6 ms·
> 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
by 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 agohttps://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 agoThat 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]