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 …
-
-
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 …Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
PoS protocols don't all favor liveness over safety. I think you are generalizing your claims about PoS too much. There is a lot more nuance to consider.
-
I didn't say all PoS protocols favor liveness. Referring to your passage: > given the above tradeoff, a blockchain consensus protocol should favor a randomness source that always produces some output rather than a randomness source that favors producing only a tamper free output
-
I know Tendermint favors safety over liveness, which is applaudable. But it has its own problem. Its strategy is to fall back on social consensus. In any case, the safety vs liveness tradeoff is a fundamental problem to PoS that doesn't exist for PoW. Most solutions are hacks.
-
... that attempt to work around this flaw, at the cost of adding a huge amount of needless complexity. And they are all bandaid solutions.
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