4 ms·
> any scheme to replace proof-of-work needs to maintain that element of irrecoverable loss of value for a failed double spending attack. As others have said, t
by billytetrud 5y ago
> any scheme to replace proof-of-work needs to maintain that element of irrecoverable loss of value for a failed double spending attack.
As others have said, this is not true. All that is required is that it is expensive to successfully double spend.
- catlifeonmars 5y agoMore expensive than the value of the 2nd spend (in terms of expected value)?
- billytetrud 5y agoWell, generally a 51% attack doesn't requier expending cost as much as it requires accumulating capital. With PoW, that capital is mining hardware. With PoS, that capital is the currency itself. In both PoW and PoS, a double spend could be done in a way that doesn't "cost" the attacker anything. But it does require accumulating so much capital that its hopefully extremely unlikely that any one person or group (even a government) could accumulate that much. An attack would generally substantially decrease the value of the capital accumulated (again, mining hardware or coins) and so there is a cost there. But it isn't the kind of thing where you can say "1 attack costs X dollars and 2 attacks costs 2X dollars", so the value of a particular double spend isn't really that relevant.