5 ms·

> 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

> 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
    > You can get coins in other ways What guarantees that this continues to be true? Yes coins that can't be sold are worthless, but coins that can only be sold with KYC aren't. > We are talking about staking oligopolies not about someone buying 10 dollars worth of coins The staking providers or delegatees are the (potential) oligopolies > I did not mention miners but producers of mining equipment. Those are also anonymous and, if not completely portable, fungible with general electronic manufacturing equipment that's widely possessed. > Also, a nation state can produce mining equipment themselves, they can't create new coins. Which supports my point - the capability to exclude a nation state also allows the staking cabals to exclude people they don't like. Given that a staking cabal by its very nature controls the chain, they can stop other people getting or making coins. But a mining cabal can't stop other people getting or making mining equipment.
    - Kbelicius 5y ago
      > What guarantees that this continues to be true? Yes coins that can't be sold are worthless, but coins that can only be sold with KYC aren't. This applies to PoW coins too. Miners can't be anonymous if they want to sell their coins. Why would anybody mine for nothing? > The staking providers or delegatees are the (potential) oligopolies Yes, and miners mine in pools. Why are you not considering pools as (potential) oligopolies? What is the difference? > Those are also anonymous and, if not completely portable, fungible with general electronic manufacturing equipment that's widely possessed. They need physical locations with people physically present with physical inputs and outputs. The idea that it is easier for miners and hardware manufacturers to be anonymous than a guy spinning some software on some server is... stupid. To think that it is easier for miners and hardware producers to change location than a guy moving private keys from one server to another is just... retarded. > Which supports my point - the capability to exclude a nation state also allows the staking cabals to exclude people they don't like. I've asked you already how would a staking cabal exclude people they don't like and for some reason you are not answering that question. I'm guessing you are avoiding it because your answer, as all you've written so far in this thread, also applies to mining cabals. > Given that a staking cabal by its very nature controls the chain, they can stop other people getting or making coins. But a mining cabal can't stop other people getting or making mining equipment. No they can't make them stop making mining equipment, why do you think that that is relevant? The mining cabal can produce their own hardware and prevent anybody using any different hardware from joining the network, could they not? Can you please try to clearly answer the original question. What makes mining oligopolies better than staking oligopolies? If you are sticking with your answer that it is harder to create mining oligopolies then please explain how? And before you press reply could you please stop for a minute and thing how what you wrote is applicable to mining oligopolies and not to staking oligopolies or vice versa.

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
  > You can get coins in other ways What guarantees that this continues to be true? Yes coins that can't be sold are worthless, but coins that can only be sold with KYC aren't. > We are talking about staking oligopolies not about someone buying 10 dollars worth of coins The staking providers or delegatees are the (potential) oligopolies > I did not mention miners but producers of mining equipment. Those are also anonymous and, if not completely portable, fungible with general electronic manufacturing equipment that's widely possessed. > Also, a nation state can produce mining equipment themselves, they can't create new coins. Which supports my point - the capability to exclude a nation state also allows the staking cabals to exclude people they don't like. Given that a staking cabal by its very nature controls the chain, they can stop other people getting or making coins. But a mining cabal can't stop other people getting or making mining equipment.
  - Kbelicius 5y ago
    > What guarantees that this continues to be true? Yes coins that can't be sold are worthless, but coins that can only be sold with KYC aren't. This applies to PoW coins too. Miners can't be anonymous if they want to sell their coins. Why would anybody mine for nothing? > The staking providers or delegatees are the (potential) oligopolies Yes, and miners mine in pools. Why are you not considering pools as (potential) oligopolies? What is the difference? > Those are also anonymous and, if not completely portable, fungible with general electronic manufacturing equipment that's widely possessed. They need physical locations with people physically present with physical inputs and outputs. The idea that it is easier for miners and hardware manufacturers to be anonymous than a guy spinning some software on some server is... stupid. To think that it is easier for miners and hardware producers to change location than a guy moving private keys from one server to another is just... retarded. > Which supports my point - the capability to exclude a nation state also allows the staking cabals to exclude people they don't like. I've asked you already how would a staking cabal exclude people they don't like and for some reason you are not answering that question. I'm guessing you are avoiding it because your answer, as all you've written so far in this thread, also applies to mining cabals. > Given that a staking cabal by its very nature controls the chain, they can stop other people getting or making coins. But a mining cabal can't stop other people getting or making mining equipment. No they can't make them stop making mining equipment, why do you think that that is relevant? The mining cabal can produce their own hardware and prevent anybody using any different hardware from joining the network, could they not? Can you please try to clearly answer the original question. What makes mining oligopolies better than staking oligopolies? If you are sticking with your answer that it is harder to create mining oligopolies then please explain how? And before you press reply could you please stop for a minute and thing how what you wrote is applicable to mining oligopolies and not to staking oligopolies or vice versa.