There are only two numbers of relevance in mining: capital cost and operating cost. High capital cost (ASIC resistance, PoS) makes the rich richer. Low capital cost favors smaller miners and decentralization because you can earn as you go. The rich don't need to be richer.
-
-
The nothing-at-stake problem is one of those things that sounds smart to the uninitiated, but the smart people know that it's totally trivial to fix.
-
If by "fix" you mean the introduction of trusted 3rd-party, then sure :-) Could you explain how your PoS chain would recover from a long network partition (could be accidental) that splits the chain into 3 parts - each part has vested interest in becoming the canonical chain?
-
Wait, you do not believe that PoW handles partitions well, do you?
-
Network partitions will be ugly regardless of whether one uses PoW or PoS. But I think people gloss over the consequences in worst-case scenarios. There's "ugly but still sorta works", and there's "ugly & totally broken".
-
PoW can resolve partitions automatically, without a centralized party. PoS cannot. That's the difference.
-
You're confounding PoS with the kinds of consensus protocols people usually couple it with.https://twitter.com/el33th4xor/status/1006931658338177024 …
-
Seems to me like a trivial & artificial distinction. Of cos PoW *by itself* does not create consensus. But reducing PoW’s role to only Sybil-control is silly. PoW does a lot more than Sybil-control.
-
You are welcome to believe whatever you like. I did my part.
- 1 more reply
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.
