2/ This analysis only focuses on the superficial role of randomness in Nakamoto consensus: solving the leader-election problem. But solving the leader-election problem is only half the battle.
-
Show this thread
-
3/ There’s a much, much bigger role randomness plays in Nakamoto consensus beyond leader election: "unforgeable costliness". h/t
@NickSzabo4 again for the term.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
4/ Randomness is what allows PoW mechanism to approximate energy burnt in the creation of blocks. This burnt energy secures the chain from past AND future attacks. I explored this role randomness plays in Bitcoin in my recent article:https://medium.com/@hugonguyen/bitcoin-chance-and-randomness-ba49a6edf933 …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
5/ Bitcoin is past-proof because it would cost an attacker an enormous amount of energy & money to forge an alternative chain with a higher cumulative difficulty. Thanks to randomness-based PoW.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likesShow this thread -
6/ Bitcoin is future-proof because it would provide an automated way for network nodes to come to consensus in the case of a network split, whether it's intentional or accidental (e.g., a network partition). Thanks again to randomness-based PoW.
2 replies 1 retweet 1 likeShow this thread -
7/ Naive randomness mechanisms in PoS protocols do not give you either of these protections. PoS inevitably requires the intervention of trusted 3rd parties and significantly increases the social attack surface. In other words, PoS is nowhere near as trust-minimized as PoW.
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likesShow this thread -
8/ In summary, randomness in PoW solves *two* crucial problems: a/ Leader-election b/ Unforgeable costliness Leader-election is only half the battle, arguably the less important half.
2 replies 2 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
Hugo Nguyen Retweeted Hugo Nguyen
9/ P.S. For a list of my writings on the problems with PoS:https://twitter.com/hugohanoi/status/1021831408489136128 …
Hugo Nguyen added,
Hugo Nguyen @hugohanoi"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 …Show this thread2 replies 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
Replying to @hugohanoi
Have you heard of slashing PoS schemes? In those cases the Stake is definitely sunk.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @aparnalocked
Not really
not against long-range attacks. With PoW the cost of mining is upfront, requires commitment, and non-negotiable under any condition. PoS, not so much. Slashing is only "sunk"/real as long as nodes manage to stay online all the time for eternity.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Cost of being slashed: after the fact & only realized under certain conditions. Cost of mining: before the fact & always realized, 100%.
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.
