4 ms·

I think this article is saying that proof of stake doesn’t work because the community can decide to ignore the consensus algorithm and pick a different, modifie

I think this article is saying that proof of stake doesn’t work because the community can decide to ignore the consensus algorithm and pick a different, modified chain. Proof of work has the same property though, as exhibited by the author’s own example of ETH vs ETC.

slownews45 5y ago
And both chains continue - but it usually becomes very clear which chain is stronger - and the weaker chain can be killed off because it can be attacked more easily - which devales the value of that chain. 24 vs 520 in this case is the has rate difference, or a 20x difference.
- codyb 5y ago
  I guess... how long does it take to determine this? I have a transaction on a PoS PoS (lol) chain, and then... I guess... I've given my goods away for some coins. Now... it turns out my coins are lost because it was on the weaker chain? Not trying to be disingenuous here. Is this occurring in a matter of a few blocks, a few days? Does this bring crypto closer or further from potentially being an actual currency one day? I tend to think this centralizes things (PoS as opposed to PoW). I can't imagine I'd want to put my money into some whale controlled currency personally. But I'm not sure that part has really changed considering I think of PoW as relatively whale controlled (and rather centralized, and against all of the generally accepted Keynesian economic theories).
  - slownews45 5y ago
    A POS POS chain may not have a ton of value or attacks. But when splitting off, ETC for example probably was hit by some attacks until the value was gone. The way it works is whoever accepted your coins can have them lost and you could respend them if you were the attacker. https://www.coindesk.com/ethereum-classic-blockchain-subject-to-yet-another-51-attack https://www.coindesk.com/ethereum-classic-blockchain-subject...
gruez 5y ago
I think the difference here is that doing so would be a hardfork and would require everyone to opt into the change. Contrast this with PoS where if 51% of the stakers woke up one morning and decided to rewrite the last 2 weeks of the chain they can immediately do so, and anyone who disagrees must opt out.
- everfree 5y ago
  With slashing PoS, if stakers tried to rewrite the left 2 weeks of the chain they could have their stake taken away as a penalty for signing votes on multiple forks.
  - gruez 5y ago
    According to this other comment[1], it looks like as long as you're on the winning side you're not punished? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27237610 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27237610
datadata 5y ago
I think the author's point is that in a PoW fork, the hash power is a fixed resource and must split between forks. In a PoS fork, prefork holders can stake the same amount of coins on both forks, thereby "doubling" the total coin being staked. With PoW, the fact that the hash power has to split between forks gives a mechanism for a consensus between forks to be found. With PoS forks, you might as well just continue to stake both forks.
- dstaley 5y ago
  There's already a solution to this: https://eth.wiki/concepts/proof-of-stake-faqs#what-is-the-nothing-at-stake-problem-and-how-can-it-be-fixed https://eth.wiki/concepts/proof-of-stake-faqs#what-is-the-no...
  - gruez 5y ago
    >This can be solved via two strategies. The first, described in broad terms under the name “Slasher” here and developed further by Iddo Bentov here, involves penalizing validators if they simultaneously create blocks on multiple chains, by means of including proof of misbehavior (ie. two conflicting signed block headers) into the blockchain as a later point in time at which point the malfeasant validator’s deposit is deducted appropriately. [...] The second strategy is to simply punish validators for creating blocks on the wrong chain. Which one does ethereum use?
    - dstaley 5y ago
      I believe Casper (Ethereum's PoW protocol) uses the second strategy.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - Dzugaru 5y ago

slownews45 5y ago

And both chains continue - but it usually becomes very clear which chain is stronger - and the weaker chain can be killed off because it can be attacked more easily - which devales the value of that chain. 24 vs 520 in this case is the has rate difference, or a 20x difference.

codyb 5y ago
I guess... how long does it take to determine this? I have a transaction on a PoS PoS (lol) chain, and then... I guess... I've given my goods away for some coins. Now... it turns out my coins are lost because it was on the weaker chain? Not trying to be disingenuous here. Is this occurring in a matter of a few blocks, a few days? Does this bring crypto closer or further from potentially being an actual currency one day? I tend to think this centralizes things (PoS as opposed to PoW). I can't imagine I'd want to put my money into some whale controlled currency personally. But I'm not sure that part has really changed considering I think of PoW as relatively whale controlled (and rather centralized, and against all of the generally accepted Keynesian economic theories).
- slownews45 5y ago
  A POS POS chain may not have a ton of value or attacks. But when splitting off, ETC for example probably was hit by some attacks until the value was gone. The way it works is whoever accepted your coins can have them lost and you could respend them if you were the attacker. https://www.coindesk.com/ethereum-classic-blockchain-subject-to-yet-another-51-attack https://www.coindesk.com/ethereum-classic-blockchain-subject...

gruez 5y ago

I think the difference here is that doing so would be a hardfork and would require everyone to opt into the change. Contrast this with PoS where if 51% of the stakers woke up one morning and decided to rewrite the last 2 weeks of the chain they can immediately do so, and anyone who disagrees must opt out.

everfree 5y ago
With slashing PoS, if stakers tried to rewrite the left 2 weeks of the chain they could have their stake taken away as a penalty for signing votes on multiple forks.
- gruez 5y ago
  According to this other comment[1], it looks like as long as you're on the winning side you're not punished? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27237610 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27237610

datadata 5y ago

I think the author's point is that in a PoW fork, the hash power is a fixed resource and must split between forks. In a PoS fork, prefork holders can stake the same amount of coins on both forks, thereby "doubling" the total coin being staked. With PoW, the fact that the hash power has to split between forks gives a mechanism for a consensus between forks to be found. With PoS forks, you might as well just continue to stake both forks.

dstaley 5y ago
There's already a solution to this: https://eth.wiki/concepts/proof-of-stake-faqs#what-is-the-nothing-at-stake-problem-and-how-can-it-be-fixed https://eth.wiki/concepts/proof-of-stake-faqs#what-is-the-no...
- gruez 5y ago
  >This can be solved via two strategies. The first, described in broad terms under the name “Slasher” here and developed further by Iddo Bentov here, involves penalizing validators if they simultaneously create blocks on multiple chains, by means of including proof of misbehavior (ie. two conflicting signed block headers) into the blockchain as a later point in time at which point the malfeasant validator’s deposit is deducted appropriately. [...] The second strategy is to simply punish validators for creating blocks on the wrong chain. Which one does ethereum use?
  - dstaley 5y ago
    I believe Casper (Ethereum's PoW protocol) uses the second strategy.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- Dzugaru 5y ago