5 ms·

I don’t quite catch your point. The chances your brain continues functioning over the next twelve minutes is not 100%, but 100% less some infinitesimally small

I don’t quite catch your point. The chances your brain continues functioning over the next twelve minutes is not 100%, but 100% less some infinitesimally small fraction. 99.999999...% is as close physical reality ever comes to 100%. > PoS/PoW is rather irrelevant It’s an incredibly relevant fact that PoS blockchains pos1, pos2, pos3 cannot be compared without overtly trusting central authorities to give you the “correct” answer. Conversely, the PoW blockchains pow1, pow2, and pow3 can be objectively ranked by cumulative hashrate using simple mathematical comparisons. Contrary to popular belief — and despite the endless handwaiving PoS acolytes engage in over social media — PoS blockchains continue to lack a meaningful answer to this predicament which doesn’t boil down to overtly trusting central authorities. Which begs the question: why do they need a blockchain at all?

tsimionescu 5y ago
All block chains in practice require trusting central authorities (trust the code, trust the protocol, trust the math behind it, trust the hardware, trust people to honor their off-chain transactions, trust authorities to help when they don't etc.) so this whole fantasy about 'trustless systems' is meaningless anyway. You can't create trustless electronic systems for humans. There is simply too much complexity in even the simplest hardware and software for any single person to be able to understand without trusting others. And this doesn't just apply to the 'unwashed masses', but to every single CS researcher, OS programmer or Linus Torvalds.
- Dzugaru 5y ago
  This is blatantly false. Bitcoin doesn't require anything at all besides the idea of a most work chain humanity produced. You just pick it and that's it. You cant pick wrong, there is no chain bigger. All other cryptos are a fantasy and cannot provide any comparable guarantees.
  - noxer 5y ago
    >You cant pick wrong, there is no chain bigger. It happened multiple times that a longer change was discoed shortly after. So in reality you have to wait some blocks to reduce the risk of a longer chain to almost zero. Also the trust you missed is that you have to TRUST that at least 50% of the work is produces and controlled (pool owner) by honest humans, because if not they could collude and re-org/double-spend. which essentially means you will pick the wrong chain because they make you think its the longest while secretly mining a longer chain that will eventually repalce the once you picked. There is absolutely no way you would know before its to late so you blindly trust that from an unknown number of people the majority is honest. If you take mining pools into account you trust a hand full of people who control them. >All other cryptos are a fantasy and cannot provide any comparable guarantees. Obvious nonsense, other tech has defined finality. Not pick the longest and if a longer shows up later you switch. These systems provide MORE guarantees.
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    How do you, personally, know that the chain is correct? Have you ever checked the hashes? Have you ever checked the transactions? Have you ever proved that the math they use is correct? Have you ever read the code for any BTC client? You're trusting an awful lot of assumptions much more complex than 'the longest chain is right'.
  - bhaak 5y ago
    How do you ensure that you got the correct code? Without the correct consensus rules that are encoded in the software, you can't be sure if the blockchain you are following is the right one.
shawnz 5y ago
> PoS blockchains pos1, pos2, pos3 cannot be compared without overtly trusting central authorities to give you the “correct” answer. I have seen you make this point before on here but I don't see how that is true. Can you elaborate? Don't PoS chains typically choose forks based on how much is staked? Last time we discussed this you never explained what is wrong with that approach.
- Jweb_Guru 5y ago
  There is nothing wrong with it, the only trusted component is (obviously) in terms of the initial distribution of the staked coins, which is the central feature of proof of stake.
- atweiden 5y ago
  When the PoW chain ‘pow’ forks into pow1 and pow2 with both sides claiming to be the original ‘pow’, the general public can compare the cumulative hashrate of pow1 and pow2 to ascertain legitimacy (see: Bitcoin v Bcash, 2016). In PoW, external input to the system — electricity — powers hashrate. Electricity is altogether foreign to the context of cryptocurrency, and by necessitating the wasting of electricity on one fork over another, PoW consensus systems ensure miners can vote on only one side of a fork without bearing additional costs. When the PoS chain ‘pos’ forks into pos1 and pos2, however, with both sides claiming to be the original ‘pos’, there is no hashrate to base our decision on. External inputs are never burned in any PoS chain’s forward progress. If a Bitcoin v Bcash political fork were to unfold in a pure PoS context, the general public would be faced with a situation where both pos1 and pos2 chains were equally secure. If pos1 claimed to be the rightful heir to the ‘pos’ title while defensively slashing pos2 sympathizers, it wouldn’t harm pos2’s ability to make forward progress on the pos2 chain while pos2 also slashes pos1 sympathizers and equally claims to be the rightful heir to the ‘pos’ title. It’s as if an OSS project forked with both forks claiming to be the real thing. If both sides are steadfast, it is ultimately up to the public to pick winners and losers based on nothing besides social signaling. See: 2015-2017 block size debate in Bitcoin for pitfalls to this. Notice how no math is involved whatsoever in the decision to pick pos1 over pos2. Notice how human intervention is inherently required to reach a decision as to which side of the pos1/pos2 split is given title to ‘pos’. Pure PoS consensus is substantially similar to Git repos. If people are just going to trust a nebulous human hierarchy to resolve disputes like this, then the system is de facto permissioned, and a public blockchain isn’t required.

