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 …
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.
-
-
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 -
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.
