5 ms·
Yes. But thats the point of PoS. Why would someone who owns >50% of something want to destroy it? Literally hurting yourself more just to hurt others a lesser a
by tryptophan 6y ago
Yes. But thats the point of PoS. Why would someone who owns >50% of something want to destroy it? Literally hurting yourself more just to hurt others a lesser amount.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jillesvangurp 6y agoAlso, it would be kind of visible and hard to hide. With sufficient high profile stake holders, this would be very unlikely to happen and even harder to hide.
- tskulbru 6y agoUnrealistic surely but, "Some just wants to watch the world burn"
- flixic 6y agoAnother aspect of PoS: it makes these attacks incredibly expensive. Currently staked value is over half a billion USD.
- mathnmusic 6y agoCorrect me if I'm wrong, but if you own > 50% and get the ability to reverse transactions, it can still go undetected. So it's possible to hurt others without hurting yourself.
- CydeWeys 6y agoHow would it go undetected? The people whose transactions are being reversed would definitely notice, as would anyone else paying close attention to said transactions.
- Cthulhu_ 6y agoIn theory yes, but in practice the people most involved (holding large stakes) would pull out of the system en masse, crashing the value and (probably) the whole network with it. Same with BTC. In theory anyway.
- progval 6y agoWhat if those people had more to lose by pulling out than pretending nothing happened as long as the 51% attacker does not abuse it "too much"?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- everfree 6y agoIt definitely doesn't go undetected, as the conflicting transactions would have to be in blocks both forking from a common block, both signed by the attacker, which is a slashing condition that would burn their staked ether.
- yodsanklai 6y agoOk, but suppose someone owns 50% of the tokens. Doesn't this mean the system is de facto centralized. Even if the majority holder behave well, how is it better than a centralized solution?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Reedx 6y agoIf a large government decides it's a problem, would they hold it or destroy it?
- floatboth 6y agoSomeone (very rich) could bet even more money on that thing falling..?