4 ms·

The HN narrative engine is so biased towards ETH that some are even asking for advice on where to buy ETH. This is ridiculous, just think through the consequenc

The HN narrative engine is so biased towards ETH that some are even asking for advice on where to buy ETH. This is ridiculous, just think through the consequences of a PoS system, you all are smart folks, I presume.

stingraycharles 5y ago
It seems like you’re insinuating that there are negative consequences to the PoS system, but leave it up to the reader to think really deep and understand what those consequences are. I’m not well versed into PoS systems, but just took a look at ethereum’s explanation and it sounded reasonable, but I’m not familiar with the details and trade-offs that are being made. Care to enlighten me what you’re referring to?
- fredfoobar 5y ago
  The negative consequences were mentioned in another comment: You should first get "well versed into PoS systems", The stakers (and their adjoints) can collude and decide to reorg the chain for a different outcome. This can be done indefinitely at no additional cost. In a PoW system, you not only have to expend capex for mining equipment, you hare further discouraged by the huge CONTINUED opex (energy) cost. The energy required to change the state of the chain is similar (or greater) than the energy it took to make the first version.
  - fredfoobar 5y ago
    Not to mention the cavalier attitude towards their tokenomics (quite literally monetary policy now), how often they can change it. It simply doesn't inspire confidence. A monetary layer should be immutable once a good set of rules have been found to be working well. Just think about it, if a protocol layer on the internet changes its protocol parameters based on some trends, is it a good idea? Bitcoin is like another protocol layer on the internet protocol stack, you build other layers on top of the base monetary layer. You reduce the possibility of bugs in a layer disrupting the whole ecosystem and make the layer more maintainable.
  - exo762 5y ago
    > The stakers (and their adjoints) can collude and decide to reorg the chain for a different outcome. This can be done indefinitely at no additional cost. No, they can't. As a part of the attack they will have to produce a two different signatures for the same decision (block N has hash X). This is where slashing comes in - anyone can submit those signatures to the chain to slash signers.
    - fredfoobar 5y ago
      Sir, this has been discussed extensively whenever it comes up. Who will slash the slashers?? Just THINK about the complexity you're introducing, you're just obfuscating the system more and more to just avoid some loopholes, while not eliminating it either.
      - exo762 5y ago
        > Who will slash the slashers?? Anyone who can produce a block with the proof inside. Attack you are describing depends on attackers having not 51% of the stake, but 100% of the stake. > while not eliminating it either. You would have to show this, not just claim.

stingraycharles 5y ago

It seems like you’re insinuating that there are negative consequences to the PoS system, but leave it up to the reader to think really deep and understand what those consequences are. I’m not well versed into PoS systems, but just took a look at ethereum’s explanation and it sounded reasonable, but I’m not familiar with the details and trade-offs that are being made. Care to enlighten me what you’re referring to?

fredfoobar 5y ago
The negative consequences were mentioned in another comment: You should first get "well versed into PoS systems", The stakers (and their adjoints) can collude and decide to reorg the chain for a different outcome. This can be done indefinitely at no additional cost. In a PoW system, you not only have to expend capex for mining equipment, you hare further discouraged by the huge CONTINUED opex (energy) cost. The energy required to change the state of the chain is similar (or greater) than the energy it took to make the first version.
- fredfoobar 5y ago
  Not to mention the cavalier attitude towards their tokenomics (quite literally monetary policy now), how often they can change it. It simply doesn't inspire confidence. A monetary layer should be immutable once a good set of rules have been found to be working well. Just think about it, if a protocol layer on the internet changes its protocol parameters based on some trends, is it a good idea? Bitcoin is like another protocol layer on the internet protocol stack, you build other layers on top of the base monetary layer. You reduce the possibility of bugs in a layer disrupting the whole ecosystem and make the layer more maintainable.
- exo762 5y ago
  > The stakers (and their adjoints) can collude and decide to reorg the chain for a different outcome. This can be done indefinitely at no additional cost. No, they can't. As a part of the attack they will have to produce a two different signatures for the same decision (block N has hash X). This is where slashing comes in - anyone can submit those signatures to the chain to slash signers.
  - fredfoobar 5y ago
    Sir, this has been discussed extensively whenever it comes up. Who will slash the slashers?? Just THINK about the complexity you're introducing, you're just obfuscating the system more and more to just avoid some loopholes, while not eliminating it either.
    - exo762 5y ago
      > Who will slash the slashers?? Anyone who can produce a block with the proof inside. Attack you are describing depends on attackers having not 51% of the stake, but 100% of the stake. > while not eliminating it either. You would have to show this, not just claim.