Skip to content
  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • Moments Moments Moments, current page.

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log in
    Have an account?
    · Forgot password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
hugohanoi's profile
Hugo Nguyen
Hugo Nguyen
Hugo Nguyen
@hugohanoi

Tweets

Hugo Nguyen

@hugohanoi

I chain, therefore I am ⛓️

Joined April 2012

Tweets

  • © 2018 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Center
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgot password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log in »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    Country Code For customers of
    United States 40404 (any)
    Canada 21212 (any)
    United Kingdom 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Ireland 51210 Vodafone, O2
    India 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonesia 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italy 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » See SMS short codes for other countries

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not working for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    1. John Light  🦓‏ @lightcoin Apr 7

      Good discussion about the pros and cons of proof of stake vs proof of work in these articles and the comments: https://medium.com/@hugonguyen/proof-of-stake-the-wrong-engineering-mindset-15e641ab65a2 … https://medium.com/@hugonguyen/proof-of-stake-private-keys-attacks-and-unforgeable-costliness-the-unsung-hero-5caca70b01cb … via @hugohanoi

      3 replies 14 retweets 21 likes
    2. jae kwon‏ @jaekwon Apr 7
      Replying to @lightcoin @hugohanoi

      jae kwon Retweeted jae kwon

      Missed the mark on Tendermint.https://twitter.com/jaekwon/status/981770446591942656?s=21 …

      jae kwon added,

      “The honesty is laudable, but I wholeheartedly disagree that this ‘solution’ is a solution at all. This is far from the kind of robustness that we should aim for in designing critical, infrastructure-level software. This is fundamentally a problem of mindset as I discussed in my previous article.” from “Proof-of-Stake, Private Keys Attacks and Unforgeable Costliness the Unsung Hero” by Hugo Nguyen.
      jae kwon @jaekwon
      You’re getting upset at semantics, @hugohanoi. “External” means outside of normal-mode consensus. We know solutions, such as using a period of fixed duration (e.g. 1 hour). Blockchains can be merged. Many solutions exist. It’s not the hard part. https://medium.com/@hugonguyen/proof-of-stake-private-keys-attacks-and-unforgeable-costliness-the-unsung-hero-5caca70b01cb#---0-296 … pic.twitter.com/fZ3w3pciEo
      Show this thread
      1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes
    3. Hugo Nguyen‏ @hugohanoi Apr 8
      Replying to @jaekwon @lightcoin

      “When there is a fork, an external process can determine the blame by requiring each validator to justify all of its round votes.” Couple of problems with this:

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    4. Hugo Nguyen‏ @hugohanoi Apr 8
      Replying to @hugohanoi @jaekwon @lightcoin

      Hugo Nguyen Retweeted Nick Szabo ⚡️

      a/ This “external process/governance” is incredibly hard to scale & much less robust than PoW. Think about pausing a multi-billion dollar blockchain for days/weeks to “determine the blame”. @NickSzabo4 also has something to say about this:https://twitter.com/nickszabo4/status/956461360161935361 …

      Hugo Nguyen added,

      Nick Szabo ⚡️ @NickSzabo4
      Conjectured governance under proof-of-stake seems to involve programmers & other amateurs making legal & accounting decisions. Bitcoin governance does not. Even when lawyers & accountants properly take over PoS governance, PoW governance will likely be far more socially scalable.
      1 reply 2 retweets 0 likes
    5. Hugo Nguyen‏ @hugohanoi Apr 8
      Replying to @hugohanoi @jaekwon and

      b/ You’re naively assuming there’s always a “bad” actor to be blamed. Chain splits could occur due to network partition/outage (see my Part 1). Who’s to say who’s good / bad when there’s an unintentional partition? Or multiple partitions (say, US, Europe & China all got split)?

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    6. jae kwon‏ @jaekwon Apr 8
      Replying to @hugohanoi @lightcoin @NickSzabo4

      Stop right there, you don’t have a clue about Tendermint.

      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
    7. Hugo Nguyen‏ @hugohanoi Apr 8
      Replying to @jaekwon @lightcoin @NickSzabo4

      lol dude I'm taking quotes straight out of your link 🙂 How about provide an actual argument or point out how I misunderstood Tendermint? do you deny that your "external process" requires pausing the chain for an undetermined amount of time, and assumes that 1/3+ must be "bad"?

