4 ms·
> Similarly reduced, proof-of-stake systems work like this: > 1. The list of valid transactions determines who has coin. > 2. <complexity> > 3. People with c
by jdauriemma 5y ago
> Similarly reduced, proof-of-stake systems work like this:
> 1. The list of valid transactions determines who has coin.
> 2. <complexity>
> 3. People with coin decide which transactions are valid.
> You don't need to know any more detail about proof-of-stake systems to be instantly suspicious.
I am instantly suspicious of the author's reasoning here.
- toomuchredbull 5y agoObviously the people who have the most to lose are most motivated to maintain the currencies stability/trustworthiness no? Isn't that the idea? If the people with the most start screwing around, everybody will stop using the currency and they will be left with nothing.
- hanniabu 5y agoYup, and unlike with PoW where you can go mine another coin or sell your equipment, your investment is gone
- haskman 5y ago"If the people with the most money start screwing around with other people's money, then everybody will just abandon using money altogether, societal structure will collapse, and they will be left with nothing". Great argument.
- jdauriemma 5y ago> Obviously It's not obvious to me. Can you provide evidence that we can rely on the social dynamics you're describing?
- kbsspl 5y agoUnless people with the most something have hedged/shorted it against something else.
- enraged_camel 5y agoYep. It's a logical fallacy: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Complexity https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-...
- aeternum 5y agoThis isn't right, any amount of complexity in step 2 is immaterial to the author's argument since the circularity comes from steps 1 and 3. The author makes a good point that trust must be rooted in something other than the list of people who have coin. Most PoS chains gloss over this part, but do use some kind of real-world root like twitter accounts or burned coins to sign the first block.
- jdauriemma 5y agoI fail to see why step 2 is circular in PoS but not PoW. I don't mean to say that my lack of understanding is anyone else's problem, but at the very least I can point out that the author is guilty of circular reasoning by failing to go into detail as to why "Boiled down to its bare essence, a cryptocurrency is a list of transactions, and a protocol for deciding which transactions are allowed to be added to that list." is ontologically distinct from their representation of PoS
- aeternum 5y agoThe amount of complexity in step 2 is immaterial to the author's argument for both PoS and PoW. The difference is in step 3. In PoS, the people with coin decide which transactions are valid. In PoW, the people with the most hash power (those that have demonstrated their commitment by burning real-world/physical resources) decide which transactions are valid.
- jdauriemma 5y agoThank you for the clarification. Revisiting this quote: "Boiled down to its bare essence, a cryptocurrency is a list of transactions, and a protocol for deciding which transactions are allowed to be added to that list." How is the PoS model not "a list of transactions, and a protocol for deciding which transactions are allowed to be added to that list?" I understand that the protocol itself is the source of controversy, but I don't understand why the author views PoS as circular but not PoW.