9 ms·
Proof of work keeps the network fair. Non mining nodes have the final say. Proof of stake lets players with the most money have the most say.
by plebianRube 5y ago
Proof of work keeps the network fair. Non mining nodes have the final say. Proof of stake lets players with the most money have the most say.
- Barrin92 5y ago>Proof of stake lets players with the most money have the most say. Okay, and what do you think the mining equipment is acquired with exactly?
- izolate 5y agoIt's the non-mining nodes that verify transactions and have the final say, and those can be run on home devices by regular people. That's the difference.
- ses1984 5y agoNon mining nodes do diddly squat.
- inter_netuser 5y agoNonsense. If miners's new block isnt accepted by the network - they've just lost millions. Rules are enforced by block verification of the nodes that accept - or refuse to accept mined blocks. It's amazing that in 2021 people still do not understand the basics of it.
- zapdrive 5y agoNon mining nodes are programmed to follow the longest chain. That's so they are: readers. They are not writers. They act like slave nodes in a database. They have insignificant power in the grand scheme of things.
- nlitened 5y agoLongest _valid_ chain. Invalid blocks are just ignored.
- ses1984 5y agoThat’s what miners do as well.
- nlitened 5y agoYes. I just wanted to emphasize that in PoW coins, a rogue miner cannot force the whole network to accept blocks because all network participants (even passive non-miners) will just ignore the "invalid" block.
- ses1984 5y agoNo, but if all the miners fork from all the non mining nodes, the chain with all the miners will be more secure. If a minority of miners side with the non mining nodes, that chain will be more vulnerable to disruption.
- inter_netuser 5y agoWould you hire a security company again, if they refused to protect you when the push comes to shove? That's all miners are. Mercenaries hired for 10 minutes at a time.
- ses1984 5y agoYeah exactly. Not sure if you realize the implication of what happens if you arm a bunch of mercenaries and then fire them and turn your backs on them.
- inter_netuser 5y agoThis has already played out. The breakaway hostile fork is now worth 2 percent of the original work. So..nothing?
- inter_netuser 5y agoMiners don't really have much say, they cannot impose rules on the network, unlike PoS stakers. PoS malicious stakers lose nothing in case of a split. Miners should they attempt a 51% attack will lose everything. Not even in the same category.
- Sargos 5y ago>PoS malicious stakers lose nothing in case of a split You can only support one side of a fork in PoS and if you try to play both sides anyone can form a proof showing you mined both forks and your stake gets slashed. This is the Nothing At Stake problem and well understood which makes your comment pretty confusing.
- inter_netuser 5y agohow do you objectively find out who is the attacker, so that you do not slash the victim on accident?
- Sargos 5y agoCan you give an example of what you mean? There are no attackers or victims in the scenario of the chain forking and a block producer gooing out of their way to mine both chains with the same stake.
- inter_netuser 5y agothe chain splits in two. how do you know which one to continue staking on to avoid getting slashed?
- Sargos 5y agoBy default your validator software picks the unmodified chain unless you install a special update that lets it use the newly forked chain. If you do nothing you continue mining just one chain (the old one) and nothing is lost. If you validate with both then you are penalized. That can't really be done on accident.
- user-the-name 5y agoProof of work also boils the planet. It needs to be banned, yesterday.
- mr_woozy 5y agoBan your face!
- gjs278 5y agogood I hope it wipes out whatever area you live in first
- rawtxapp 5y agoJust put a carbon tax on everything with environmental side effects and let the market sort it out, otherwise who decides what get's banned? For example, I think cars contribute very significantly to global warming and use lots of fossil fuels, do I get to say, let's ban all cars and force everyone to use public transport? No!
- saalweachter 5y agoBans of future sales of ICE vehicles are a thing, a lot of countries either have them or are proposing them.
- inter_netuser 5y agoGonna have lot of exemptions. Long haul and industrial/farm/mining equipment cannot always run on batteries. We are going to have ICE's for a long time. Mindless bans like that, if overzealous, will just push even more of industry to Asia/China, where most of pollution happens today anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if China funds quite a few green causes, big boost for their industries, and they get to just ignore all emissions rules.
- pugz 5y agoI agree that there will likely be exceptions, but long-haul isn't one of them. The trucking industry is already subject to a lot of regulations around mandatory rest stops, so there are well-established break points along every major long-haul route. This has lead to things like [1] where it is significantly more economical for long-haulers to electrify their existing fleet than continue using diesel fuel. I suspect long-haul will reach 90% electrification long before last-mile trucking and private-use automotives. That said, I imagine you are spot on regarding farming - and pushing industry to less restrictive jurisdictions. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/apr/29/swap-and-go-electric-trucks-to-run-between-sydney-and-brisbane-using-exchangeable-batteries https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/apr/29/swap-...
- pshc 5y agoCan you elaborate what you mean by “the most say”? The nodes aren’t voting on political proposals. So long as one entity doesn’t control >50% of the validating nodes, it doesn’t really matter, does it?
- Entwickler 5y agoFrom https://vitalik.ca/general/2020/09/11/coordination.html https://vitalik.ca/general/2020/09/11/coordination.html "A large mining pool publicly showing how they have internally distributed their nodes and network dependencies doesn't do much to calm community members scared of mining centralization. And pictures like these, showing 90% of Bitcoin hashpower at the time being capable of showing up to the same conference panel, do quite a bit to scare people". If you follow the link, you'll see a picture of 7 people that controlled 90% of Bitcoin hashpower at the time. Remind me how that's more fair to an arbitrary holder of Bitcoin, than say, letting the holders have the power with staking?
- lisper 5y agoOr, for that matter, leaving fiscal matters in the hands of a central bank with a board of governors appointed by democratically elected officials? Honestly, I don't see how the status quo in crypto actually improves on that at all (unless you are in the ransomware business, of course. Then it makes sense.)
- inter_netuser 5y agoYou could try auditing central banks, see how long you can remain alive. Bitcoin is an open ledger that can be audited by anyone. That alone is a significant improvement. It is also the closest thing we have in practice to the "Ideal money" proposal by Nash, that Nash spent 20 years giving lectures about around the world. Nash's notes and slides on that: http://web.math.princeton.edu/jfnj/texts_and_graphics/Main.Content/IDEAL_MONEY.../ http://web.math.princeton.edu/jfnj/texts_and_graphics/Main.C... The improvement of status quo is quite obvious. Bitcoin is a potential solution to the Triffin's dilemma. This is something of the scale that can alter the course of history and impact every country on Earth.
- runeks 5y ago> Or, for that matter, leaving fiscal matters in the hands of a central bank with a board of governors appointed by democratically elected officials? Money shouldn't be democratic. I'm not OK with a majority deciding that they're entitled to my money. More generally, private property is a good thing. I don't want majority vote to decide whether I can keep the house or car that I own.