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 …
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 -
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.

