3 ms·

> It wouldn't be better "in every way", though. A blockchain is much more resilient; the equivalent would be to have hundreds or thousands of redundant SQL data

by sime2009 4y ago

> It wouldn't be better "in every way", though. A blockchain is much more resilient; the equivalent would be to have hundreds or thousands of redundant SQL databases around the world and somehow keep them all in sync. Technically true, but also completely pointless. An organisation running an SQL database doesn't need hundreds or thousands of redundant SQL nodes/copies to reach the level of robustness required.

yellowapple 4y ago
Indeed they don't, but even running two database servers (let alone more for e.g. geographic redundancy) is already more resource intensive than running a full node for a proof-of-stake blockchain. You might as well just run that node and get that resiliency basically for free. Not every usecase requires that sort of resiliency, of course, nor does every use case prioritize it above latency and throughput; nobody except the truly deranged are asserting that a blockchain could or should replace every SQL database out there. For those who do need that sort of resiliency, though, a public blockchain is much more cost-effective.
- nicoburns 4y ago
  > running a full node for a proof-of-stake blockchain Are there any extant proof-of-stake blockchains that achieve the security guarantees necessary to make a currency viable? Last I heard proof-of-stake was still a hypothetical idea, not something that someone had actually managed to make a working currency with, and that all of the cryptocurrencies in common use were still using proof-of-work (which is of course much more resource intensive).
  - danuker 4y ago
    Proof-of-stake is possible, but requires an honest majority of stakers continuously online. If you want to eliminate Sybil attacks in PoS, there is no way of externally validating which branch of a split chain is legitimate. Each of them has a majority of stake backing it. As for PoW however, you can just look at the total work proven.
    - yellowapple 4y ago
      > Proof-of-stake is possible, but requires an honest majority of stakers continuously online. Which is itself possible by penalizing stake pools that go offline, thus motivating them to maximize uptime. That's how Ouroboros-based chains (Cardano, Polkadot) do it (among other mitigations against various attacks). > If you want to eliminate Sybil attacks in PoS, there is no way of externally validating which branch of a split chain is legitimate. Each of them has a majority of stake backing it. Which is why Ouroboros-based chains consider the "pledged stake" (put simply: an upfront collateral) of each pool when selecting one to control the next block and receive the corresponding rewards. This has its own implications (in particular, the pledge needs to be high enough to deter would-be Sybil attackers but not so high that it's unattainable to honest pool operators), but it seems to be effective in practice.
      - hnthrow1010 4y ago
        >Which is itself possible by penalizing stake pools that go offline, thus motivating them to maximize uptime. This is still unfair to stakers that legitimately have infra disruptions. I have not seen any design for PoS that is actually fair and reasonable and I doubt it will ever happen because this is simply not something you want to just put in an algorithm. The problem space fundamentally requires human intervention at a high level.
        yellowapple 4y ago
        > This is still unfair to stakers that legitimately have infra disruptions. I'd hardly characterize that as "unfair"; it's no more unfair than any other perceived correlation between uptime and trustworthiness. > The problem space fundamentally requires human intervention at a high level. It fundamentally requires the opposite. The more human intervention possible, the more room for exploitation and corruption and unfairness. This is evident both within the crypto space (Safemoon comes to mind) and outside of it (the legacy financial system comes to mind).
        hnthrow1010 4y ago
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    > Are there any extant proof-of-stake blockchains that achieve the security guarantees necessary to make a currency viable? Cardano, Solana, and Polkadot seem to be doing quite alright.

yellowapple 4y ago

Indeed they don't, but even running two database servers (let alone more for e.g. geographic redundancy) is already more resource intensive than running a full node for a proof-of-stake blockchain. You might as well just run that node and get that resiliency basically for free. Not every usecase requires that sort of resiliency, of course, nor does every use case prioritize it above latency and throughput; nobody except the truly deranged are asserting that a blockchain could or should replace every SQL database out there. For those who do need that sort of resiliency, though, a public blockchain is much more cost-effective.

nicoburns 4y ago
> running a full node for a proof-of-stake blockchain Are there any extant proof-of-stake blockchains that achieve the security guarantees necessary to make a currency viable? Last I heard proof-of-stake was still a hypothetical idea, not something that someone had actually managed to make a working currency with, and that all of the cryptocurrencies in common use were still using proof-of-work (which is of course much more resource intensive).
- danuker 4y ago
  Proof-of-stake is possible, but requires an honest majority of stakers continuously online. If you want to eliminate Sybil attacks in PoS, there is no way of externally validating which branch of a split chain is legitimate. Each of them has a majority of stake backing it. As for PoW however, you can just look at the total work proven.
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    > Proof-of-stake is possible, but requires an honest majority of stakers continuously online. Which is itself possible by penalizing stake pools that go offline, thus motivating them to maximize uptime. That's how Ouroboros-based chains (Cardano, Polkadot) do it (among other mitigations against various attacks). > If you want to eliminate Sybil attacks in PoS, there is no way of externally validating which branch of a split chain is legitimate. Each of them has a majority of stake backing it. Which is why Ouroboros-based chains consider the "pledged stake" (put simply: an upfront collateral) of each pool when selecting one to control the next block and receive the corresponding rewards. This has its own implications (in particular, the pledge needs to be high enough to deter would-be Sybil attackers but not so high that it's unattainable to honest pool operators), but it seems to be effective in practice.
    - hnthrow1010 4y ago
      >Which is itself possible by penalizing stake pools that go offline, thus motivating them to maximize uptime. This is still unfair to stakers that legitimately have infra disruptions. I have not seen any design for PoS that is actually fair and reasonable and I doubt it will ever happen because this is simply not something you want to just put in an algorithm. The problem space fundamentally requires human intervention at a high level.
      - yellowapple 4y ago
        > This is still unfair to stakers that legitimately have infra disruptions. I'd hardly characterize that as "unfair"; it's no more unfair than any other perceived correlation between uptime and trustworthiness. > The problem space fundamentally requires human intervention at a high level. It fundamentally requires the opposite. The more human intervention possible, the more room for exploitation and corruption and unfairness. This is evident both within the crypto space (Safemoon comes to mind) and outside of it (the legacy financial system comes to mind).
        hnthrow1010 4y ago
- yellowapple 4y ago
  > Are there any extant proof-of-stake blockchains that achieve the security guarantees necessary to make a currency viable? Cardano, Solana, and Polkadot seem to be doing quite alright.