4 ms·

> 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 st

> 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 ago
  PoS 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 ago
    yes, 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.)
    - dropnerd 4y ago
      databases don't have the self-organizing infrastructure to eventually decentralize. vc tokens might. "it's actually impossible to start new networks from scratch based on proof-of-stake" is simply incorrect. almost all crypto networks will start this way.

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 ago
PoS 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 ago
  yes, 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.)
  - dropnerd 4y ago
    databases don't have the self-organizing infrastructure to eventually decentralize. vc tokens might. "it's actually impossible to start new networks from scratch based on proof-of-stake" is simply incorrect. almost all crypto networks will start this way.