4 ms·

> 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

by 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.

lappa 12y ago
>The paper you referenced from early 2014 isn't really considered very relevant anymore It is relevant and discusses fundamental problems with PoS, it is a very strongly reasoned paper and there hasn't been anything reasonable countering it so far. It isn't considered relevant to scamcoiners, of course, since their goal isn't making a secure cryptocurrency, rather transferring money from a fools hand to theirs. >t'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 because I complain about PoS, I cannot argue that software is broken for any other reason? I don't have a specific complaint, they have such a complicated system that I have a myriad of complaints including Ethereums multiple consensus implementations, ASIC resistance, incredibly small block times, using insecure crypto in their illegal IPO, their system being basically useless, etc. >The PoW guys will keep complaining that the PoS systems "aren't secure enough" and the PoS guys will happily use them anyway. Since "PoS guys" appear to be fine with centralization and the obvious harmed security from that, they probably will be happy with other forms of broken security. >Clearly I'm a PoS fan and don't think that'll happen. There is basically no debate among cryptocurrency researchers that PoS doesn't work, it is mostly promoted among noobies and scammers. You can be a "fan" of it all you want, but it isn't like being a fan of Republicans or a fan of C++, it's like being a fan of md4 for cryptography.
- drcode 12y ago
  > Since "PoS guys" appear to be fine with centralization... Ah I see, you consider the current PoS systems that rely on getting the initial state for a new client from some trusted source to be "centralized". Yes, this is going to be the big debate in the cryptocurrency space for the near future I think. (Though you'd probably argue there's no debate, because someone disagreeing with your position isn't a "real researcher".)
  - lappa 12y ago
    >Ah I see, you consider the current PoS systems that rely on getting the initial state for a new client from some trusted source to be "centralized". No, that component is just broken. If anyone trusted is a bad actor and gives you a bad blockchain, you are not in consensus, thus any system using this cannot be considered a consensus system. The centralization I was referring to was other mechanisms commonly employed by PoS systems. >Though you'd probably argue there's no debate, because someone disagreeing with your position isn't a "real researcher". No, someone not doing real research isn't a real researcher. Someone who understands consensus and security (not Vitelik) and creates a paper describing a system and its security model clearly is a real researcher. It isn't my fault that that hasn't happened yet.
    - drcode 12y ago
      > If anyone trusted is a bad actor and gives you a bad blockchain, you are not in consensus, thus any system using this cannot be considered a consensus system. If anyone trusted is a bad actor and gives you a bad [BITCOIN WALLET CLIENT], you are not in consensus, thus [BITCOIN] cannot be considered a consensus system.
      - lappa 12y ago
        Bitcoin wallets can have their source code audited. A blockchain that you accept regardless of the fact that there is a taller one is not audited by definition.
maaku 12y ago
> The paper you referenced from early 2014 isn't really considered very relevant anymore. Andrew's proof of stake paper was vetted by many core developers and people with a great deal of experience in bitcoin-like consensus systems. To my knowledge nothing in the paper has been refuted to date. It would be nice if you would be so kind as to provide a reference.
- drcode 12y ago
  https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/11/25/proof-stake-learned-love-weak-subjectivity/ https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/11/25/proof-stake-learned-lov...
  - lappa 12y ago
    That isn't a refutation of the paper, it is a proposal for an unworkable idea along with mumbo jumbo (weak subjectivity) justifying adding centralized mechanism. The fundamental reason his punitive system doesn't work is because of the nothing at stake problem. More specifically, in this case he assumes that he can punish people making forks, but you cannot punish people who are no longer part of the system (or have anonymized and separated themselves from their funds) nor can you punish someone who makes a fork and attempts to attack, but is unsuccessful and doesn't broadcast. Once again, this isn't a refutation. A refutation would involve going through the logic of the nothing-at-stake paper and saying why it is wrong.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]

by drcode 12y ago

lappa 12y ago

>The paper you referenced from early 2014 isn't really considered very relevant anymore It is relevant and discusses fundamental problems with PoS, it is a very strongly reasoned paper and there hasn't been anything reasonable countering it so far. It isn't considered relevant to scamcoiners, of course, since their goal isn't making a secure cryptocurrency, rather transferring money from a fools hand to theirs. >t'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 because I complain about PoS, I cannot argue that software is broken for any other reason? I don't have a specific complaint, they have such a complicated system that I have a myriad of complaints including Ethereums multiple consensus implementations, ASIC resistance, incredibly small block times, using insecure crypto in their illegal IPO, their system being basically useless, etc. >The PoW guys will keep complaining that the PoS systems "aren't secure enough" and the PoS guys will happily use them anyway. Since "PoS guys" appear to be fine with centralization and the obvious harmed security from that, they probably will be happy with other forms of broken security. >Clearly I'm a PoS fan and don't think that'll happen. There is basically no debate among cryptocurrency researchers that PoS doesn't work, it is mostly promoted among noobies and scammers. You can be a "fan" of it all you want, but it isn't like being a fan of Republicans or a fan of C++, it's like being a fan of md4 for cryptography.

drcode 12y ago
> Since "PoS guys" appear to be fine with centralization... Ah I see, you consider the current PoS systems that rely on getting the initial state for a new client from some trusted source to be "centralized". Yes, this is going to be the big debate in the cryptocurrency space for the near future I think. (Though you'd probably argue there's no debate, because someone disagreeing with your position isn't a "real researcher".)
- lappa 12y ago
  >Ah I see, you consider the current PoS systems that rely on getting the initial state for a new client from some trusted source to be "centralized". No, that component is just broken. If anyone trusted is a bad actor and gives you a bad blockchain, you are not in consensus, thus any system using this cannot be considered a consensus system. The centralization I was referring to was other mechanisms commonly employed by PoS systems. >Though you'd probably argue there's no debate, because someone disagreeing with your position isn't a "real researcher". No, someone not doing real research isn't a real researcher. Someone who understands consensus and security (not Vitelik) and creates a paper describing a system and its security model clearly is a real researcher. It isn't my fault that that hasn't happened yet.
  - drcode 12y ago
    > If anyone trusted is a bad actor and gives you a bad blockchain, you are not in consensus, thus any system using this cannot be considered a consensus system. If anyone trusted is a bad actor and gives you a bad [BITCOIN WALLET CLIENT], you are not in consensus, thus [BITCOIN] cannot be considered a consensus system.
    - lappa 12y ago
      Bitcoin wallets can have their source code audited. A blockchain that you accept regardless of the fact that there is a taller one is not audited by definition.

maaku 12y ago

> The paper you referenced from early 2014 isn't really considered very relevant anymore. Andrew's proof of stake paper was vetted by many core developers and people with a great deal of experience in bitcoin-like consensus systems. To my knowledge nothing in the paper has been refuted to date. It would be nice if you would be so kind as to provide a reference.

drcode 12y ago
https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/11/25/proof-stake-learned-love-weak-subjectivity/ https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/11/25/proof-stake-learned-lov...
- lappa 12y ago
  That isn't a refutation of the paper, it is a proposal for an unworkable idea along with mumbo jumbo (weak subjectivity) justifying adding centralized mechanism. The fundamental reason his punitive system doesn't work is because of the nothing at stake problem. More specifically, in this case he assumes that he can punish people making forks, but you cannot punish people who are no longer part of the system (or have anonymized and separated themselves from their funds) nor can you punish someone who makes a fork and attempts to attack, but is unsuccessful and doesn't broadcast. Once again, this isn't a refutation. A refutation would involve going through the logic of the nothing-at-stake paper and saying why it is wrong.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]