1/ “Weak subjectivity" strikes again. One thing Vitalik is good at is creating amazingly bad terminology. Some examples besides "weak subjectivity": "Bitcoin maximalism", "inactivity leaks” (which he erroneously likens to depreciation).https://twitter.com/zooko/status/1045808363974488064 …
-
-
4/ Subjectivity in PoW can also be reduced significantly when the protocol ossifies. PoS does *not* have this luxury, even with protocol ossification.https://twitter.com/hugohanoi/status/1044076369234128896 …
Show this thread -
5/ From the distributed network perspective, PoS proponents also love to gloss over the nuances between different synchrony models. The network argument usually goes “but PoW also doesn’t work in a FULLY async environment!” Details mater.https://twitter.com/hugohanoi/status/1040663728042082304 …
Show this thread -
6/ One can also look at the weaknesses of PoS from the randomness perspective. Narayanan’s recent paper should come as no surprise to those who truly understand PoW: good randomness is incredibly hard to come by in a distributed & adversarial setting.https://twitter.com/hugohanoi/status/1045784962484527104 …
Show this thread -
7/ Moving the problem of distributed consensus from finding blocks to “what is the source of randomness?” in PoS can lead to either (a) circular reasoning or (b) poor randomness.https://twitter.com/hugohanoi/status/1045759950184534016 …
Show this thread -
8/ Last but not least, the points above dissect PoS from the technical angle. But PoS is also a big no-no from the economic perspective: the reward distribution is inherently unfair & inevitably produces a plutocracy, as
@nic__carter aptly pointed out.https://twitter.com/nic__carter/status/1045804073256177664 …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.

