4 ms·

PoS/PoW are decentralized concensus protocols; they could have used alternate data structures but practically something like a log-structured database with cryp

PoS/PoW are decentralized concensus protocols; they could have used alternate data structures but practically something like a log-structured database with cryptographic hashed for integrity is the only thing that makes sense to reach consensus on, so cryptographic-tree structures that existed for decades were the logical choice and the concepts got entangled in people's minds. Cryptocurrency doesn't require decentralized consensus (multi-witness would work just about as well). Merkle trees don't need consensus; IPFS works just fine with content-addressed naming. Blockchains are unique in their design to be self-sustaining decentralized cryptocurrencies; the self-sustaining part is what, in my mind, distinguishes them from the other technologies which rely on external incentives to keep them running.

bfung 5y ago
Is PoS actually decentralized?
- everfree 5y ago
  It depends on which PoS algorithm you look at, but some of them are generally considered to be as "decentralized" as PoW in terms of the security properties they give to their network under adversarial conditions.
- benlivengood 5y ago
  Is PoW actually decentralized? It's more like multi-witness because miners aren't able to see the block they're working on and validate it before submitting back to the pool operator and they can only trust the pool to keep paying out rewards through non-blockchain means. In ideal worlds as designed for PoW and PoS everyone has roughly an equal stake and equal incentives. Reality differs.
aforwardslash 5y ago
I think there is a common conflation of distributed and decentralized concepts; Many (most?) distributed systems require a consensus mechanism to operate (as they require coordination/state), but many decentralized(most?) systems don't, as each node operates independently and without a transitive state. As such, I have some difficulty in seeing PoS/PoW as "decentralized" (in a decentralized system, multiple different "end states" may coexist without being a problem), but rather more of a reputation model as a way to solve BFT. And BFT consensus mechanisms are - in my opinion - only one of several possible mechanisms, because (again, imo) "blockchain" and "public blockchain" make different assumptions on the underlying implementation.

bfung 5y ago

Is PoS actually decentralized?

everfree 5y ago
It depends on which PoS algorithm you look at, but some of them are generally considered to be as "decentralized" as PoW in terms of the security properties they give to their network under adversarial conditions.
benlivengood 5y ago
Is PoW actually decentralized? It's more like multi-witness because miners aren't able to see the block they're working on and validate it before submitting back to the pool operator and they can only trust the pool to keep paying out rewards through non-blockchain means. In ideal worlds as designed for PoW and PoS everyone has roughly an equal stake and equal incentives. Reality differs.

aforwardslash 5y ago

I think there is a common conflation of distributed and decentralized concepts; Many (most?) distributed systems require a consensus mechanism to operate (as they require coordination/state), but many decentralized(most?) systems don't, as each node operates independently and without a transitive state. As such, I have some difficulty in seeing PoS/PoW as "decentralized" (in a decentralized system, multiple different "end states" may coexist without being a problem), but rather more of a reputation model as a way to solve BFT. And BFT consensus mechanisms are - in my opinion - only one of several possible mechanisms, because (again, imo) "blockchain" and "public blockchain" make different assumptions on the underlying implementation.