4 ms·

> 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 cli

by 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.

4 ms·

> 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 cli

by drcode 12y ago

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.