. The computational load increases fairly linearly with the amount of stake, so there's little economy of scale for a large staker.
    - collincusce 8y ago
      You need to control 2/3rds of the stake and be able to coordinate decisions with each staking node before the block time is over to fuck up the network. Considering that PoS can enable more tunable block times as validators no longer will churn out random numbers on GPUs/ASICs to mine a new block, I think this will be a non-issue.
  - Quiark 8y ago
    Did you just describe Bitcoin miners?
    - anthonybsd 8y ago
      If you mean mining pools, then no. Yes, they have consolidated power, but their selection process still relies on external resource (i.e. energy).
  - cdiddy2 8y ago
    Looked more into it, this seems to put Tezos somewhere in the middle. https://medium.com/tezos/liquid-proof-of-stake-aec2f7ef1da7 https://medium.com/tezos/liquid-proof-of-stake-aec2f7ef1da7 However after reading that I am pretty sure the current Ethereum Serenity spec allows for delegation as well, so it seems to be on the same level Proof of Stake
  - w1nt3rmu4e 8y ago
    Incorrect. 1. The number of nodes is not fixed. 2. The process for node selection is random, based on the amount staked. This happens continuously. 3. The D in DPoS is entirely optional. Anyone holding Tezos can directly participate by running a node. The only cost is the cost of a VPS. The only real restriction* is a 10000 XTZ minimum for running a node. At current / ICO prices that's around $5k. While that's not cheap it's a lot more attractive than the CAPEX/OPEX of mining hardware. Also, that $5k will grow by 5.5%++ per year, i.e., no depreciation of hardware and only a trivial amount of overhead. Those not wanting to run a node (or with less than 10k XTZ) can delegate to a baker. There are a wealth of them available already. *This restriction may be lowered in the future -- by way of on-chain voting (as opposed to a hard fork).
    - andimule 8y ago
      Good points, though I'll just clarify that 10000 XTZ is only required if you want your node to produce blocks. Some numbers regarding decentralisation: The last couple of (3-day) cycles the number of unique blockproducing nodes (bakers) has averaged just above 200 pr cycle, and is steadily increasing. The Tezos foundation nodes are now down to producing ~25% of the blocks. I recommend this post for anyone interested in Tezos 'Liquid Proof of Stake'-model: https://medium.com/tezos/liquid-proof-of-stake-aec2f7ef1da7 https://medium.com/tezos/liquid-proof-of-stake-aec2f7ef1da7
DennisP 8y ago
They changed from the previous version because they figured out how to have ten times as many shards, lower the minimum stake from 1500 ETH to 32 ETH, and remove code duplication that the previous version would have required. It's incorrect to say they "can't figure out how to make it work." They figured out one way, then a much better way. Right now they have a near-complete spec; the remaining changes are small optimizations. Eight independent teams are working on implementations in various languages.
int_19h 8y ago
I think the point is that all cryptocurrencies that we have currently are experimental in that sense, and so it's a good time to experiment with unproven concepts. Maybe that means ETH will crash and burn, but so what? It's a minuscule part of overall economy, so aside from people who decided to seriously invest into it (i.e. alpha testers), it's not a big deal. But, on the other hand, we do want to figure out what works before we start using these things at scale, when it's much harder to change.
hanniabu 8y ago
That's incorrect. There are plenty of chains with pure PoS, and the reason it's taking Ethereum so long is because they have an established PoW chain that they are trying to seamlessly transition to PoS. At the same time they are also working on taking into consideration more aspects like how it works with their platform/smart contracts and sharding. I'm sure there's many other considerations I'm not aware of as well. All other pure PoS implementations are much simpler as they're just simple payment blockchains which greatly reduces the difficulties and moving parts.
- collincusce 8y ago
  I haven't seen a pure PoS chain and I'm pretty heavy in the space. I HAVE seen a LOT of dPoS chains, which isn't the same.
  - hanniabu 8y ago
    Off the top of my head there's PIVX and Blocknet.
    - collincusce 8y ago
      Neither of which are pure PoS.
  - max_ 8y ago
    Have u seen Qtum?
Zamicol 8y ago
Blackcoin? That was years ago.
jki275 8y ago
XTZ, RDD, there are numerous other POS coins. The ETH network doesn't want to make it work.

TylerE 8y ago

This news is good for Bitcoin.

cdiddy2 8y ago

Is Tezos not pure PoS?

