3 ms·
Not only is there no way around it, but it's actually impossible to start new networks from scratch based on proof-of-stake due to the "nothing at stake" proble
by paulmd 4y ago
Not only is there no way around it, but it's actually impossible to start new networks from scratch based on proof-of-stake due to the "nothing at stake" problem. If attackers don't care if their stake gets burned (because the value is low) then there's no longer an incentive for attackers not to validate on multiple chains at once (which is what staking is supposed to prevent). All new networks must go through a proof-of-work stage of evolution.
Further, the existence of proof-of-stake coins at all means that decentralized exchanges exist, which makes it impossible to ever kill proof-of-work in a legislative sense. Even if you killed fiat exchange for $SHITCOIN entirely, once there is a coin that has sufficient value, people will be happy to have bitcoin instead of USD, or trade to Bitcoin and then over to USD. You can either ban them all entirely, or you have to live with both PoW and PoS together.
Unfortunately, crypto is a memeplex, it's like a corporation, it's a self-reinforcing living entity that supports itself (maintains homeostasis) through a series of rules and incentives, and now that it's been created it can't be easily killed. Every individual is financially incentivized to keep playing their part, so everyone would have to collectively agree to not make money by taking part, and as people fall out the incentives become steeper and steeper to participate. Would you mine on your card for $100 a day? $1000 a day?
We will just have to live with destroying our planet, because now that it's been created it's virtually impossible to kill. That was the whole point. With apologies to Alien: it’s biologically engineered to be a survivor... the perfect predator (of certain other memeplexes - meaning, states and state-backed currencies, which are also self-sustaining memeplexes with their own rules and incentives). That was the stated goal of the design, and it works! There's no "off button", otherwise it would be trivial for "statists" to push it. There is no "oops we forgot to add a limit to the paperclip maximizer" or "don't kill the people who try to stop paperclip maximization" button either. People whose livelihoods depend on crypto are highly incentivized to come up with ways (like PoS) to keep it going even if the outcomes of the overall system becomes undesirable. The day it became legitimized by the SEC, it certainly became impossible to stop it. Now you will have Wall Street money fighting you too.
You wanted an unstoppable decentralized cryptopunk future with assassination markets, that's exactly what it does. It wouldn't be unstoppable if individual or collective action (like that of a state or other group of individuals) could stop it, and it was designed knowing that people would try to stop it. All according to keikaku.
(cue the gif from dr strangelove of general turgidson's horrified realization of what he's just said)
- dropnerd 4y ago> it's actually impossible to start new networks from scratch based on proof-of-stake due to the "nothing at stake" problem. If attackers don't care if their stake gets burned (because the value is low) most new PoS chains do just fine because validators are owned by VCs that want to grow the network. whether they can successfully decentralize is an open question but the bootstrap problem is solved
- paulmd 4y ago> the bootstrap problem is solved it's solved if your only holders consist of trusted parties, which is a trivial (but unrealistic) solution to a lot of crypto problems ;) it seems entirely certain that cryptos that are not VC backed will launch in the future. It happens almost daily actually.
- dropnerd 4y agoPoS investors burn their reputation if they double spend on any network they invest in. this is a stronger guarantor of safety than PoW for every chain aside from ones that dominate their computing platform (BTC/ETH). anon miners will eat a naive network and move on.
- paulmd 4y agoyes, requiring external trust to exist between parties is a very effective strategy, I agree, but it's not a solution to the general problem where trustlessness is required. And if you are requiring trust between parties... you might as well simply have an auditable database instead of requiring staking or mining at all. (requiring oracular knowledge (external to the system) that other VCs have a financial stake is still a trust-based system... and they could still sell that to someone who doesn't, and fuck you over, and your knowledge that they won't do that for social or contractual reasons is still oracular knowledge. You haven't solved anything, you've just created an oracle that everyone agrees to trust, which is a trivial solution to almost all challenges within crypto.)