3 ms·

>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 ver

by 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.

by lappa 12y ago

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.