4 ms·
PoW is much the same, those with more capex and opex for compute and power earn more. PoS cuts the opex, and makes the capex fungible.
by dahdum 4y ago
PoW is much the same, those with more capex and opex for compute and power earn more.
PoS cuts the opex, and makes the capex fungible.
- wyager 4y agoThe opex is the part that tethers on-chain security to reality.
- operator-name 4y agoCan you elaborate on why you think this is the case?
- themoonisachees 4y agoStealing private keys (through whatever means) is considerably easier than stealing a comparable amount of mining hardware then running it. It's not that big of a risk in reality of course, but there is still a considerable amount of security provided by the fact that obtaining enough compute for a 50% attack is harder than obtaining enough eth to do the same.
- wyager 4y agoKey phrase to search - "nothing at stake problem"
- operator-name 4y agoFor the most part ethereum doesn't suffer from this issue.
- wyager 4y agoEth's work-arounds all involve centralization. If you want decentralized security, you need real physical opex.
- operator-name 4y agoYes, I'm not denying that. The question was why "opex is the part that tethers on-chain security to reality", and opex specifically.
- wyager 4y agoOpex specifically because we don't have a predicative algorithm for proving capex. The only predicative value-proof algorithm we have is PoW, which works on opex. PoS is completely impredicative.
- exo762 4y agoWhat centralization? Adherence to protocol rules? How requirement of locking down 32ETH is different from requirement to run ASIC that does two rounds of SHA256? Please don't throw around buzzwords.
- wyager 4y agoThe slashing enforcement mechanism introduces centralization; it has to, to work around nothing-at-stake. I'm not throwing around buzzwords. Please don't accuse people of that without sufficient understanding to be reasonably confident you're correct. > locking down 32ETH is different from requirement to run ASIC This is precisely the opex-vs-capex distinction we are discussing in this thread. 32eth is strict capex. ASIC capex <<< power opex.
- exo762 4y ago> The slashing enforcement mechanism introduces centralization; it has to, to work around nothing-at-stake. It is other way around. Slashing is the solution for nothing-at-stake. By requiring multiple validators to sign each block height you prime them for being slashed if they ever double sign those heights (or sell key to someone who does). Where is centralization here? Are you speaking slashing condition detection? Or maybe about slashing tx inclusion into the chain?
- Gigachad 4y agoIt just short circuits the ewaste step really. Those with the most money could buy the most mining hardware so the result was the same
- lawn 4y agoNot exactly though. With POW you need to make a sizeable investment, and hope you'll get a good return eventually. With POS you can keep your money and do it almost for free (as long as you run a node, not that big of a deal). So exchanges will completely dominate staking, but they likely not even touch POW mining.
- hestefisk 4y ago“Fungible” capex? What does that mean?
- themoonisachees 4y agoCapex in PoW is non-fungible by virtue of being spent in hardware, physical equipment, whereas staking means 32 eth is 32 eth regardless of hardware