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
-
Replying to @hugohanoi
Again, the focus of this post was on only randomness for leader election. We have a whole paper that does a more in othe analysis of all the parts that you talk about :)https://github.com/Mechanism-Labs/MetaAnalysis-of-Alternative-Consensus-Protocols …
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @aparnalocked
Ah I see, did not know there was another part
I'm generally trigger-happy because I'm frustrated with all the PoS discussions of randomness that say nothing about unforgeable costliness
Sorry for jumping the gun then. Look forward to part 2!1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @aparnalocked
>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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @hugohanoi
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @aparnalocked
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @aparnalocked
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
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @hugohanoi @aparnalocked
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
... that attempt to work around this flaw, at the cost of adding a huge amount of needless complexity. And they are all bandaid solutions.
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.
