For those who are interested, my prior articles on this: 1/ https://medium.com/@hugonguyen/proof-of-stake-the-wrong-engineering-mindset-15e641ab65a2 … 2/https://medium.com/@hugonguyen/proof-of-stake-private-keys-attacks-and-unforgeable-costliness-the-unsung-hero-5caca70b01cb …
-
-
Show this thread
-
Another weakness of PoS h/t
@Datavetarenhttps://twitter.com/hugohanoi/status/1012696531269369856 …Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
What’s your take on Decred hybrid model?
-
Decred is still based on PoW so it doesn’t suffer from this flaw. However I have serious doubts about “decentralized governance”https://twitter.com/hugohanoi/status/985075400324726784 …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think you overestimate your understanding of proof of stake.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think sunk costs in PoW are overplayed. You lose electricity & time if not successful, but you can still use the equipment to mine whatever. I believe the same applies to PoS too. If you don't succeed, you waste electricity & time with your node but can still continue to stake
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
-
It depends how many coins in 1 hand and how many actually needed to vote for decision. If exactly 51% of the total emission needed, you may never come to a decision of protocol improvement.
-
I don't understand your first sentence. But yes: It's of the staking coins, not of the emission. It doesn't make much of a difference. The investment is huge, and you have to invest INTO the coin you attack. With PoW you keep your investment. Again: we've seen this attack happen.
-
Let's imagine nodes are reluctant to vote, since they are mostly holders, and you can never collect 51% of coins. It is the majority of all voting who are making decision or the majority of total coins. That is the main question.
-
I see. Then I think I addressed that (staking = voting). Attacking a PoW would be much cheaper. Compare: How much % of Bitcoin would you get for the sum it takes to buy 51% hash power? It would likely be less than 5%. And you get to keep the mining gear to attack the next coin.
-
Attacking Bitcoin PoW would be enormously expensive. You would need to create a mining pool, market it, collaborating with thousands of miners to switch their mining rigs to your pool, and you would to pay them higher renting fee having a risk you would never reach 51%.
-
And here you have a handy list of how much it costs to attack
#PoW per coin: https://www.crypto51.app/ The security of PoW relies not on a superior principle, but on being the biggest coin. -
I am reading what i am writing. Crypto51 is hypothetical, since it has a false premise that you can force smb to rent against their will. Renting money is easier than renting hardware by default.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I’ve been operating on a set of assumptions that makes this untrue. In PoW, you can keep using your hashpower to mine (even other coins) after a failed attack. In PoS, you lose what you stake after a failed attack. What am I missing?
-
PoW is about the energy expense, not the hardware, and that energy is irretrievable.
-
I'm confused what you mean. What if you live somewhere with access to very cheap, renewable energy?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Hmmm... but it *is* an irretrievable sunk cost if it gets slashed, right? Will give this a read. Thanks for contributing to the space.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
When you buy mining equipment for Bitcoin, the same rig can be reprogrammed to mine any other PoW coin. In proof of stake, you buy into 1 protocol in order to participate in the staking/forging process, & that buy in ONLY can secure 1 protocol. So what was that about sunk costs?
-
No, not at all. You can not reprogram ASIC's to mine another POW coin. If there is another coin with the same PoW then you can mine that coin but you don't reprogram it.
-
You can make adjustments to your hardwar that allow you to take your attack elsewhere. The point still stands.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
