3 ms·

Yes, that's a good one. He goes on to say"Of course, if Bitcoin actually gets attacked, I do expect that the political will to switch to at least hybrid proof o

Yes, that's a good one. He goes on to say"Of course, if Bitcoin actually gets attacked, I do expect that the political will to switch to at least hybrid proof of stake will quickly appear, but I expect that to be a painful transition." which I thought was funny because he's tweaking them a little by saying they're eventually going to have to accept PoS anyway

once_inc 4y ago
If so, that won't be the Bitcoin my node will switch to. You can't force the network to do what you want. UASF and the many forks before, during, and after the fork wars have proven this.
- stale2002 4y ago
  Hey, you would be free to fork of to your own little chain that nobody uses. You can always do that. But if the whole system is at risk due to attacks, I expect that you will be a bit lonely on that chain
  - once_inc 4y ago
    I would just not do anything and continue on the original chain. Yes, if most of the world moves to the other chain, that fork will be Bitcoin for the rest of the world. The issue is if my time preference is low enough to await/speculate on the demise of the chain due to the issues I've identified and made me not switch.
- mhluongo 4y ago
  Pretty sure node runners would prefer a UASF to hybrid PoS or at least a different PoW algo over constant 51% attacks. I love Bitcoin, but you have to be able to consider hypotheticals like this. Similarly... a tail emission should be on the table. Mentioning it used to be totally third rail [0], but these days folks like Peter Todd are speaking up. [0] - https://twitter.com/mhluongo/status/1092559017178734594?t=i2J0ez5danXjZQmxPux11Q&s=19 https://twitter.com/mhluongo/status/1092559017178734594?t=i2...
  - ftlio 4y ago
    Consistent 51% attacks rely on Bitcoin already being more-or-less worthless. If it is, then yes, the cost of terrorizing the network will be low. The same follows based on Vitalik’s argument for why PoS is supposedly too expensive to attack. The difference is if you want to terrorize Bitcoin, you need to find energy and compute at relatively low cost compared to everyone still on the network. With Ethereum, you just need to acquire ETH.
    - kybernetikos 4y ago
      Attacking bitcoin uses energy but does not degrade the computer or the energy infrastructure required to do the attack. Attacking PoS ethereum degrades the resource you use to attack. When bitcoin was created there weren't hashpower markets where you could attack a chain without ever having invested in it and then move on the next minute, your hardware investment still earning you money. I think satoshi thought there would only be one chain and the game theory with many is different.
ftlio 4y ago
Considering he thought Bitcoin block space was too scarce, and now not scarce enough, and considered people running their own nodes a “weird mountain man fantasy”, but has now built a political topology that depends on something like Bitcoin’s UASF and thus on people running their own nodes, I wouldn’t trust his predictions much. The attack surface of Ethereum’s PoS is pretty huge, and derivative staking already has a runaway accumulation problem. Bitcoin’s entire critique of money is based on not being something like Proof of Stake.
- markwkw 4y ago
  Where could I educate myself on the vulnerabilities of PoS? It seems like for PoW, the vulnerability comes from variability of computing power of miners - if miners capacity dips for a few hours because of external events, attacker can use that opportunity and bring online a lot of resources to do a 51% attack. Doesn't a PoS attack require 51% of coin ownership? How would an attacker obtain that without being massively rich to begin with?
  - dmichulke 4y ago
    A few are here: https://www.lynalden.com/proof-of-stake/ https://www.lynalden.com/proof-of-stake/
    - ftlio 4y ago
      There’s also the overall economic argument that Proof of Work is actually just the least obscure version of anything else: https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/ https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/ Overall I’d just argue that because PoS doesn’t involve external resources to create blocks, the cost of producing a block won’t be well understood and thus there will be opportunities for rent extraction - which we’re already seeing with Lido staking.
      - dmichulke 4y ago
        Great article, thanks!

once_inc 4y ago

If so, that won't be the Bitcoin my node will switch to. You can't force the network to do what you want. UASF and the many forks before, during, and after the fork wars have proven this.

stale2002 4y ago
Hey, you would be free to fork of to your own little chain that nobody uses. You can always do that. But if the whole system is at risk due to attacks, I expect that you will be a bit lonely on that chain
- once_inc 4y ago
  I would just not do anything and continue on the original chain. Yes, if most of the world moves to the other chain, that fork will be Bitcoin for the rest of the world. The issue is if my time preference is low enough to await/speculate on the demise of the chain due to the issues I've identified and made me not switch.
mhluongo 4y ago
Pretty sure node runners would prefer a UASF to hybrid PoS or at least a different PoW algo over constant 51% attacks. I love Bitcoin, but you have to be able to consider hypotheticals like this. Similarly... a tail emission should be on the table. Mentioning it used to be totally third rail [0], but these days folks like Peter Todd are speaking up. [0] - https://twitter.com/mhluongo/status/1092559017178734594?t=i2J0ez5danXjZQmxPux11Q&s=19 https://twitter.com/mhluongo/status/1092559017178734594?t=i2...
- ftlio 4y ago
  Consistent 51% attacks rely on Bitcoin already being more-or-less worthless. If it is, then yes, the cost of terrorizing the network will be low. The same follows based on Vitalik’s argument for why PoS is supposedly too expensive to attack. The difference is if you want to terrorize Bitcoin, you need to find energy and compute at relatively low cost compared to everyone still on the network. With Ethereum, you just need to acquire ETH.
  - kybernetikos 4y ago
    Attacking bitcoin uses energy but does not degrade the computer or the energy infrastructure required to do the attack. Attacking PoS ethereum degrades the resource you use to attack. When bitcoin was created there weren't hashpower markets where you could attack a chain without ever having invested in it and then move on the next minute, your hardware investment still earning you money. I think satoshi thought there would only be one chain and the game theory with many is different.

ftlio 4y ago

Considering he thought Bitcoin block space was too scarce, and now not scarce enough, and considered people running their own nodes a “weird mountain man fantasy”, but has now built a political topology that depends on something like Bitcoin’s UASF and thus on people running their own nodes, I wouldn’t trust his predictions much. The attack surface of Ethereum’s PoS is pretty huge, and derivative staking already has a runaway accumulation problem. Bitcoin’s entire critique of money is based on not being something like Proof of Stake.

markwkw 4y ago
Where could I educate myself on the vulnerabilities of PoS? It seems like for PoW, the vulnerability comes from variability of computing power of miners - if miners capacity dips for a few hours because of external events, attacker can use that opportunity and bring online a lot of resources to do a 51% attack. Doesn't a PoS attack require 51% of coin ownership? How would an attacker obtain that without being massively rich to begin with?
- dmichulke 4y ago
  A few are here: https://www.lynalden.com/proof-of-stake/ https://www.lynalden.com/proof-of-stake/
  - ftlio 4y ago
    There’s also the overall economic argument that Proof of Work is actually just the least obscure version of anything else: https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/ https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/ Overall I’d just argue that because PoS doesn’t involve external resources to create blocks, the cost of producing a block won’t be well understood and thus there will be opportunities for rent extraction - which we’re already seeing with Lido staking.
    - dmichulke 4y ago
      Great article, thanks!