4 ms·

The idea that Proof of Stake is more secure against attack is beyond absurd, frankly. However you feel about the energy usage of proof of work consensus mechani

The idea that Proof of Stake is more secure against attack is beyond absurd, frankly. However you feel about the energy usage of proof of work consensus mechanisms, they are far more resistant to attack and centralization.

paulgb 4y ago
I agree that it's absurd today, but how many bitcoin halvings until it isn't? When people talk about the security of bitcoin, there's a tendency to pretend that the network's security isn't 98% subsidized by a diminishing pool of unminted bitcoin.
- cowtools 4y ago
  There are cryptocurrencies like monero that have implemented a constant "tail emission" block reward to fight off selfish mining attacks. So that leads me to believe that's a threat specific to bitcoin's tokenomics and not PoW cryptocurrencies in general.
  - rcxdude 4y ago
    Yes, if you don't bound the number of tokens it's not obviously doomed as time goes to infinity, but there's still no particular reason to assume that the rate of mining rewards is either good enough to secure the network or not massively inefficient.
- rcxdude 4y ago
  Yeah, this is why I think bitcoin is long term not worthwhile. While the vision was a digital currency which would be widely used to transact with, it was plausible that transaction costs would be sufficient to secure the network (though it would still be difficult to actually price them effectively). But as a 'store of value', it will start to become either expensive or insecure as the mining rewards peter out.
  - sph 4y ago
    The time to mine a block is "constant", in that it takes an average of 10 minutes whatever the network size. When the mining rewards peter out, big ASIC farm miners leave the network, the mining difficulty goes down, and so does the energy and hardware investment required to mine a single block. But at the same time, smaller time miner can enter the network and mine with less powerful hardware. If all miners were to quit tomorrow, the difficulty would go down so much that you could mine a block, in 10 minutes, with a Raspberry Pi Zero.
- rufusroflpunch 4y ago
  There are beliefs that as Bitcoin continues to accrue value and users, the fees will be enough to sustain the network. I understand many are skeptical in this regard and the only thing that will them right or wrong is time.
  - Ekaros 4y ago
    And with most common type of attack discussed the 51% double spend... You get to keep the fees... On all that happen during attack period transactions... Depending on situation on network you might not even lose anything if there isn't enough well paying transactions around.
randomran01234 4y ago
Why? PoW can only afford to be attacked twice. It even has a name: “spawn camping.” In proof of stake, this is pretty easy to defend against repeatedly. https://vitalik.ca/general/2020/11/06/pos2020.html https://vitalik.ca/general/2020/11/06/pos2020.html
- cowtools 4y ago
  I don't understand how PoS changes this. Also, that blog post does not consider CPU-mined PoW which is unprofitable for miners and sustained attackers.
  - randomran01234 4y ago
    In PoW, if you control 51% of mining the users can defend by switching to another hash algorithm, meaning the attacker needs to re-buy a lot of new hardware. If they’ve anticipated this, and attack again with new hardware, there is not much further defence. In PoS, users can coordinate a soft fork to burn the attackers funds, each time they re-attack the chain, until they eventually run out of capital.
- rufusroflpunch 4y ago
  If you are accepting that the network can hard fork to change the hash algorithm, then why not accept that they can do a soft fork to blacklist UTXOs or any one of who-knows-how many possible defenses? Changing the hashing algorithm is a nuclear option and probably not necessary in the astronomically unlikely event that someone managed to get 51% of hash rate for any amount of time. edit: Blacklisting UTXOs is entirely possible as I mentioned, and as I said, it should be achievable by soft fork. This would be the proof of work equivalent of slashing. I have a hard time believing Vitalik doesn’t know this. Is he being dishonest? I don’t know.
  - randomran01234 4y ago
    Good question, I’d be interested to hear a core dev’s thoughts on this.
landemva 4y ago
> they [PoW] are far more resistant to attack Many meanings of "attack". A year ago China attacked the miners and they mostly left China. A nation attacking the btc network is real, and the miners physically moved. It is easier to move a PoS validator, and harder to locate the validator in the first place.
- rufusroflpunch 4y ago
  China banning miners strengthened the network instead of weakening it. Within a 3-6 months the hash rate totally recovered and it was more decentralized than ever. The argument that it is easier to move a validator than a miner is a very surface level argument, honestly. The incentives of mining ensure that miners will spread to every corner of the world, in every jurisdiction, in search of cheap electricity. Meanwhile, proof of stake validation has no such incentive. It is financialized and it even has a guaranteed yield component. Since validators are financial and not industrial like miners, they will be incentivized to locate near other financial centers, like New York and London, and they will certainly comply with sanctions and other financial practices.
- csomar 4y ago
  > It is easier to move a PoS validator, and harder to locate the validator in the first place. I'd say it's much easier to single out PoS validators. Especially when they are congregating under unified capital and they are US based. Also, argument could be made that they are responsible for the transactions that they are making. The same can be hard to argue for Bitcoin, since anyone with a bit of a hashrate could generate a block and it's permission-less to contribute to the hashrate (and also anonymous)

paulgb 4y ago

I agree that it's absurd today, but how many bitcoin halvings until it isn't? When people talk about the security of bitcoin, there's a tendency to pretend that the network's security isn't 98% subsidized by a diminishing pool of unminted bitcoin.

