1/ Nice to see more in-depth articles investigating the extremely important role randomness plays in blockchains
h/t @aparnalocked
However, IMO this analysis of randomness is incomplete
https://www.tokendaily.co/blog/randomness-in-blockchains …
-
-
>None of the subcommittee selection protocols that we at Mechanism Labs have analyzed satisfied both properties of being unbiasable FWIW, I highly agree with this- hard to guarantee both liveness & safety RE:leader-election randomness. Not sure I'd agree with the compromise tho.
-
I think that's where the dimension of synchrony comes in. I definitely have not even touched upon it in this post because that's a much longer analysis.
-
Favoring liveness over safety or relaxing synchrony assumptions won't make PoS protocols any safer. PoS camp likes to say that Bitcoin also doesn't work under a fully async setting, but they overlook important nuances in the level of security offered in the semi-sync setting.
-
Simply put, under semi-sync setting, PoW strongly satisfies liveness & consistency. Whereas PoS protocols do not & break down under a number of scenarios. See my 2 articles for a few examples of these scenarios & the addition by
@Datavetarenhttps://twitter.com/hugohanoi/status/1021832568314843136 …
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.

I'm generally trigger-happy because I'm frustrated with all the PoS discussions of randomness that say nothing about unforgeable costliness