tsimionescu 5y ago

All block chains in practice require trusting central authorities (trust the code, trust the protocol, trust the math behind it, trust the hardware, trust people to honor their off-chain transactions, trust authorities to help when they don't etc.) so this whole fantasy about 'trustless systems' is meaningless anyway. You can't create trustless electronic systems for humans. There is simply too much complexity in even the simplest hardware and software for any single person to be able to understand without trusting others. And this doesn't just apply to the 'unwashed masses', but to every single CS researcher, OS programmer or Linus Torvalds.

Dzugaru 5y ago
This is blatantly false. Bitcoin doesn't require anything at all besides the idea of a most work chain humanity produced. You just pick it and that's it. You cant pick wrong, there is no chain bigger. All other cryptos are a fantasy and cannot provide any comparable guarantees.
- noxer 5y ago
  >You cant pick wrong, there is no chain bigger. It happened multiple times that a longer change was discoed shortly after. So in reality you have to wait some blocks to reduce the risk of a longer chain to almost zero. Also the trust you missed is that you have to TRUST that at least 50% of the work is produces and controlled (pool owner) by honest humans, because if not they could collude and re-org/double-spend. which essentially means you will pick the wrong chain because they make you think its the longest while secretly mining a longer chain that will eventually repalce the once you picked. There is absolutely no way you would know before its to late so you blindly trust that from an unknown number of people the majority is honest. If you take mining pools into account you trust a hand full of people who control them. >All other cryptos are a fantasy and cannot provide any comparable guarantees. Obvious nonsense, other tech has defined finality. Not pick the longest and if a longer shows up later you switch. These systems provide MORE guarantees.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  How do you, personally, know that the chain is correct? Have you ever checked the hashes? Have you ever checked the transactions? Have you ever proved that the math they use is correct? Have you ever read the code for any BTC client? You're trusting an awful lot of assumptions much more complex than 'the longest chain is right'.
- bhaak 5y ago
  How do you ensure that you got the correct code? Without the correct consensus rules that are encoded in the software, you can't be sure if the blockchain you are following is the right one.

shawnz 5y ago

> PoS blockchains pos1, pos2, pos3 cannot be compared without overtly trusting central authorities to give you the “correct” answer. I have seen you make this point before on here but I don't see how that is true. Can you elaborate? Don't PoS chains typically choose forks based on how much is staked? Last time we discussed this you never explained what is wrong with that approach.

Jweb_Guru 5y ago
There is nothing wrong with it, the only trusted component is (obviously) in terms of the initial distribution of the staked coins, which is the central feature of proof of stake.
atweiden 5y ago
When the PoW chain ‘pow’ forks into pow1 and pow2 with both sides claiming to be the original ‘pow’, the general public can compare the cumulative hashrate of pow1 and pow2 to ascertain legitimacy (see: Bitcoin v Bcash, 2016). In PoW, external input to the system — electricity — powers hashrate. Electricity is altogether foreign to the context of cryptocurrency, and by necessitating the wasting of electricity on one fork over another, PoW consensus systems ensure miners can vote on only one side of a fork without bearing additional costs. When the PoS chain ‘pos’ forks into pos1 and pos2, however, with both sides claiming to be the original ‘pos’, there is no hashrate to base our decision on. External inputs are never burned in any PoS chain’s forward progress. If a Bitcoin v Bcash political fork were to unfold in a pure PoS context, the general public would be faced with a situation where both pos1 and pos2 chains were equally secure. If pos1 claimed to be the rightful heir to the ‘pos’ title while defensively slashing pos2 sympathizers, it wouldn’t harm pos2’s ability to make forward progress on the pos2 chain while pos2 also slashes pos1 sympathizers and equally claims to be the rightful heir to the ‘pos’ title. It’s as if an OSS project forked with both forks claiming to be the real thing. If both sides are steadfast, it is ultimately up to the public to pick winners and losers based on nothing besides social signaling. See: 2015-2017 block size debate in Bitcoin for pitfalls to this. Notice how no math is involved whatsoever in the decision to pick pos1 over pos2. Notice how human intervention is inherently required to reach a decision as to which side of the pos1/pos2 split is given title to ‘pos’. Pure PoS consensus is substantially similar to Git repos. If people are just going to trust a nebulous human hierarchy to resolve disputes like this, then the system is de facto permissioned, and a public blockchain isn’t required.