"As PoS merely involves the temporary lockup of existing capital and does not consume said capital, it does not satisfy the unforgeable costliness requirement" - @hugohanoi
Excellent post!https://medium.com/@hugonguyen/work-is-timeless-stake-is-not-554c4450ce18 …
-
-
Many holes. Conclusions do not follow wishful thinking. For example, I could steal the key to a miner, applying the same logic PoW breaks. The idea that reduction of cost in PoS is equal to reduction in safety is unsubstantited and so absurd it would be a miracle if it held true.pic.twitter.com/mol3L5nZJe
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Nope, read again. Risks not comparable. Majority control in PoW: requires seizure of physical assets, after taking control still costly to rewrite history/double-spend. Majority control in PoS: requires hacking software nodes, after taking control, unlimited power at no cost.pic.twitter.com/T1j2TfkFWb
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Yes. That falls under wishful thinking. It also runs counter to your own logic economically, especially considering the nature of already distributed technology. Seizure is also not a requirement for asset control. Point is there are ”off-chain” security issues on both ends.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Miners who delegate block construction to centralized pools do reduce network security. However shady behaviors in pools are easily detected & miners have a fallback: switch pools or disconnect their physical hardware. No fallback for PoS nodes whose keys have been hacked.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @anotherday____ and
I see you conveniently ignore my point about the difference in cost *after* taking majority control :-)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
If we are to be rude I could just point out that geographically decentralized is a nonsense term—you mean distributed—and that dispersion is ineffective given the game of scale + energy use signals location. But no—I am not conveniently anything. I gave you time. Remove your ego.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
lol why do you bring up ego I’m addressing your _argument_
- and no you still have not addressed my 2nd point. Not sure what you mean by ineffective. Hard for Chinese govt to seize hardware in China AND Iceland. That’s what I mean by geographically decentralized.2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
I used “geographically decentralized” to differentiate against other types of decentralization - as mining involves both software & hardware.
If you prefer distributed, that’s good too. Don’t think semantics matters here. 
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.
