Skip to content
  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • Moments Moments Moments, current page.

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log in
    Have an account?
    · Forgot password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
hugohanoi's profile
Hugo Nguyen
Hugo Nguyen
Hugo Nguyen
@hugohanoi

Tweets

Hugo Nguyen

@hugohanoi

I chain, therefore I am ⛓️

Joined April 2012

Tweets

  • © 2018 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Center
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgot password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log in »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    Country Code For customers of
    United States 40404 (any)
    Canada 21212 (any)
    United Kingdom 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Ireland 51210 Vodafone, O2
    India 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonesia 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italy 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » See SMS short codes for other countries

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not working for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    Hugo Nguyen‏ @hugohanoi Jul 24

    Hugo Nguyen Retweeted Francis Pouliot

    "Irretrievable sunk cost" is the key in PoW. The "stake" used in PoS creates a temporary illusion of security/immutability. It's neither sunk nor irretrievable, and that's a fundamental flaw you can never get around.https://twitter.com/francispouliot_/status/1021563523598573568 …

    Hugo Nguyen added,

    Francis PouliotVerified account @francispouliot_
    "Proof-of-stake alternatives do not have a key feature of Proof-of-work: one needs to spend large amount of resources to be successful in cheating, and being unsuccessful means that one has incurred a large irretrievable sunk cost" -Central Bank of Canada https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2018/07/staff-working-paper-2018-34/ … pic.twitter.com/4wPFNVi0jO
    11:56 AM - 24 Jul 2018
    • 55 Retweets
    • 185 Likes
    • Steve Dekorte Kevin ''Thuggish'' Pham Adam Taché 🎑 Brendan Bernstein Vinegar Stroke ⚡ Hasu nic carter Melik Manukyan ⚡️ ludvigart.com Edward Percival Hackworth 🧐
    16 replies 55 retweets 185 likes
      1. New conversation
      2. Hugo Nguyen‏ @hugohanoi Jul 24

        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 …

        3 replies 4 retweets 17 likes
        Show this thread
      3. Hugo Nguyen‏ @hugohanoi Jul 24

        Hugo Nguyen Retweeted Hugo Nguyen

        Another weakness of PoS h/t @Datavetarenhttps://twitter.com/hugohanoi/status/1012696531269369856 …

        Hugo Nguyen added,

        Hugo Nguyen @hugohanoi
        Good addition to the list of potential issues with PoS: since stakers are required to have staking keys online to sign txs, the dynamic validator set is vulnerable to silent key theft & majority attacks. h/t @Datavetaren Note that this problem is unique to PoS. https://twitter.com/datavetaren/status/1012529987545698305 …
        Show this thread
        1 reply 1 retweet 1 like
        Show this thread
      4. End of conversation
      1. New conversation
      2. Ryan West‏ @ryanlpwest Jul 24
        Replying to @hugohanoi

        What’s your take on Decred hybrid model?

        1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
      3. Hugo Nguyen‏ @hugohanoi Jul 24
        Replying to @ryanlpwest

        Hugo Nguyen Retweeted Hugo Nguyen

        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 …

        Hugo Nguyen added,

        Hugo Nguyen @hugohanoi
        13/ A similar argument can be made for any protocol that fancies the idea of embedding governance into the protocol & have stake holders vote on protocol changes. Democracy will never produce a good engineering system. It’s akin to asking the mob on how to design a space shuttle.
        Show this thread
        0 replies 0 retweets 5 likes
      4. End of conversation
      1. Demetrius‏ @CryptoDemetrius Jul 25
        Replying to @hugohanoi

        I think you overestimate your understanding of proof of stake.

        0 replies 1 retweet 4 likes
        Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
        Undo
      1.  ⓂⓡⓋ‏ @MrV_777 Jul 25
        Replying to @hugohanoi

        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

        0 replies 1 retweet 4 likes
        Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
        Undo
      1. New conversation
      2. Thomas Schmall‏ @oxpal Jul 24
        Replying to @hugohanoi

        To do a 51% attack on PoS, you need to buy 51% of that currency. That is magnitudes more expensive than any #PoW attack. May I just add: we've seen several successful PoW attacks on smaller currencies. So it's bizarre to piss on #PoS, which so far hasn't been broken. Dissonance?

        1 reply 4 retweets 11 likes
      3. Leonid Morozovskii  ⚡‏ @LeoMorozovskii Jul 24
        Replying to @oxpal @hugohanoi

        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.

        1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
      4. Thomas Schmall‏ @oxpal Jul 25
        Replying to @LeoMorozovskii @hugohanoi

        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.

        1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
      5. Leonid Morozovskii  ⚡‏ @LeoMorozovskii Jul 25
        Replying to @oxpal @hugohanoi

        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.

        1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
      6. Thomas Schmall‏ @oxpal Jul 25
        Replying to @LeoMorozovskii @hugohanoi

        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.

        1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
      7. Leonid Morozovskii  ⚡‏ @LeoMorozovskii Jul 25
        Replying to @oxpal @hugohanoi

        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%.

        2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
      8. Thomas Schmall‏ @oxpal Jul 25
        Replying to @LeoMorozovskii @hugohanoi

        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.

        1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
      9. Leonid Morozovskii  ⚡‏ @LeoMorozovskii Jul 25
        Replying to @oxpal @hugohanoi

        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.

        1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
      10. 5 more replies
      1. New conversation
      2. Ryan Angilly  ⚡️‏ @angilly Jul 24
        Replying to @hugohanoi @TuurDemeester

        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?

        2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes
      3. J‏ @J53502707 Jul 25
        Replying to @angilly @hugohanoi @TuurDemeester

        PoW is about the energy expense, not the hardware, and that energy is irretrievable.

        1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
      4.  ⓂⓡⓋ‏ @MrV_777 Jul 25
        Replying to @J53502707 @angilly and

        I'm confused what you mean. What if you live somewhere with access to very cheap, renewable energy?

        0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
      5. End of conversation
      1. CallMeGwei‏ @CallMeGwei Jul 24
        Replying to @hugohanoi

        Hmmm... but it *is* an irretrievable sunk cost if it gets slashed, right? Will give this a read. Thanks for contributing to the space.

        0 replies 0 retweets 6 likes
        Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
        Undo
      1. New conversation
      2. Demetrius‏ @CryptoDemetrius Jul 25
        Replying to @hugohanoi

        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?

        1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes
      3. mixed.signals‏ @mixeds1gnals Aug 16
        Replying to @CryptoDemetrius @hugohanoi

        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.

        1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
      4. Demetrius‏ @CryptoDemetrius Aug 16
        Replying to @mixeds1gnals @hugohanoi

        You can make adjustments to your hardwar that allow you to take your attack elsewhere. The point still stands.

        0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
      5. End of 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.

      Promoted Tweet

      false

      • © 2018 Twitter
      • About
      • Help Center
      • Terms
      • Privacy policy
      • Cookies
      • Ads info