An N block reorg on Bitcoin with more proof-of-work appears out of nowhere with a double spend. How big does N have to be before you choose not to accept the reorg?
-
-
Yes, agreed w/ both of you. I actually see this attack (eg NK govt secretly invests in ASICs) as a major vuln of PoW/motivation for PoS.
-
(Caveats: 1. "Major" ≠ "likely" (it's not) - just "one of the likeliest" 2. O/c no one's denying PoS has other risks; just not this one.)
-
In particular, the knowledge that this more-or-less-game-over attack is a remote possibility, will always hang over PoW chains.
-
The PoS equivalent - buying a majority of stakers - can be reverted by social consensus, which disincentivizes it. See "spawn camping" etc
-
While I ack. that occurrences of deep reorgs is problematic for PoW, I disagree that PoS is safer in this regard
Let's face it: an entity who's able to overcome high stock cost barriers in PoW, will have zero problem achieving controlling stake in PoS.https://medium.com/@hugonguyen/work-is-timeless-stake-is-not-554c4450ce18 …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I just think a deep reorg signifies an irrational choice, that's it.
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.
