2/ Here is Emin’s original “lecture” for reference https://twitter.com/el33th4xor/status/1006931729679044608?s=21 …
I seriously hope Emin is not the only one teaching blockchain at @Cornell. Because he is dead wrong.
-
Show this thread
-
3/ Reducing PoW’s role to Sybil control is like an alien looking at cars and conclude that their main purpose is for protecting people from external objects. When they try to create the same thing, they might end up with something like the Flintstones’ car.
pic.twitter.com/yMnFWQ9fHA
1 reply 2 retweets 35 likesShow this thread -
4/ Where pure-CS-type PoS people fail is a complete disregard for (a) economics (b) history & (c) physics. The same way people chased Perpetual Motion completely disregarded (a) (b) & (c), although they had a better excuse since they didn't possess the right conceptual tools.
3 replies 4 retweets 32 likesShow this thread -
5/ If an object has value, people *will* spend effort to chase it, up to whatever the object is worth. MC=MR, in other words. PoS won’t save you from PoW’s “waste”, cost just manifests in a different way. “Nothing is cheaper than PoW”. h/t
@Truthcoin http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/ …2 replies 6 retweets 54 likesShow this thread -
6/ PoW is what gives Bitcoin “unforgeable costliness”, something few CS people would even try to analyze.
@NickSzabo4 spent years researching & elaborately explained in his study on the Origin of Money: (Good) money *must* have unforgeable costliness. https://nakamotoinstitute.org/shelling-out/3 replies 13 retweets 59 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @hugohanoi @NickSzabo4
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @LaurentMT @NickSzabo4
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @NickSzabo4
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...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
LaurentMT Retweeted Maple Leaf Capital
My main "concern" is about the idea that all anti-sybils systems are the same. Case in point.https://twitter.com/MapleLeafCap/status/1044958643731533825 …
LaurentMT added,
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
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.
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.
