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
-
-
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 -
Replying to @hugohanoi
yes because PoW family currently doesn't provide absolute finality. It doesn't have the problem because it doesn't even provide that property.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @aparnalocked
Hugo Nguyen Retweeted Hugo Nguyen
"finality" is a PoS invention & a total illusion. Just because someone terms something "final" doesn't mean it's actually "final" ;-)https://twitter.com/hugohanoi/status/953346280134029312 …
Hugo Nguyen added,
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @hugohanoi
Aparna Krishnan Retweeted Ari Paul
the concept of finalization has existed in distributed systems for a long time. The terminology may be more recent but not the concept. For a deeper understanding of finality in PoS vs PoW look at thishttps://twitter.com/AriDavidPaul/status/1035337279219347456 …
Aparna Krishnan added,
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @aparnalocked @hugohanoi
CryptoMoon Retweeted Eric Wall
CryptoMoon added,
Eric Wall @ercwlReplying to @AriDavidPaulTechnically, all forms of finality are probabilistic, since the base-layer for all blockchains is social consensus. The DAO hacker wouldn't have had more finality with Casper over PoW. As such, Bitcoin's probabilistic finality is more "final" than all altcoin consensus variants.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @crypt0moon @hugohanoi
Aparna Krishnan Retweeted Ari Paul
I'm not going to have a debate that has been had plenty of times before haha. https://twitter.com/AriDavidPaul/status/1035585570846715906 … is a wonderful thread to explain the subtle differences.
Aparna Krishnan added,
Ari PaulVerified account @AriDavidPaulThis article seems to have touched a nerve on its use of the term "probabilistic finality." I don't really care about the marketing, and I didn't interpret this as a criticism of PoW or Bitcoin generally. Here's how I think about probability and consensus mechanisms generally: https://twitter.com/AriDavidPaul/status/1035337279219347456 …Show this thread1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @aparnalocked @crypt0moon
haha we’re citing Ari for distributed system expertise now? no offense but Ari doesn’t know what he’s talking about
“endogenous non-probabilistic finality”? Really? Again, there’s nothing “absolute” about PoS absolute finality.2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @crypt0moon
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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.
-
-
Replying to @hugohanoi @crypt0moon
your perspective on the practical attacks are definitely very interesting. Would love your thoughts on future blog posts :)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
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.

