3 ms·

> "Difficulty" isn't a thing in PoS Yes it is. The more people with coins actively minting in the system, the higher the difficulty of getting chosen. Please d

> "Difficulty" isn't a thing in PoS Yes it is. The more people with coins actively minting in the system, the higher the difficulty of getting chosen. Please do more research. If you really want to keep discussing this with me, read through the WHOLE of https://github.com/fresheneesz/validatedProofOfStake https://github.com/fresheneesz/validatedProofOfStake and show me a full attack on it. > FWIW, I'm not a PoS detractor. You could have fooled me. But it sounds like you're saying you believe in Vitalik, and anyone else on the internet (ie me) must be idiots who can't understand solutions to these problems. Yet, you're not putting in the effort to understand the solutions out there. PoS protocols are more complex than PoW - there are more edge cases to shore up. So telling me you can "trivially" get around any particular solution ignores the fact that solutions work together. They aren't isolated. So slow down and actually try to understand a protocol holistically before attacking it. If you're not a detractor, than how about just trying to learn instead of insulting the intelligence of people who have actually worked on solutions to these problems?

kerkeslager 5y ago
> Yes it is. The more people with coins actively minting in the system, the higher the difficulty of getting chosen. I'm well aware. But eventually a large validator will get chosen--it's not difficult to get chosen, it's rare. The fact that PoS folks call this "difficulty" does not make it so. > If you really want to keep discussing this with me, read through the WHOLE of https://github.com/fresheneesz/validatedProofOfStake https://github.com/fresheneesz/validatedProofOfStake and show me a full attack on it. Given your proposed solution is checkpoints from a centralized trusted entity, you're giving up decentralization. Sure, your solution works. If you don't trust the source of the checkpoint, you're back to square one--it no longer works. And if you're willing to give up decentralization, may I suggest you just store all transactions in Postgres? You don't need a blockchain if you're just going to trust a centralized entity. I'm not going to give your design a free audit. If there's some way this isn't centralized, feel free to explain, otherwise, this isn't relevant--I think we can assume that PoS is being discussed in the context of decentralized, trustless models. > If you're not a detractor, than how about just trying to learn instead of insulting the intelligence of people who have actually worked on solutions to these problems? I haven't insulted your intelligence. You're probably a smart guy. Which is probably why you're overconfident in your solution: smart people aren't used to being wrong, so you aren't taking the time to actually grok the attack I've already proposed, or why the only working solution you've actually proposed depends on centralization. I did question your credibility to make claims here, because it's pretty clear you either don't understand the attack proposed by On Stake and Consensus, or you don't understand decentralization, which are both fundamental prerequisites to this discussion. The time constraints defense is literally in the paper, and the checkpoints solution you've proposed is just proof of authority by a different name. If you choose to feel insulted by someone saying you're wrong, that's your prerogative.
- billytetrud 5y ago
  I'm not going to continue this thread anymore. One is enough, and I'll try one more time to continue on your other comment. You are insulting me btw. I'm this close to following in your footsteps.
- runnerup 5y ago
  Thank you for all your incredible input. I felt I grokked POW but I’ve been looking for concise introductions to PoS wrt double spending mechanisms and equivalents to 51% attacks. Thanks again for the depth.

kerkeslager 5y ago

> Yes it is. The more people with coins actively minting in the system, the higher the difficulty of getting chosen. I'm well aware. But eventually a large validator will get chosen--it's not difficult to get chosen, it's rare. The fact that PoS folks call this "difficulty" does not make it so. > If you really want to keep discussing this with me, read through the WHOLE of https://github.com/fresheneesz/validatedProofOfStake https://github.com/fresheneesz/validatedProofOfStake and show me a full attack on it. Given your proposed solution is checkpoints from a centralized trusted entity, you're giving up decentralization. Sure, your solution works. If you don't trust the source of the checkpoint, you're back to square one--it no longer works. And if you're willing to give up decentralization, may I suggest you just store all transactions in Postgres? You don't need a blockchain if you're just going to trust a centralized entity. I'm not going to give your design a free audit. If there's some way this isn't centralized, feel free to explain, otherwise, this isn't relevant--I think we can assume that PoS is being discussed in the context of decentralized, trustless models. > If you're not a detractor, than how about just trying to learn instead of insulting the intelligence of people who have actually worked on solutions to these problems? I haven't insulted your intelligence. You're probably a smart guy. Which is probably why you're overconfident in your solution: smart people aren't used to being wrong, so you aren't taking the time to actually grok the attack I've already proposed, or why the only working solution you've actually proposed depends on centralization. I did question your credibility to make claims here, because it's pretty clear you either don't understand the attack proposed by On Stake and Consensus, or you don't understand decentralization, which are both fundamental prerequisites to this discussion. The time constraints defense is literally in the paper, and the checkpoints solution you've proposed is just proof of authority by a different name. If you choose to feel insulted by someone saying you're wrong, that's your prerogative.

billytetrud 5y ago
I'm not going to continue this thread anymore. One is enough, and I'll try one more time to continue on your other comment. You are insulting me btw. I'm this close to following in your footsteps.
runnerup 5y ago
Thank you for all your incredible input. I felt I grokked POW but I’ve been looking for concise introductions to PoS wrt double spending mechanisms and equivalents to 51% attacks. Thanks again for the depth.