1/ Emin again with the BS that PoW’s role is merely a “Sybil-controlled mechanism”. (And therefore PoS is a reasonable drop-in replacement.) It’s the classic mistake domain experts make when analyzing systems purely from their Point-of-View.https://twitter.com/el33th4xor/status/1046042561067003904 …
-
-
7/ PoW is a lot more than Sybil-control, it gives digital blocks real-world weight, the same way Gold has real weight. What are blocks but simply a bunch of 1s & 0s? PoW is the _bridge_ between the digital & the physical.https://bitcointechtalk.com/the-anatomy-of-proof-of-work-98c85b6f6667 …
Show this thread -
8/ Value doesn’t come from nothing, it doesn’t arise just because a bunch of people collectively decide that some digital strings have value via their computer nodes - which is what Proof-of-Stake does.
Show this thread -
9/ Like many astutely observed, if it was possible to create money this way (by hooking up a bunch of computers together), we wouldn’t have to wait until now. Make no mistake, PoW mining & Nakamoto consensus are crucial in the creation of digital hard money.
Show this thread -
10/ P.S. This type of tunnel vision & pretense of knowledge is what spawns a bunch of ludicrous ideas in the crypto space. From PoS to Ethereum to utility tokens.
Show this thread -
11/ *Note: Unforgeable costliness is *not* the same thing as the labor theory of value:https://twitter.com/hugohanoi/status/1046105642870681600?s=21 …
Show this thread -
12/ Note #2: don’t confuse the *creation* of value with the *transfer* of valuehttps://twitter.com/hugohanoi/status/1046125820161323008?s=21 …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
IMHO, he's right when stating the difference between consensus algorithms and anti-sybils solutions BUT I fairly disagree with his view that the anti-sybils solution used doesn't matter. It does and the associated trade offs should be explcitely explained.
-
The distinction could be beneficial in some context, as long as you don’t believe that these artificial walls actually exist. PoW is not just about Sybil control, far from it. This is the (CS) terminology trap.
-
Well, I think this distinction is very useful because it's helps to think more clearly about the different components of the system. The fact that PoW encompasses both of them is somewhat orthogonal...
-
My main "concern" is about the idea that all anti-sybils systems are the same. Case in point.https://twitter.com/MapleLeafCap/status/1044958643731533825 …
-
In a nutshell, my point is that the anti-sybils solution used by a cryptocurrency (and its properties) is a very important aspect defining the value proposition of this cryptocurrency.
-
I have no problem with the distinction per se. Like you said, it could aid in analyzing system components separately. The caveat here (and what Emin implied between the lines), is that PoW is *merely* a Sybil-control mechanism, and therefore PoS is equally valid. Misleading.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That’s because a computer scientist is more interested in science and than this superstitious nonsense
Thanks. 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.

