6 ms·

Vitaliks games aren't amusing. A blockchain has fundamental limitations that prevent PoS from working, namely it must be costly to make a fork[1]. Complexity is

by lappa 12y ago

Vitaliks games aren't amusing. A blockchain has fundamental limitations that prevent PoS from working, namely it must be costly to make a fork[1]. Complexity is the enemy of security. Bitcoin solved the consensus problem with it's relatively simple incentive scheme. This post starts off by proposing a flawed system, making slight changes to the flawed system (punish attackers, trust someone when downloading the chain, assume economic incentives will cause people to update their software after an attack, etc) and recursively point out ways to "fix" those problems while at the same time either introducing more subproblems or more centralization. This is similar to what is being done with Ethereum. Instead of one clear problem, there are many small unclear problems caused by trying to fix problems caused by a fix of a fix of a fix of the fundamental problem. In short, this is Vitaliks Fractal. [1] https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf

drcode 12y ago
I see where your coming from, but I think you are wrong: The problem right now is that Bitcoin is a very hard system to upgrade or expand, and because of this cryptocurrency innovation is starting to stagnate (in a similar way that the traditional banking system has stifled innovation in the last 50 years.) The concerning part of Vitalik's posts is that right now they build unproven ideas on top of other unproven ideas, because we lack empirical evidence to test these kinds of things, because Bitcoin isn't a general-purpose infrastructure for trying out new cryptoeconomic models... it seems kind of unfair for knocking a guy though for trying to analyze them anyway. However, in 2015, with the launch of Ethereum 1.0 and other competing systems, we'll get a lot more hard data than ever to find out which of these kinds of ideas are good- Both because these systems themselves test these ideas, and because they allow ideas like this to be built on top of them. So you may be right that there are bad ideas here (As a fan of POS I disagree on that one with you, however) but they are not "fractal" and we will know in the near future with empirical data which ones need to be tossed away.
- lappa 12y ago
  >The concerning part of Vitalik's posts is that right now they build unproven ideas on top of other unproven ideas Not only are they unproven, but there are mounds of evidence that it isn't possible. >it seems kind of unfair for knocking a guy though for trying to analyze them anyway. I'm knocking him because he is dangerously misinformed and is implementing and promoting broken cryptographic systems. >However, in 2015, with the launch of Ethereum 1.0 and other competing systems, we'll get a lot more hard data than ever to find out which of these kinds of ideas are good- Both because these systems themselves test these ideas, and because they allow ideas like this to be built on top of them. We already have seen that amateur cryptographers cannot make their unworkable ideas workable. You don't need another broken altcoin (Ethereum) to know this, you need to understand what the blockchain accomplishes to know this. I'm sure once Ethereum fails there will be a new next big thing and people will get sucked into another broken system, but you can actually understand what is a good idea if you try to understand the blockchain. You don't need to cross items from the near-infinite list of possible bad ideas to know what's a bad idea. I'm not sure what you mean by "Ideas like this to be built on top of them." If you already have Ethereums PoW consensus system, what the hell would having a PoS consensus system on top of that accomplish? >but they are not "fractal" and we will know in the near future with empirical data which ones need to be tossed away. They are certainly fractal. One could recursively say why each of those fixes have problems, and eventually you would end up with a fully centralized system that masquerades itself as being decentralized and PoS or a completely broken system that is attackable for near-free.
  - drcode 12y ago
    > there are mounds of evidence that it isn't possible. The paper you referenced from early 2014 isn't really considered very relevant anymore, though I agree the proponents of "weak subjectivity" (the solution to the problem listed in your paper) haven't made a strong case yet to defend their position. > I'm sure once Ethereum fails there will be a new next big thing and people will get sucked into another broken system It's kind of hard to have an argument of this subject with you, given that you seem to be complaining about PoS when ethereum 1.0 will be a 100% PoW system, so I don't quite understand what your specific complaint is. I think the near future is pretty clear though: The cryptocurrency community is going to probably bitterly divided on the question of PoW vs PoS and two primary currencies will arise around each approach (whatever they end up being.) The PoW guys will keep complaining that the PoS systems "aren't secure enough" and the PoS guys will happily use them anyway. Of course, it's possible that the above scenario happens but that the PoS currencies crash and burn for technical reasons- Clearly I'm a PoS fan and don't think that'll happen.

by lappa 12y ago

drcode 12y ago

I see where your coming from, but I think you are wrong: The problem right now is that Bitcoin is a very hard system to upgrade or expand, and because of this cryptocurrency innovation is starting to stagnate (in a similar way that the traditional banking system has stifled innovation in the last 50 years.) The concerning part of Vitalik's posts is that right now they build unproven ideas on top of other unproven ideas, because we lack empirical evidence to test these kinds of things, because Bitcoin isn't a general-purpose infrastructure for trying out new cryptoeconomic models... it seems kind of unfair for knocking a guy though for trying to analyze them anyway. However, in 2015, with the launch of Ethereum 1.0 and other competing systems, we'll get a lot more hard data than ever to find out which of these kinds of ideas are good- Both because these systems themselves test these ideas, and because they allow ideas like this to be built on top of them. So you may be right that there are bad ideas here (As a fan of POS I disagree on that one with you, however) but they are not "fractal" and we will know in the near future with empirical data which ones need to be tossed away.

lappa 12y ago
>The concerning part of Vitalik's posts is that right now they build unproven ideas on top of other unproven ideas Not only are they unproven, but there are mounds of evidence that it isn't possible. >it seems kind of unfair for knocking a guy though for trying to analyze them anyway. I'm knocking him because he is dangerously misinformed and is implementing and promoting broken cryptographic systems. >However, in 2015, with the launch of Ethereum 1.0 and other competing systems, we'll get a lot more hard data than ever to find out which of these kinds of ideas are good- Both because these systems themselves test these ideas, and because they allow ideas like this to be built on top of them. We already have seen that amateur cryptographers cannot make their unworkable ideas workable. You don't need another broken altcoin (Ethereum) to know this, you need to understand what the blockchain accomplishes to know this. I'm sure once Ethereum fails there will be a new next big thing and people will get sucked into another broken system, but you can actually understand what is a good idea if you try to understand the blockchain. You don't need to cross items from the near-infinite list of possible bad ideas to know what's a bad idea. I'm not sure what you mean by "Ideas like this to be built on top of them." If you already have Ethereums PoW consensus system, what the hell would having a PoS consensus system on top of that accomplish? >but they are not "fractal" and we will know in the near future with empirical data which ones need to be tossed away. They are certainly fractal. One could recursively say why each of those fixes have problems, and eventually you would end up with a fully centralized system that masquerades itself as being decentralized and PoS or a completely broken system that is attackable for near-free.
- drcode 12y ago
  > there are mounds of evidence that it isn't possible. The paper you referenced from early 2014 isn't really considered very relevant anymore, though I agree the proponents of "weak subjectivity" (the solution to the problem listed in your paper) haven't made a strong case yet to defend their position. > I'm sure once Ethereum fails there will be a new next big thing and people will get sucked into another broken system It's kind of hard to have an argument of this subject with you, given that you seem to be complaining about PoS when ethereum 1.0 will be a 100% PoW system, so I don't quite understand what your specific complaint is. I think the near future is pretty clear though: The cryptocurrency community is going to probably bitterly divided on the question of PoW vs PoS and two primary currencies will arise around each approach (whatever they end up being.) The PoW guys will keep complaining that the PoS systems "aren't secure enough" and the PoS guys will happily use them anyway. Of course, it's possible that the above scenario happens but that the PoS currencies crash and burn for technical reasons- Clearly I'm a PoS fan and don't think that'll happen.