anthonybsd 8y ago
Tezos uses delegated PoS, so no, I don't think it qualifies. D-PoS is sort of antithetical to the idea of decentralized blockchain due to a small number of nodes and very questionable process of node (witness) selection.
- wmf 8y ago
  Won't any pure PoS system naturally evolve stake pooling that looks like DPoS?
  - murbard2 8y ago
    There are two attractors, it could push people to do it themselves but I think it's more likely that it evolves in stake pooling. Stake pooling in pure PoS involving trusting the pool operator to a great deal and I'm concerned it degenerates to a very centralized system. Adding optional delegation is a safety valve that takes this into consideration. What Tezos does is merely let you lose a different key to custody funds and to create blocks. By itself this creates the possibility of delegation. Last but not least, with trusted hardware the difference blurs even more.
    - aey 8y ago
      Just my personal opinion, but designing a system that doesn’t allow for secure pooling will only enable insecure pooling. So making the choice to force people to share private keys as the only way to delegate capital will make the overall system a lot less secure, and just seems really irresponsible.
      - w1nt3rmu4e 8y ago
        Delegation does not require sharing private keys. Nor does it require transferring XTZ to anywhere other than your own wallet. Ever. Period. The only risk associated with delegation is that the baker will run off with the baking rewards instead of distributing them. Of course, the incentive is low since this can only be done once. The community is active is discussing the trustworthiness of bakers (which, to date, has been pretty much all of them). The staking risk (risk of losing a bond) is entirely on the baker. This incentivizes them to make sure they're not double baking or otherwise running misbehaving nodes.
        aey 8y ago
        My point exactly. Without delegation the only way to pool capital is to give up ownership.
  - josu 8y ago
    Unless they somehow integrate PoS in the wallets, yes.
  - DennisP 8y ago
    In Ethereum there's one disincentive to stake pooling: if a staker misbehaves, perhaps because it got hacked, the penalty depends on how much stake misbehaves at once. A large amount of misbehaving stake could be completely destroyed, while a small amount will lose only a small portion. This is mainly because a small amount does no damage and is presumed to be accidental, but also helps decentralize since you're safest not using a large staking pool, the most popular client, the most popular hosting service, etc. Running as a small staker is feasible because the minimum stake is only 32 ETH, you're profitable if you're online at least 2/3 of the time, and the load on an individual node is feasible for a laptop. The computational load increases fairly linearly with the amount of stake, so there's little economy of scale for a large staker.
  - collincusce 8y ago
    You need to control 2/3rds of the stake and be able to coordinate decisions with each staking node before the block time is over to fuck up the network. Considering that PoS can enable more tunable block times as validators no longer will churn out random numbers on GPUs/ASICs to mine a new block, I think this will be a non-issue.
- Quiark 8y ago
  Did you just describe Bitcoin miners?
  - anthonybsd 8y ago
    If you mean mining pools, then no. Yes, they have consolidated power, but their selection process still relies on external resource (i.e. energy).
- cdiddy2 8y ago
  Looked more into it, this seems to put Tezos somewhere in the middle. https://medium.com/tezos/liquid-proof-of-stake-aec2f7ef1da7 https://medium.com/tezos/liquid-proof-of-stake-aec2f7ef1da7 However after reading that I am pretty sure the current Ethereum Serenity spec allows for delegation as well, so it seems to be on the same level Proof of Stake
- w1nt3rmu4e 8y ago
  Incorrect. 1. The number of nodes is not fixed. 2. The process for node selection is random, based on the amount staked. This happens continuously. 3. The D in DPoS is entirely optional. Anyone holding Tezos can directly participate by running a node. The only cost is the cost of a VPS. The only real restriction* is a 10000 XTZ minimum for running a node. At current / ICO prices that's around $5k. While that's not cheap it's a lot more attractive than the CAPEX/OPEX of mining hardware. Also, that $5k will grow by 5.5%++ per year, i.e., no depreciation of hardware and only a trivial amount of overhead. Those not wanting to run a node (or with less than 10k XTZ) can delegate to a baker. There are a wealth of them available already. *This restriction may be lowered in the future -- by way of on-chain voting (as opposed to a hard fork).
  - andimule 8y ago
    Good points, though I'll just clarify that 10000 XTZ is only required if you want your node to produce blocks. Some numbers regarding decentralisation: The last couple of (3-day) cycles the number of unique blockproducing nodes (bakers) has averaged just above 200 pr cycle, and is steadily increasing. The Tezos foundation nodes are now down to producing ~25% of the blocks. I recommend this post for anyone interested in Tezos 'Liquid Proof of Stake'-model: https://medium.com/tezos/liquid-proof-of-stake-aec2f7ef1da7 https://medium.com/tezos/liquid-proof-of-stake-aec2f7ef1da7

DennisP 8y ago

They changed from the previous version because they figured out how to have ten times as many shards, lower the minimum stake from 1500 ETH to 32 ETH, and remove code duplication that the previous version would have required. It's incorrect to say they "can't figure out how to make it work." They figured out one way, then a much better way. Right now they have a near-complete spec; the remaining changes are small optimizations. Eight independent teams are working on implementations in various languages.

int_19h 8y ago

I think the point is that all cryptocurrencies that we have currently are experimental in that sense, and so it's a good time to experiment with unproven concepts. Maybe that means ETH will crash and burn, but so what? It's a minuscule part of overall economy, so aside from people who decided to seriously invest into it (i.e. alpha testers), it's not a big deal. But, on the other hand, we do want to figure out what works before we start using these things at scale, when it's much harder to change.

hanniabu 8y ago

That's incorrect. There are plenty of chains with pure PoS, and the reason it's taking Ethereum so long is because they have an established PoW chain that they are trying to seamlessly transition to PoS. At the same time they are also working on taking into consideration more aspects like how it works with their platform/smart contracts and sharding. I'm sure there's many other considerations I'm not aware of as well. All other pure PoS implementations are much simpler as they're just simple payment blockchains which greatly reduces the difficulties and moving parts.

collincusce 8y ago
I haven't seen a pure PoS chain and I'm pretty heavy in the space. I HAVE seen a LOT of dPoS chains, which isn't the same.
- hanniabu 8y ago
  Off the top of my head there's PIVX and Blocknet.
  - collincusce 8y ago
    Neither of which are pure PoS.
- max_ 8y ago
  Have u seen Qtum?

Zamicol 8y ago

Blackcoin? That was years ago.

jki275 8y ago

XTZ, RDD, there are numerous other POS coins. The ETH network doesn't want to make it work.