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 …
-
Show this thread
-
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likesShow 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 -
Replying to @hugohanoi
unconfirmed Retweeted Hugo Nguyen
Your medium posts on PoW and Randomness are quite insightful. I think I now understand what you meant by "subjective interpretation of immutability" in following threadhttps://twitter.com/hugohanoi/status/953346280134029312 …
unconfirmed added,
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Thanks. I will keep shouting "subjective" until PoS becomes a thing of the past 
-
-
Replying to @hugohanoi
If I understand your ideas correctly, a node in PoW consensus can independently know objective immutability by observing hash difficulty and using it as an approximation of energy spent. Math (randomness) & Physics (energy) are blended to create this objective yardstick!
0 replies 0 retweets 4 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.
