1/ What is handwaving & sloppy thinking is ignoring subtle but important differences between PoW & PoS. Such as the *degree of social consensus required* - in terms of both magnitude & frequency.https://twitter.com/killerstorm/status/1044522585663447040 …
-
-
5/ Many PoW proponents are self-critical of PoW, but also realize that PoW is the best we’ve got.
Show this thread -
6/ RE: upgrade process, is there room for improvement? Probably. Is some sort of an alert system for upgrades worthwhile? Maybe. Maybe not.
Show this thread -
7/ The idea of an alert system isn’t new. Satoshi himself wrote about the possibility of “fraud proofs” in the white paper.
Show this thread -
8/ Fraud-proofs & upgrade-alerts can be classified under the same umbrella. Both are alert systems, although the type of alert message differs. Any alert system will face similar challenges as fraud proofs.
Show this thread -
9/ Fraud proofs as initially envisioned by Satoshi turn out to be extremely difficult & might actually be impractical. Intuitively it makes sense, since alerts reintroduce the problem of distributed consensus. Not a trivial problem to solve without PoW.
Show this thread -
10/ You need to be extremely careful in designing alert systems because alerts themselves can become security holes. E.g. alerts can be abused to spam/DDOS nodes, or to create conflicting views of the network.
Show this thread -
11/ The current system, as imperfect as it is, is not all that bad. Worst comes to worst, users can either: (a) verify the source code themselves & build from source, or (b) choose to ignore upgrades
Show this thread -
12/ Sure, most users don’t know how to read code, but what’s most important is economically important nodes like exchanges & wallets. They can & SHOULD verify every protocol changes. They are incentivized to do so because if things fuck up, they would sustain the most damage.
Show this thread -
13/ As for the rest of the users, yes they will have to trust someone for upgrades. But upgrades don’t happen too frequently to begin with, and the trust issue is another reason to strongly advocate for earlier-rather-later protocol ossification.
Show this thread -
14/ > It seems that pro-PoW people just gave up on analyzing the system, they just say "It works because nobody have broken it yet” Another baseless claim. Bitcoin security is a very active area of research. We've merely scratched the surface. Seehttps://twitter.com/hugohanoi/status/1027667455773212673 …
Show this thread -
15/ What PoW proponents are saying is that PoW is the most secure system both in theory & practice, with a 10-year track record. Can PoW fail? Sure. Can PoS succeed where PoW might fail? Absolutely freaking not.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Well what would you say about this: https://twitter.com/lopp/status/1028092364559208448 … and this: https://twitter.com/pwuille/status/1028109412584452096 … PoW proponents gave up on quantifying decentralization & security metric, it now essentially boils down to an argument "It have not failed yet, thus it cannot fail".
-
-
Well, they are clearly against using **any** metrics. If it was the issue with wrong metrics, surely they would have suggested right metrics, or how to come up with such, or research papers they like. But I see nothing like that. They just dismissed ALL academic research,
-
wholesale. Obviously, there's some bad research, but if you dismiss the whole academia that means that your position can't be defended using rigorous reasoning.
-
What do you expect? They are engineers
No offense to academics, but from what I've seen, the engineers have a *much* better grasp on Bitcoin fundamentals than most academics (even CS researchers), and the engineers are rightfully conservative when it comes to make-up metrics. -
If I have to choose whom to trust, I'd choose the engineers. Any day. Now that's not to say that's there's no quality research in crypto. I'm particularly a big fan of
@random_walker . http://randomwalker.info/publications/mining_CCS.pdf … -
Speaking of
@random_walker, his most recent paper formalizes the problems with PoS, from the aspect of pseudorandomness. Doesn’t surprise me one bit. Although he seems to still give PoS some benefit of the doubt
https://twitter.com/random_walker/status/1043552710086340609 …
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.
