4 ms·

It's incorrect to say PoW miners can censor transactions. With PoS, the big players control the small players. If the minority doesn't play along, their funds

It's incorrect to say PoW miners can censor transactions. With PoS, the big players control the small players. If the minority doesn't play along, their funds will be slashed by the procotol. If 66% of validators censor you, your transaction will never be finalized. With PoW, the big players cannot coerce the small players in any way. Everyone independently controls their own blocks. If 66% of miners censor you, your transaction will merely take 3x as long to be confirmed.

immibis 4y ago
The part about PoW is falase. If 66% of miners really want to censor you, they will also censor the other 34% of miners if those miners choose to mine a block including your transactions. If <50% of miners want to censor you, they can make it take longer for your transactions to be processed. If it's >50% (or thereabouts) they can prevent your transactions from every getting confirmed. Sure, the 34% could collude until they happen to produce 6 blocks in a row, but each individual member of that group would make more money by going along with the censorship and not being censored themselves. I believe it's similar with PoS, but with somewhat different incentive magnitudes.
- TakeBlaster16 4y ago
  I suppose that is possible, but we're thinking of two different incentive structures. If 66% of miners censor their own blocks to comply with OFAC, then eventually the transaction will get in. If 66% of miners not only censor their own blocks, but also collude to continually reorg the chain, then obviously all bets are off, the project has failed, and the exchange rate is headed to 0. I think the former is infinitely more likely than the latter.
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    > If 66% of miners not only censor their own blocks, but also collude to continually reorg the chain, then obviously all bets are off, the project has failed, and the exchange rate is headed to 0. Is it though? If crypto ever becomes a common currency people will still want to transact in it regardless of corruption/collusion among miners. Most are not going to stop using it for ideological reasons like "miners are altering the chain" unless it negatively impacts their own transactions.
    - immibis 4y ago
      Many people do want to transact in rubles, but rubles are still a failed currency and will eventually be replaced with something else.
yunohn 4y ago
> Everyone independently controls their own blocks. I believe the point is that there’s no prerequisite that all miners are independent, and will definitely collude. PoW or PoS this is the case, as blockchains cannot prevent IRL agreements.
baobabKoodaa 4y ago
> With PoW, the big players cannot coerce the small players in any way. Everyone independently controls their own blocks. If 66% of miners censor you, your transaction will merely take 3x as long to be confirmed. This is false. If miners controlling 66% of hash power decide to censor you, they can ignore any blocks produced by the minority who include your transaction.

immibis 4y ago

The part about PoW is falase. If 66% of miners really want to censor you, they will also censor the other 34% of miners if those miners choose to mine a block including your transactions. If <50% of miners want to censor you, they can make it take longer for your transactions to be processed. If it's >50% (or thereabouts) they can prevent your transactions from every getting confirmed. Sure, the 34% could collude until they happen to produce 6 blocks in a row, but each individual member of that group would make more money by going along with the censorship and not being censored themselves. I believe it's similar with PoS, but with somewhat different incentive magnitudes.

TakeBlaster16 4y ago
I suppose that is possible, but we're thinking of two different incentive structures. If 66% of miners censor their own blocks to comply with OFAC, then eventually the transaction will get in. If 66% of miners not only censor their own blocks, but also collude to continually reorg the chain, then obviously all bets are off, the project has failed, and the exchange rate is headed to 0. I think the former is infinitely more likely than the latter.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  > If 66% of miners not only censor their own blocks, but also collude to continually reorg the chain, then obviously all bets are off, the project has failed, and the exchange rate is headed to 0. Is it though? If crypto ever becomes a common currency people will still want to transact in it regardless of corruption/collusion among miners. Most are not going to stop using it for ideological reasons like "miners are altering the chain" unless it negatively impacts their own transactions.
  - immibis 4y ago
    Many people do want to transact in rubles, but rubles are still a failed currency and will eventually be replaced with something else.

yunohn 4y ago

> Everyone independently controls their own blocks. I believe the point is that there’s no prerequisite that all miners are independent, and will definitely collude. PoW or PoS this is the case, as blockchains cannot prevent IRL agreements.

baobabKoodaa 4y ago

> With PoW, the big players cannot coerce the small players in any way. Everyone independently controls their own blocks. If 66% of miners censor you, your transaction will merely take 3x as long to be confirmed. This is false. If miners controlling 66% of hash power decide to censor you, they can ignore any blocks produced by the minority who include your transaction.