I don't see why this is a fallacy; all blockchains are ultimately governed by social consensus on what rules to follow.
-
-
The difference is that in PoW “social consensus” is required only to choose which initial rules set (“protocol consensus”) to run, after that it’s on autopilot. Whereas in PoS social consensus is continually required whenever there is a protocol consensus failure.
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @hugohanoi @nicksdjohnson and
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.
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
"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.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes
if attackers manage to rewrite ledger history, the fact that they get punished on some other chain doesn't really matter.
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.
