I just published “Feedback Loop vs. Circular Reasoning”https://medium.com/@hugonguyen/feedback-loop-vs-circular-reasoning-1544ae7fd457 …
-
-
Replying to @hugohanoi
I like it, but needs more detailed reasoning. Dfinity's deterministic threshold signatures are a counter-example. I like focusing on available randomness, it's an argument I often use. But I don't feel it sufficiently explains why the reasoning is circular.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @BobMcElrath
Yes, as I said in the article above, if the PoS protocol tries to generate randomness internally, that's not circular reasoning but that scheme breaks down for a different reason.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @BobMcElrath
I briefly looked into DFINITY before in https://medium.com/@hugonguyen/proof-of-stake-private-keys-attacks-and-unforgeable-costliness-the-unsung-hero-5caca70b01cb …, but didn’t go in-depth into the randomness aspect.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @BobMcElrath
IMO the main problem with DFINITY lies in their mechanism to create threshold groups. An attacker can grind identities until his nodes are assigned the threshold group(s) he desires.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @hugohanoi @BobMcElrath
If an attacker manages to control just ONE threshold group (by controlling more than the threshold percentage per group), he can halt the magical “random beacon”, effectively freezing the chain.
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @hugohanoi
He has to have control of ALL signing nodes in the group...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Last I checked, he only has to control 201 out of 400 nodes? (400 being the default DFINITY group size)
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.
