An apt summary of most if not all of non-PoW protocols: "we solve distributed consensus on X by assuming we have solved distributed consensus on Y." In the process you'd get fancy terms like "randomness beacon" that sounds sophisticated, but in reality just obfuscates the issue.https://twitter.com/random_walker/status/1043613473974964224 …
-
Show this thread
-
You'd then get these diabolical white papers that go on for pages, filled with formulas no less, to prove the robustness of these protocols. All starting off of a circular reasoning fallacy. But math, right?
2 replies 0 retweets 13 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @hugohanoi
I am constantly befuddled that everyone doesn't realize PoS is circular exactly as you describe. It's simply a logical error to think that you can somehow "fix" circular arguments.
3 replies 2 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @BobMcElrath @hugohanoi
Maybe it's because Bitcoin itself has a certain circularity...BTC is valuable b/c it's secure b/c PoW is trustless b/c of incentives which only exist b/c BTC is valuable... But a virtuous cycle is a different circularity than begging the question.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @dhruvbansal @BobMcElrath
yeah I wouldn’t call that circular reasoning, that’s just positive feedback loop.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
How is PoS different in your mind?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @panekkkk @hugohanoi and
Or rephrased, can you be more specific in your criticism of circularity?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Hugo Nguyen Retweeted Hugo Nguyen
Here you go ;-)https://twitter.com/hugohanoi/status/1045759950184534016 …
Hugo Nguyen added,
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.
