4 ms·

Yes, Ethereum is transitioning to proof of stake. Proof of stake is more secure than proof of work because an attacker must acquire a large amount of ETH each

by spir 7y ago

Yes, Ethereum is transitioning to proof of stake. Proof of stake is more secure than proof of work because an attacker must acquire a large amount of ETH each time they attempt an attack. Attacks against proof of stake are incredibly capital-inefficient.

marketingfool 7y ago
That's absolutely not true. Heck proof of stake is significantly less secure because you can have stakes working together to game the system.
nullc 7y ago
Ethereum has been announcing "proof of stake" since before their original launch. Yet, years after their deadline and their second deadline and their third deadline... it still isn't there. Multiple hardforks to push back the logic bomb in their consensus rules that was originally supposed to guarantee its successful deployment... Now their target has been to create a new parallel cryptocurrency (eth2) and let you buy into it with your eth. If your goal is a decentralized system POS is just a fundamentally broken idea, as was known years ago (and long before ethereum existed https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf ). Ethereum isn't a decentralized system-- as demonstrated by them editing balances to recover coins the ETH administrators personally lost by gambling on an ill-advised contract-- but they have to keep up the pretext.
- Acrobatic_Road 7y ago
  >Ethereum isn't a decentralized system-- as demonstrated by them editing balances to recover coins the ETH administrators personally lost by gambling on an ill-advised contract Uh, I'm fairly sure this never happened but you're welcome to provide a source.
  - tromp 7y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_DAO_(organization) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_DAO_(organization)
    - Acrobatic_Road 7y ago
      Not what he is referring to, the DAO was not a gambling contract and the funds lost accounted for ~14% of all ETH, not some administrators' personal losses. Those who disagreed with the proposed hard fork stayed on what became Ethereum Classic and everyone else jumped ship to what is now Ethereum.
      - nullc 7y ago
        That is exactly what I was referring to. DAO was an "investment" with an unspecified way to make money, it was essentially a gamble. The funds in it were a majority coming from ethereum foundation members. The reason that they were 14% of all ethereum at the time was that at the time something like 85% of ethereum in existance had been premined by the ethereum foundation (at the moment it's 75%). Most people who opposed the fork also stayed with ethereum because the ethereum foundation, which they'd collectively invested millions in, announced it would not support the fork. (in fact, it announced that the fork wouldn't even exist-- which caused companies like coinbase hundreds of thousands in losses from replays due to not being prepared for it)
        Acrobatic_Road 7y ago
        >That is exactly what I was referring to. DAO was an "investment" with an unspecified way to make money, it was essentially a gamble. The DAO was supposed to be a VC firm. If you want to say that the DAO was gambling then so is all Venture Capital. > The funds in it were a majority coming from ethereum foundation members. The reason that they were 14% of all ethereum at the time was that at the time something like 85% of ethereum in existance had been premined by the ethereum foundation (at the moment it's 75%). What a laughably stupid thing to say. Ethereum did an ICO before that term was a thing, mined a shit ton of ETH and sold almost all of it for Bitcoin. By the time the DAO was a thing the Ethereum foundation controlled ~12M ETH, which did not overlap with the ~11.5M ETH in the DAO (The funds were for the development of Ethereum, not speculative purposes). There was an additional some 60M ETH from the initial sale + ETH from newly mined blocks, not in the DAO and not part of the ETH foundation. >Most people who opposed the fork also stayed with ethereum because the ethereum foundation, which they'd collectively invested millions in, announced it would not support the fork. The Ethereum foundation announced it would not support what exactly? If you mean Ethereum Classic well that is not a fork of anything - but a continuation of the original DAO chain. 11% of people voted against the Ethereum fork and presumably did not migrate (or likely just used both). >in fact, it announced that the fork wouldn't even exist-- which caused companies like coinbase hundreds of thousands in losses from replays due to not being prepared for it Er, what? Assuming you are referring to ETC, which again is the original chain, the Ethereum Foundation does not have the power to determine its existence or non-existence. The original chained continued to be mined and supported by nodes.
aeternum 7y ago
>attacker must acquire a large amount of ETH The issue with proof-of-stake: How do you define consensus on what ETH is? Without PoW, an attacker can cheaply generate an alternate history in which they control a large amount of ETH. If the alternate history is accepted, they benefit, and if not, they risked nothing.
- MadWombat 7y ago
  I would expect that this is because the rest of the network needs to agree with your version of history. And they will only accept your vote if you stake the currency they already recognize, not the currency you made up in your version. So to make the network accept a history version where you have a lot of money you need a lot of money.
  - aeternum 7y ago
    A peer has no way of knowing which 'network' is real. Since there is no proof of work, it is effectively free to generate any number of alternate histories or blockchains (this is known as 'costless simulation'). It becomes trivial to generate the longest chain. This is a real problem, and some PoW currencies like NXT have proposed solving it by using an out-of-band solution like asking friends or trusted nodes whether you are on the right root blockchain. This defeats the very purpose of a decentralized currency. If you're going to trust a core set of nodes, just use a centralized database with M-of-N access control.
Huycfhct 7y ago
There is no evidence to back up this statement that PoS will be more secure. It's an over-marketed tech with no solid theory behind it

by spir 7y ago

marketingfool 7y ago

That's absolutely not true. Heck proof of stake is significantly less secure because you can have stakes working together to game the system.

