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 …
-
Show this thread
-
2/ If
@zooko wishes to find substantive and avoid so-called “philosophical” arguments, the last thing he wants is to rehash bad terminology.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
Hugo Nguyen Retweeted Hugo Nguyen
3/ Weak subjectivity is poorly defined/understood, and not actually “weak” at all. As I've repeated many times, PoS subjectivity is much stronger than PoW in terms of both *magnitude & frequency*.https://twitter.com/hugohanoi/status/1029919205859020800 …
Hugo Nguyen added,
Hugo Nguyen @hugohanoiStop reading right here lol. Wrong on so many levels. (i) level of trust in PoW vs PoS is nowhere the same in terms of both magnitude & frequency (ii) "small" is relative & can turn "big" quickly in worst-case scenarios. very dangerous thinking. I call it engineering-by-hope.
https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/1029901952346279936 …Show this thread1 reply 1 retweet 2 likesShow this thread -
Hugo Nguyen Retweeted Hugo Nguyen
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 …
Hugo Nguyen added,
Hugo Nguyen @hugohanoi9/ CVE-2018-17144 also reaffirms my belief that the Bitcoin protocol should ossify quickly. We *might* not even get to integrate Privacy, but that’s the price we have to pay if we want to not jeopardize this soon-to-be trillion-dollar foundation. The stake is already too high.Show this thread1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
Hugo Nguyen Retweeted Hugo Nguyen
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 …
Hugo Nguyen added,
Hugo Nguyen @hugohanoiReplying to @hugohanoi @aparnalockedSimply put, under semi-sync setting, PoW strongly satisfies liveness & consistency. Whereas PoS protocols do not & break down under a number of scenarios. See my 2 articles for a few examples of these scenarios & the addition by@Datavetaren https://twitter.com/hugohanoi/status/1021832568314843136 …1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
Hugo Nguyen Retweeted Hugo Nguyen
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 …
Hugo Nguyen added,
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread
Hugo Nguyen Retweeted Hugo Nguyen
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 …
Hugo Nguyen added,
-
-
Hugo Nguyen Retweeted nic carter
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 …Hugo Nguyen added,
0 replies 1 retweet 3 likesShow this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.
