3 ms·

That's an assertion that I haven't seen any data to back. I don't believe either (a) or (b) applies to either xtz or to ada, though ada hasn't yet deployed POS

by jki275 8y ago

That's an assertion that I haven't seen any data to back. I don't believe either (a) or (b) applies to either xtz or to ada, though ada hasn't yet deployed POS. I can well believe that there are broken POS implementations, there have been a lot of broken implementations of a lot of things in the space -- but claiming every system is known to be broken or cannot be analyzed is a very bold claim to make.

garmaine 8y ago
How would you expect a statement that certain mechanisms have become too complex for review to be backed by data? What observations could I convey to you over a HN comment other than “go look for yourself”? For a write up of the general, unavoidable problems of proof of stake, see Andrew Poelstra’s proof of stake FAQ.
- jki275 8y ago
  I gave you two of the best known examples of proof of stake that there are. The Tezos team has done it and it's been running for about a year now. The Cardano team is doing it, and I'll link their paper below. As far as Poelstra, that's a rather old document. A great deal of research has been done in the field since. Cardano's paper: https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/889.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/889.pdf
  - garmaine 8y ago
    No new research can overturn the basic fact that proof of stake claims to do is impossible. It's perpetual motion machine. You can make proof of stake schemes more complicated, but it doesn't gain you actual security, just obscurity. You can't actually achieve the desired outcome of proof-of-work properties for a stake-based consensus mechanism. What has happened instead is that the basic / easy to analyze systems were broken, and so complications were added that defeated the simple attacks, but really just make attacking it more complicated. But there's no asymmetric advantage against attackers here -- a similarly complex attack can be made for any proof of stake scheme.
    - jki275 8y ago
      If you want to claim it's a perpetual motion machine, you're going to have to prove that claim. There are a whole lot of very smart people who disagree with you.
      - garmaine 8y ago
        The paper by Poelstra has details.
        jki275 8y ago
        I read it. It's old, and the issues in it have been addressed. There have been several years of research since that paper was released. I've pointed you to an academic paper that addresses the issues. I'm done with this discussion as you're simply repeating the same things over and over.

by jki275 8y ago

garmaine 8y ago

How would you expect a statement that certain mechanisms have become too complex for review to be backed by data? What observations could I convey to you over a HN comment other than “go look for yourself”? For a write up of the general, unavoidable problems of proof of stake, see Andrew Poelstra’s proof of stake FAQ.

jki275 8y ago
I gave you two of the best known examples of proof of stake that there are. The Tezos team has done it and it's been running for about a year now. The Cardano team is doing it, and I'll link their paper below. As far as Poelstra, that's a rather old document. A great deal of research has been done in the field since. Cardano's paper: https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/889.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/889.pdf
- garmaine 8y ago
  No new research can overturn the basic fact that proof of stake claims to do is impossible. It's perpetual motion machine. You can make proof of stake schemes more complicated, but it doesn't gain you actual security, just obscurity. You can't actually achieve the desired outcome of proof-of-work properties for a stake-based consensus mechanism. What has happened instead is that the basic / easy to analyze systems were broken, and so complications were added that defeated the simple attacks, but really just make attacking it more complicated. But there's no asymmetric advantage against attackers here -- a similarly complex attack can be made for any proof of stake scheme.
  - jki275 8y ago
    If you want to claim it's a perpetual motion machine, you're going to have to prove that claim. There are a whole lot of very smart people who disagree with you.
    - garmaine 8y ago
      The paper by Poelstra has details.
      - jki275 8y ago
        I read it. It's old, and the issues in it have been addressed. There have been several years of research since that paper was released. I've pointed you to an academic paper that addresses the issues. I'm done with this discussion as you're simply repeating the same things over and over.