3 ms·

Why not just ditch the whole Proof-of-Stake system and use a classical consensus system then?

by cowtools 4y ago

redox99 4y ago
Because people won't all agree and update their software every 12 seconds for each new block.
- cowtools 4y ago
  In classical consensus, users don't need to agree on every block, they need to agree on who signs the blocks on their behalf.
operator-name 4y ago
Sybil attacks caused by the nothing at stake problem.
- cowtools 4y ago
  Any reasonable implementation of classical consensus isn't susceptible to Sybil attacks. You manually select which peers sign transactions for you, in the same way that you manually select CA's to sign TLS keys for you.
  - operator-name 4y ago
    Manually selecting peers doesn't prevent sybil attacks, it just moves the problem one layer up (to the social level). Either you have some trust in all participating parties or you don't. Classical consensus algorithms assumes the former. Achieving consensus when a percentage of parties cannot be trusted and may even be bad actors is a seperate problem.
    - cowtools 4y ago
      The problem is already on the social level, it's just that in Classical Consensus, trust is established explicitly. Whereas in Proof-Of-Stake, it's established implicitly by means of controlling monopoly money. If the stakers disagree with each other, or if the users disagree about who ought to be stakers, then that's a social problem. That's really no different than the problem of notaries disagreeing with each other or with users disagreeing about who ought to be notaries. The difference is that in PoW, Miners have to stop when it becomes unprofitable for them (due to economies/dis-economies of scale). PoW is decentralized so long as normal people have great economies at a small scale (They have free access to electricity, they are using hardware they already own anyways, they would pay for heating anyways). In PoS, Stakers just get more and more power.
somebodythere 4y ago
Because social consensus can be achieved on which Ethereum fork to use but not on every transaction that fork processes.
- amluto 4y ago
  Solving that doesn’t sound nearly as difficult as a full PoS (or proof of anything) scheme.
  - somebodythere 4y ago
    What would be an easy way to solve that?

Why not just ditch the whole Proof-of-Stake system and use a classical consensus system then?

redox99 4y ago

Because people won't all agree and update their software every 12 seconds for each new block.

cowtools 4y ago
In classical consensus, users don't need to agree on every block, they need to agree on who signs the blocks on their behalf.

operator-name 4y ago

Sybil attacks caused by the nothing at stake problem.

cowtools 4y ago
Any reasonable implementation of classical consensus isn't susceptible to Sybil attacks. You manually select which peers sign transactions for you, in the same way that you manually select CA's to sign TLS keys for you.
- operator-name 4y ago
  Manually selecting peers doesn't prevent sybil attacks, it just moves the problem one layer up (to the social level). Either you have some trust in all participating parties or you don't. Classical consensus algorithms assumes the former. Achieving consensus when a percentage of parties cannot be trusted and may even be bad actors is a seperate problem.
  - cowtools 4y ago
    The problem is already on the social level, it's just that in Classical Consensus, trust is established explicitly. Whereas in Proof-Of-Stake, it's established implicitly by means of controlling monopoly money. If the stakers disagree with each other, or if the users disagree about who ought to be stakers, then that's a social problem. That's really no different than the problem of notaries disagreeing with each other or with users disagreeing about who ought to be notaries. The difference is that in PoW, Miners have to stop when it becomes unprofitable for them (due to economies/dis-economies of scale). PoW is decentralized so long as normal people have great economies at a small scale (They have free access to electricity, they are using hardware they already own anyways, they would pay for heating anyways). In PoS, Stakers just get more and more power.

somebodythere 4y ago

Because social consensus can be achieved on which Ethereum fork to use but not on every transaction that fork processes.

amluto 4y ago
Solving that doesn’t sound nearly as difficult as a full PoS (or proof of anything) scheme.
- somebodythere 4y ago
  What would be an easy way to solve that?