3 ms·

True. That's a big part towards the move to proof of stake systems. Some people argue that the 'delegates' can collude to destroy the system, but this is more o

True. That's a big part towards the move to proof of stake systems. Some people argue that the 'delegates' can collude to destroy the system, but this is more of a problem in Bitcoin, where just two major mining pools can collude to double-spend. In addition, since delegates are 'voted' by the people holding the currency, if anything funny is noticed people will immediately withdraw their votes (they have an economic incentive to do so), and thus the delegate ceases to be a delegate anymore and cannot extend the blockchain.

brighton36 12y ago
Of the many problems with Proof of Stake, "Centralization" and the trivial-ness of a rollback are probably the two largest. (Though the "nothing is at stake" argument is very compelling) It's likely that Stake-chains are a wonderful way to run a company. It's probable that Stake-chains won't secure enough trust to maintain 'platforms' amongst anonymous and antagonistic holders. IMO