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.
PoS “finality” is 100% revertible under scenarios such as long range attacks, private key attacks or network partitions. Just be a PoS node, go offline for a year & see how you will tell among many chains, which chain is “final” chain.
-
-
PoS alone never provided finality, PBFT did. Anyway, I think we can agree to disagree on what we mean by final. This is becoming a less theoretical more ideological debate.
-
PBFT has been around for decades and their usage in PoS offers absolutely nothing new in terms of distributed consensus. It's literally reinventing the wheel. Yup, agree to disagree.
-
your perspective on the practical attacks are definitely very interesting. Would love your thoughts on future blog posts :)
-
of cos, feel free to DM me
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.

“endogenous non-probabilistic finality”? Really? Again, there’s nothing “absolute” about PoS absolute finality.