3 ms·
My (maybe naive) understanding is that proof of stake is actually better here, no? Stakers would need to commit to one particular fork and accept that their sta
by bibabaloo 4y ago
My (maybe naive) understanding is that proof of stake is actually better here, no? Stakers would need to commit to one particular fork and accept that their stake (in ETH) would be lost/slashed in all other forks.
In contrast, in PoW, there's nothing stopping miners from creating a hostile fork that is economically advantageous to them (despite maybe being "worse" overall) and then flipping back to the original chain if their fork doesn't work out. Their hash power can't be slashed in the same way stakers ETH can be in PoS.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- _Algernon_ 4y agoDoesn't a fork in both cases continue with the existing chain? In PoW that means that mining power has to be allocated between the two chains, thus constituting a vote for legitimacy. In PoS each party keeps their stake in both new chains and can vote in both of them. There is no need to pick a lane.
- hanniabu 4y agoThe validators choose which to support. If you think one will fail, you will be selling off the forked eth, bridging it over, and buying more eth on the chain you want to support