I don't see why this is a fallacy; all blockchains are ultimately governed by social consensus on what rules to follow.
-
-
In other words, how-to-resolve-forks rule is baked into PoW (most accumulated PoW chain), whereas it is *not* baked into PoS. The latter would always need a lot more social consensus than the former. Hence weaker security.
-
PoW can only resolve forks where both sides follow the same rules. PoS prevents those same kind of forks from happening in the first place. Neither requires manual intervention when things are running normally.
-
"PoS prevents those same kind of forks from happening in the first place." not really, PoS can only prevent forks from happening if it assumes attackers will remain on the "honest" chain after a fork.
-
if attackers manage to rewrite ledger history, the fact that they get punished on some other chain doesn't really matter.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
How does PoW recover from a protocol consensus failure (and what is that exactly, if not an accidental hard fork)?
-
There's no such thing as an "accidental hard fork" in Bitcoin. A hard fork is deliberate. Nodes running on 2 different HF chains are no longer playing by the same rules set aka "protocol consensus" rules (eg: BTC & BCH), so there is nothing to "recover" from.
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.
