narush

22 ms·

1. 181.▲
   by narush 7y ago

   Head's up -- your link is broken. I don't think markdown is supported :)
2. 182.▲
   by narush 7y ago

   PoW is currently an oligarchy, for what it's worth. I was using the term monopolistic in a lose sense (i.e. tending towards large players controling the market [i.e. "centralizing"]). In most PoS protocols, coins come from ei
3. 183.▲
   by narush 7y ago

   In current Proof-of-work (PoW) blockchains, the more mining hardware you have, the more coins you get, and the more mining hardware you can buy. In this sense, the same exact monopolistic structure you mention exists in both PoW and Proof-o
4. 184.▲
   by narush 9y ago

   Ethereum's planned PoS is not delegated PoS. Instead, it is actually byzantine fault tolerant (and validators/stakers get punished for acting badly). For example, if a current validator signs two blocks that conflict in any way (a
5. 185.▲
   by narush 9y ago

   I would argue that Ethereum isn't building a monetary system - it's building a platform for decentralized applications. If doing so decreases the native assets velocity (for the sake security, finality, ease of sharding, etc), so
6. 186.▲
   by narush 9y ago

   In every interaction with a blockchain, users have the chance to lose all of their funds. User error in with regular transactions is a far more likely issue than anything else (though there is no denying the importance of the validator code