cowtools 4y ago
There are cryptocurrencies like monero that have implemented a constant "tail emission" block reward to fight off selfish mining attacks. So that leads me to believe that's a threat specific to bitcoin's tokenomics and not PoW cryptocurrencies in general.
- rcxdude 4y ago
  Yes, if you don't bound the number of tokens it's not obviously doomed as time goes to infinity, but there's still no particular reason to assume that the rate of mining rewards is either good enough to secure the network or not massively inefficient.
rcxdude 4y ago
Yeah, this is why I think bitcoin is long term not worthwhile. While the vision was a digital currency which would be widely used to transact with, it was plausible that transaction costs would be sufficient to secure the network (though it would still be difficult to actually price them effectively). But as a 'store of value', it will start to become either expensive or insecure as the mining rewards peter out.
- sph 4y ago
  The time to mine a block is "constant", in that it takes an average of 10 minutes whatever the network size. When the mining rewards peter out, big ASIC farm miners leave the network, the mining difficulty goes down, and so does the energy and hardware investment required to mine a single block. But at the same time, smaller time miner can enter the network and mine with less powerful hardware. If all miners were to quit tomorrow, the difficulty would go down so much that you could mine a block, in 10 minutes, with a Raspberry Pi Zero.
rufusroflpunch 4y ago
There are beliefs that as Bitcoin continues to accrue value and users, the fees will be enough to sustain the network. I understand many are skeptical in this regard and the only thing that will them right or wrong is time.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  And with most common type of attack discussed the 51% double spend... You get to keep the fees... On all that happen during attack period transactions... Depending on situation on network you might not even lose anything if there isn't enough well paying transactions around.

randomran01234 4y ago

Why? PoW can only afford to be attacked twice. It even has a name: “spawn camping.” In proof of stake, this is pretty easy to defend against repeatedly. https://vitalik.ca/general/2020/11/06/pos2020.html https://vitalik.ca/general/2020/11/06/pos2020.html

cowtools 4y ago
I don't understand how PoS changes this. Also, that blog post does not consider CPU-mined PoW which is unprofitable for miners and sustained attackers.
- randomran01234 4y ago
  In PoW, if you control 51% of mining the users can defend by switching to another hash algorithm, meaning the attacker needs to re-buy a lot of new hardware. If they’ve anticipated this, and attack again with new hardware, there is not much further defence. In PoS, users can coordinate a soft fork to burn the attackers funds, each time they re-attack the chain, until they eventually run out of capital.
rufusroflpunch 4y ago
If you are accepting that the network can hard fork to change the hash algorithm, then why not accept that they can do a soft fork to blacklist UTXOs or any one of who-knows-how many possible defenses? Changing the hashing algorithm is a nuclear option and probably not necessary in the astronomically unlikely event that someone managed to get 51% of hash rate for any amount of time. edit: Blacklisting UTXOs is entirely possible as I mentioned, and as I said, it should be achievable by soft fork. This would be the proof of work equivalent of slashing. I have a hard time believing Vitalik doesn’t know this. Is he being dishonest? I don’t know.
- randomran01234 4y ago
  Good question, I’d be interested to hear a core dev’s thoughts on this.

landemva 4y ago

> they [PoW] are far more resistant to attack Many meanings of "attack". A year ago China attacked the miners and they mostly left China. A nation attacking the btc network is real, and the miners physically moved. It is easier to move a PoS validator, and harder to locate the validator in the first place.

rufusroflpunch 4y ago
China banning miners strengthened the network instead of weakening it. Within a 3-6 months the hash rate totally recovered and it was more decentralized than ever. The argument that it is easier to move a validator than a miner is a very surface level argument, honestly. The incentives of mining ensure that miners will spread to every corner of the world, in every jurisdiction, in search of cheap electricity. Meanwhile, proof of stake validation has no such incentive. It is financialized and it even has a guaranteed yield component. Since validators are financial and not industrial like miners, they will be incentivized to locate near other financial centers, like New York and London, and they will certainly comply with sanctions and other financial practices.
csomar 4y ago
> It is easier to move a PoS validator, and harder to locate the validator in the first place. I'd say it's much easier to single out PoS validators. Especially when they are congregating under unified capital and they are US based. Also, argument could be made that they are responsible for the transactions that they are making. The same can be hard to argue for Bitcoin, since anyone with a bit of a hashrate could generate a block and it's permission-less to contribute to the hashrate (and also anonymous)