4/ To quote @NickSzabo4 : “Trusted third parties are security holes.”
-
Show this thread
-
5/ To hand-wave this weakness away (or misleadingly used the term “weak”) is like saying a foundation of a house has a small crack, but it’s no big deal. When it fact it can grow into a huge liability over the long term.
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
6/ I also addressed directly your argument that reliance on social consensus is fine, since PoW also needs it. Like I said, it’s not whether you need social consensus, it’s *how much*. The goal is to minimize it, not to rely on it as a protocol building block.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
7/
@VitalikButerin claimed that in PoW “cost of attack and cost of defense are at a 1:1 ratio”, which I agree with. What I don’t agree with is the claim that PoS can do better.1 reply 1 retweet 6 likesShow this thread -
8/ PoS security "comes from putting up economic value-at-loss”. And since you arbitrarily decide on the stake/penalty value, you claim this is asymmetric.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
9/ However, this “value-at-loss” is not truly at risk until a later point in time. It is *not 100% committed* unlike PoW. Your threat of punishment only works if and only if attackers remain on the same chain.
1 reply 1 retweet 9 likesShow this thread -
10/ Sure, you could put an arbitrary value on the penalty and claim that’s it’s a huge wall of defense, but because of the “weak subjectivity” vulnerability, there’s a small backdoor to the side of the castle, making the hugeness of the wall irrelevant.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
11/ I want to take the opportunity to put away the misguided idea of achieving better cost of attack/cost of defense ratio than 1:1.
@TuurDemeester also addressed this in his critique of PoShttps://medium.com/@tuurdemeester/critique-of-buterins-a-proof-of-stake-design-philosophy-49fc9ebb36c6 …1 reply 1 retweet 11 likesShow this thread -
12/ Take public-cryptography for example. One might cite it as an example of asymmetric attack/defense ratio.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
13/ However, it is only asymmetric from the point of view of the owner of the private key, and dependent on the fact that this key is forever kept secret. In other words, public-key cryptography security is *relative*.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread
Correction: it is only secure*
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.
