30 ms·
No, the whole idea of both PoW and PoS is the same, namely to prevent a Sybil attack by requiring participants to incur an economic cost. In PoW, participants
by lottin 4y ago
No, the whole idea of both PoW and PoS is the same, namely to prevent a Sybil attack by requiring participants to incur an economic cost. In PoW, participants are required to buy electricity, whereas in PoS they're required to buy a virtual token. Therefore I don't see any reason why switching from PoW to PoS should result in lower fees.
- moffkalast 4y agoWasn't the principle that the 'stake' you put up for collateral is what prevents attacks, since it's lost only in the case of block desync? I don't see why each confirmation would need any investment, aside from staking rewards (otherwise what's the point of staking). But since people don't have to cover physical electricity and GPU costs anymore it also means that the rewards can be much lower, while theoretically staying competitive. But that's regarding transaction fees, not gas. But well as the other guy points out, seems like the bottleneck that creates scarcity is the single thread processing of transactions which I wouldn't have guessed, apparently the network is still actually that overloaded despite the speedup of not having to brute force the final hash thing.
- lottin 4y ago> since people don't have to cover physical electricity and GPU costs anymore it also means that the rewards can be much lower The amount spent on electricity in PoW is determined by the reward not the other way around. And from what I gather the same applies to PoS, except that, instead of spending electricity, virtual tokens must be deposited somewhere, but again the amount that will be spent on these tokens is determined by the reward that the depositors expect to get.