3 ms·
It seems very simple to me. The network would be controlled by custodians including exchanges and banks. And under an attack the network would be over: the mali
by ajkdhcb2 6y ago
It seems very simple to me. The network would be controlled by custodians including exchanges and banks. And under an attack the network would be over: the malicious stakers can basically pay themselves and suffer no cost to continue the attack. Conversely with PoW there is a sustained huge expense to continue to perform an attack, and the PoW can be changed by a fork. I would never consider this to be acceptable. Not that ASICs run by China aren't currently an abysmal situation either, but that is only a problem because bitcoin has no privacy
- DennisP 6y agoMalicious stakers could not reverse transactions without losing their stake. It's as if a 51% attacker in PoW got their mining rig burned down. Malicious stakers could indefinitely conduct a censorship attack. To address this, the PoS equivalent of changing the hash function would be to fork the chain and leave out the attackers' stake.