nullc 7y ago

Ethereum has been announcing "proof of stake" since before their original launch. Yet, years after their deadline and their second deadline and their third deadline... it still isn't there. Multiple hardforks to push back the logic bomb in their consensus rules that was originally supposed to guarantee its successful deployment... Now their target has been to create a new parallel cryptocurrency (eth2) and let you buy into it with your eth. If your goal is a decentralized system POS is just a fundamentally broken idea, as was known years ago (and long before ethereum existed https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf ). Ethereum isn't a decentralized system-- as demonstrated by them editing balances to recover coins the ETH administrators personally lost by gambling on an ill-advised contract-- but they have to keep up the pretext.

Acrobatic_Road 7y ago
>Ethereum isn't a decentralized system-- as demonstrated by them editing balances to recover coins the ETH administrators personally lost by gambling on an ill-advised contract Uh, I'm fairly sure this never happened but you're welcome to provide a source.
- tromp 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_DAO_(organization) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_DAO_(organization)
  - Acrobatic_Road 7y ago
    Not what he is referring to, the DAO was not a gambling contract and the funds lost accounted for ~14% of all ETH, not some administrators' personal losses. Those who disagreed with the proposed hard fork stayed on what became Ethereum Classic and everyone else jumped ship to what is now Ethereum.
    - nullc 7y ago
      That is exactly what I was referring to. DAO was an "investment" with an unspecified way to make money, it was essentially a gamble. The funds in it were a majority coming from ethereum foundation members. The reason that they were 14% of all ethereum at the time was that at the time something like 85% of ethereum in existance had been premined by the ethereum foundation (at the moment it's 75%). Most people who opposed the fork also stayed with ethereum because the ethereum foundation, which they'd collectively invested millions in, announced it would not support the fork. (in fact, it announced that the fork wouldn't even exist-- which caused companies like coinbase hundreds of thousands in losses from replays due to not being prepared for it)
      - Acrobatic_Road 7y ago
        >That is exactly what I was referring to. DAO was an "investment" with an unspecified way to make money, it was essentially a gamble. The DAO was supposed to be a VC firm. If you want to say that the DAO was gambling then so is all Venture Capital. > The funds in it were a majority coming from ethereum foundation members. The reason that they were 14% of all ethereum at the time was that at the time something like 85% of ethereum in existance had been premined by the ethereum foundation (at the moment it's 75%). What a laughably stupid thing to say. Ethereum did an ICO before that term was a thing, mined a shit ton of ETH and sold almost all of it for Bitcoin. By the time the DAO was a thing the Ethereum foundation controlled ~12M ETH, which did not overlap with the ~11.5M ETH in the DAO (The funds were for the development of Ethereum, not speculative purposes). There was an additional some 60M ETH from the initial sale + ETH from newly mined blocks, not in the DAO and not part of the ETH foundation. >Most people who opposed the fork also stayed with ethereum because the ethereum foundation, which they'd collectively invested millions in, announced it would not support the fork. The Ethereum foundation announced it would not support what exactly? If you mean Ethereum Classic well that is not a fork of anything - but a continuation of the original DAO chain. 11% of people voted against the Ethereum fork and presumably did not migrate (or likely just used both). >in fact, it announced that the fork wouldn't even exist-- which caused companies like coinbase hundreds of thousands in losses from replays due to not being prepared for it Er, what? Assuming you are referring to ETC, which again is the original chain, the Ethereum Foundation does not have the power to determine its existence or non-existence. The original chained continued to be mined and supported by nodes.

aeternum 7y ago

>attacker must acquire a large amount of ETH The issue with proof-of-stake: How do you define consensus on what ETH is? Without PoW, an attacker can cheaply generate an alternate history in which they control a large amount of ETH. If the alternate history is accepted, they benefit, and if not, they risked nothing.

MadWombat 7y ago
I would expect that this is because the rest of the network needs to agree with your version of history. And they will only accept your vote if you stake the currency they already recognize, not the currency you made up in your version. So to make the network accept a history version where you have a lot of money you need a lot of money.
- aeternum 7y ago
  A peer has no way of knowing which 'network' is real. Since there is no proof of work, it is effectively free to generate any number of alternate histories or blockchains (this is known as 'costless simulation'). It becomes trivial to generate the longest chain. This is a real problem, and some PoW currencies like NXT have proposed solving it by using an out-of-band solution like asking friends or trusted nodes whether you are on the right root blockchain. This defeats the very purpose of a decentralized currency. If you're going to trust a core set of nodes, just use a centralized database with M-of-N access control.

Huycfhct 7y ago

There is no evidence to back up this statement that PoS will be more secure. It's an over-marketed tech with no solid theory behind it