Proof-of-work is absolute truth, proof-of-stake is relative truth. Both have their role. But for the most important transactions it's better to produce more clean energy than to give up on the undeletable history that accumulated work provides.
Conversation
Replying to
I think I'm missing something here, would love some more color!
As I understand, PoW could re-write history the same as PoS if you got the right "fixed set of humans".
For PoW it's 51% of miners, for PoS it's 51% of stakers.
Maybe one is more robust than the other -- why?
3
24
I guess what I'm wondering is, are you arguing:
(a) there's something very fundamentally different about blockchain security via miners vs via stakers
(b) in practice, one is much safer (why?) than the other, although in theory they have similar strengths/weaknesses
5
1
25
I'm arguing (a).
Because mining is a computation, while staking is more like a BoD vote, even if the current set of miners collude they can't rewrite the entire chain history. That requires years of compute.
See Poelstra on "costless simulation" here.
download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf
2
7
40
Replying to
ok, that's interesting. Does this summarize it?
in PoS:
a) it's easy to create fake blocks
b) this won't help attack network by default, people ignore them
c) *but* it's easy enough you can cheaply create a super-long valid-but-false history, so "longest chain" doesn't work
I.e. with PoW, given just the starting conditions of the network (the rules of propogation) and a set of proposed histories, you can tell which is "real": it's the longest valid history.
but with PoS you can't; the longest valid one might be made up and not historically correct
1
13
Yeah. You need some kind of trusted signal to tell you which is the "real" proof-of-stake chain if there are N contenders. It could just be a tweet, for example. Often that's not a big ask.
But the Bitcoin chain can be validated even in the noisiest of information environments.
2
14
Show replies
1