5 ms·

How? The only way I can think of that staking oligopolies can exclude new entrants is if they somehow manage to remove the crypto from markets. Basically killin

How? The only way I can think of that staking oligopolies can exclude new entrants is if they somehow manage to remove the crypto from markets. Basically killing their stake. It is far easier for me to buy some crypto and stake it than it is to buy mining hardware and mine.

lmm 5y ago
Mining hardware just means commodity electronics; the guys with ASICs may be faster but they can't shut you out entirely, and the miners don't generally control the people who make hardware (even the specialised ASICs). Whereas the stakers inherently control the supply of the crypto in question (and they can can e.g. cut off people who sell large amounts to outsiders, in a way that they couldn't cut off hardware makers), and there are generally only a few points where you can exchange that crypto for something commoditised - usually exchanges that do strict identity verification, may only be available to people in certain countries, etc..
- Kbelicius 5y ago
  > and they can can e.g. cut off people who sell large amounts to outsiders, in a way that they couldn't cut off hardware makers How would they do that?
  - rtkwe 5y ago
    In theory couldn’t they exclude any transactions made by an ‘exile’ from the chain? I’m not sure how much that differs from doing the same thing on a PoW coin. It is harder to start as a PoS miner but to have the kind of iron control over a coins distribution means you’d have to make it effectively worthless because only the current owners could be ‘trusted’ to be the receivers of transactions. So while it’s theoretically possible for a miners cabal to lock out a new entrant it seems pretty opposed to the value of their own holdings so it’s left to something like a country that wants to shut it down through throwing money at the problem then I guess?
    - Kbelicius 5y ago
      > In theory couldn’t they exclude any transactions made by an ‘exile’ from the chain? I’m not sure how much that differs from doing the same thing on a PoW coin. That is also my thinking, that there basically isn't any difference between staking and mining oligopolies. > So while it’s theoretically possible for a miners cabal to lock out a new entrant it seems pretty opposed to the value of their own holdings so it’s left to something like a country that wants to shut it down through throwing money at the problem then I guess? In theory, if the stakers are anonymous, this make PoS more resistant to nation state attacks since it would be easier for a nation state to find the mining equipment producers and direct all hardware production to themselves until they acquire 51% of hash rate than it is to find the stakers and take their keys. Looking forward to lmm explaining how we are wrong.
      - randomhodler84 5y ago
        There are records of every coin purchased that is staked. Unless you were able to get someone to anonymously sell you a stake worth, staking is very far from anonymous. In practice, most are going to be using staking providers or delegated proof of stake, and these are corporations that will absolutely be corrupted by states. Mining is anonymous and portable.
        Kbelicius 5y ago
        > There are records of every coin purchased that is staked. This would be true if the only way to get the coins is through exchanges with KYC. You can get coins in other ways so this point of yours is moot. > In practice, most are going to be using staking providers or delegated proof of stake, and these are corporations that will absolutely be corrupted by states. We are talking about staking oligopolies not about someone buying 10 dollars worth of coins which makes this point of yours moot. > Mining is anonymous and portable. You should read more carefully. I did not mention miners but producers of mining equipment. Also, a nation state can produce mining equipment themselves, they can't create new coins. Edit: To add, big miners really aren't that portable or anonymous.

lmm 5y ago

Mining hardware just means commodity electronics; the guys with ASICs may be faster but they can't shut you out entirely, and the miners don't generally control the people who make hardware (even the specialised ASICs). Whereas the stakers inherently control the supply of the crypto in question (and they can can e.g. cut off people who sell large amounts to outsiders, in a way that they couldn't cut off hardware makers), and there are generally only a few points where you can exchange that crypto for something commoditised - usually exchanges that do strict identity verification, may only be available to people in certain countries, etc..

Kbelicius 5y ago
> and they can can e.g. cut off people who sell large amounts to outsiders, in a way that they couldn't cut off hardware makers How would they do that?
- rtkwe 5y ago
  In theory couldn’t they exclude any transactions made by an ‘exile’ from the chain? I’m not sure how much that differs from doing the same thing on a PoW coin. It is harder to start as a PoS miner but to have the kind of iron control over a coins distribution means you’d have to make it effectively worthless because only the current owners could be ‘trusted’ to be the receivers of transactions. So while it’s theoretically possible for a miners cabal to lock out a new entrant it seems pretty opposed to the value of their own holdings so it’s left to something like a country that wants to shut it down through throwing money at the problem then I guess?
  - Kbelicius 5y ago
    > In theory couldn’t they exclude any transactions made by an ‘exile’ from the chain? I’m not sure how much that differs from doing the same thing on a PoW coin. That is also my thinking, that there basically isn't any difference between staking and mining oligopolies. > So while it’s theoretically possible for a miners cabal to lock out a new entrant it seems pretty opposed to the value of their own holdings so it’s left to something like a country that wants to shut it down through throwing money at the problem then I guess? In theory, if the stakers are anonymous, this make PoS more resistant to nation state attacks since it would be easier for a nation state to find the mining equipment producers and direct all hardware production to themselves until they acquire 51% of hash rate than it is to find the stakers and take their keys. Looking forward to lmm explaining how we are wrong.
    - randomhodler84 5y ago
      There are records of every coin purchased that is staked. Unless you were able to get someone to anonymously sell you a stake worth, staking is very far from anonymous. In practice, most are going to be using staking providers or delegated proof of stake, and these are corporations that will absolutely be corrupted by states. Mining is anonymous and portable.
      - Kbelicius 5y ago
        > There are records of every coin purchased that is staked. This would be true if the only way to get the coins is through exchanges with KYC. You can get coins in other ways so this point of yours is moot. > In practice, most are going to be using staking providers or delegated proof of stake, and these are corporations that will absolutely be corrupted by states. We are talking about staking oligopolies not about someone buying 10 dollars worth of coins which makes this point of yours moot. > Mining is anonymous and portable. You should read more carefully. I did not mention miners but producers of mining equipment. Also, a nation state can produce mining equipment themselves, they can't create new coins. Edit: To add, big miners really aren't that portable or anonymous.