4 ms·

Not so fast. In both networks, the ultimate control is held by those who run end-user nodes. These people create demand for the asset, and creating demand is ul

by Geee 4y ago

Not so fast. In both networks, the ultimate control is held by those who run end-user nodes. These people create demand for the asset, and creating demand is ultimately the way to control the asset. An end-user node is like a device, which verifies that bank notes are genuine or that gold coins are pure. If everyone can independently reject bad money and accept good money, the good money will have more demand and therefore be more valuable. Even if someone is very rich or has resources to mine blocks, they can't dictate demand for other entities. They must abide by the rules which are enforced by end-user nodes. If there are entities which have power to dictate demand, and the network can't defend itself under pressure, means that the network is not properly decentralized. Also, the decision between "good money" and "bad money" should probably be a game theoretic focal point, rather than something set by a foundation and large staking entities.

funklute 4y ago
> These people create demand for the asset I don't think I really understood what you meant by this... Nor did I really follow your overall point here, if I'm to be honest... > means that the network is not properly decentralized ummmm..... this just sounds like a convenient excuse in case of failure. - "Somebody did a 51% attack!" - "Oh, well it's not the system's fault, it just means that the implementation was bad" Actually 51% attacks are a theoretical feature of these systems, before you even get to the implementation details.
- kobalsky 4y ago
  in a proof of stake system doing a 51% attack is suicidal, it's kind of the whole point
zonotope 4y ago
> An end-user node is like a device, which verifies that bank notes are genuine or that gold coins are pure. If everyone can independently reject bad money and accept good money, the good money will have more demand and therefore be more valuable. The key word there "independently". Proof of resources is one way to tell if an individual node is actually independent. Proof of resources gives an individual who has more invested in the network more weight in deciding which "bank nodes are genuine". Those individual's votes in theory deserve more weight because proof of resources assumes those individuals are harder to influence (or bribe) and have a stronger incentive to keep the network functioning because they have more at stake. These systems are trying to ensure that the nodes that have the power to accept or reject "money" only accept "good money" and always reject "bad money", and they're using demonstration of resources as a proxy of trustworthiness and independence. Whether someone ties a bunch of money into specialized ASIC chip that's really only good for mining bitcoin, or they tie a bunch of money into staking eth is an implementation detail.

by Geee 4y ago

funklute 4y ago

> These people create demand for the asset I don't think I really understood what you meant by this... Nor did I really follow your overall point here, if I'm to be honest... > means that the network is not properly decentralized ummmm..... this just sounds like a convenient excuse in case of failure. - "Somebody did a 51% attack!" - "Oh, well it's not the system's fault, it just means that the implementation was bad" Actually 51% attacks are a theoretical feature of these systems, before you even get to the implementation details.

kobalsky 4y ago
in a proof of stake system doing a 51% attack is suicidal, it's kind of the whole point

zonotope 4y ago

> An end-user node is like a device, which verifies that bank notes are genuine or that gold coins are pure. If everyone can independently reject bad money and accept good money, the good money will have more demand and therefore be more valuable. The key word there "independently". Proof of resources is one way to tell if an individual node is actually independent. Proof of resources gives an individual who has more invested in the network more weight in deciding which "bank nodes are genuine". Those individual's votes in theory deserve more weight because proof of resources assumes those individuals are harder to influence (or bribe) and have a stronger incentive to keep the network functioning because they have more at stake. These systems are trying to ensure that the nodes that have the power to accept or reject "money" only accept "good money" and always reject "bad money", and they're using demonstration of resources as a proxy of trustworthiness and independence. Whether someone ties a bunch of money into specialized ASIC chip that's really only good for mining bitcoin, or they tie a bunch of money into staking eth is an implementation detail.