      2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
    8. jae kwon‏ @jaekwon Apr 8
      Replying to @hugohanoi @lightcoin @NickSzabo4

      I gave you all the resources you need, maybe you should read the spec or whitepaper, esp Ethan Buchman's thesis. I could keep spoon feeding you facts about Tendermint, like how it doesn't fork with merely a network partition, but it's time you start chewing your own food.

      2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
    9. jae kwon‏ @jaekwon Apr 8
      Replying to @jaekwon @hugohanoi and

      > and assumes that 1/3+ must be "bad"? // That's not an assumption, that's just a result of the facts of the consensus algorithm. It says that a fork won't happen if +1/3 *aren't* bad. You've completely misunderstood even the most basic logical statement about BFT/Tendermint.

      1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
    10. Hugo Nguyen‏ @hugohanoi Apr 8
      Replying to @jaekwon @lightcoin @NickSzabo4

      Ok I re-read, so Tendermint won't fork in the case of a network partition taking away 1/3+ of the active validator set, because you simply choose to HALT the chain instead of continuing on with the forks. (I admit I don't always remember which PoS implementation does what).

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
      Hugo Nguyen‏ @hugohanoi Apr 8
      Replying to @hugohanoi @jaekwon and

      But by choosing to halt, you’re just trading one problem for another. If you would have chosen liveness instead, then you’ll have a problem with (b), but now instead of (b) your chain faces the risk of regularly starting & stopping.

      2:08 AM - 8 Apr 2018
      2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
        1. New conversation
        2. jae kwon‏ @jaekwon Apr 8
          Replying to @hugohanoi @lightcoin @NickSzabo4

          CAP says you need to choose, there’s no way around it. For financial blockchains the right choice is to halt at least temporarily. Bitcoin chooses “liveness” but really it’s just asking for mass chaos once the partition heals.

          1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
        3. Hugo Nguyen‏ @hugohanoi Apr 8
          Replying to @jaekwon @lightcoin @NickSzabo4

          I disagree. It might appear chaotic but PoW provides a significant breakthrough over traditional BFT systems in this aspect: the chain-split healing process is deterministic, automatable & not corruptible by humans. (Not to mention how PoW shields you from long-range attacks.)

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        4. jae kwon‏ @jaekwon Apr 8
          Replying to @hugohanoi @lightcoin @NickSzabo4

          You just agreed that safety is the better choice. You can have even better chain healing with PoS. The best part of PoW is it’s distribution mechanism, but that’s been exploited to capacity now.

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        5. Hugo Nguyen‏ @hugohanoi Apr 8
          Replying to @jaekwon @lightcoin @NickSzabo4

          No, I only agreed that choosing safety over liveness is probably the correct choice *in PoS or traditional BFT systems*. Not in Bitcoin. Because of PoW, Bitcoin can afford to have both.

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        6. jae kwon‏ @jaekwon Apr 8
          Replying to @hugohanoi @lightcoin @NickSzabo4

          Take off those glasses, you’re talking nonsense now. Good night.

          3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
        7. Hugo Nguyen‏ @hugohanoi Apr 8
          Replying to @jaekwon @lightcoin @NickSzabo4

          I'm speaking objectively, no colored glasses here 🙂

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        8. Hugo Nguyen‏ @hugohanoi Apr 8
          Replying to @hugohanoi @jaekwon and

          Bottom line is this: PoS provides no real breakthrough over traditional BFT systems & are constrained by the same CAP theorem. PoS is just re-inventing the wheel all over again, using a different language. Bitcoin is able to "cheat" CAP via PoW - that's the real breakthrough.

          2 replies 2 retweets 4 likes
        9. Hugo Nguyen‏ @hugohanoi Apr 8
          Replying to @hugohanoi @jaekwon and

          By "cheating" I mean Bitcoin doesn't _really_ give you the C in CAP - consistency. But it's close.

          3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
        10. 1 more reply
        1. New conversation
        2. Hugo Nguyen‏ @hugohanoi Apr 8
          Replying to @hugohanoi @jaekwon and

          I'd say this might be _slightly_ better than blindly choosing liveness over safety. It’s still bad, but you pick the lesser of two evils.

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        3. Hugo Nguyen‏ @hugohanoi Apr 8
          Replying to @hugohanoi @jaekwon and

          Essentially, Tendermint’s preference for "safety over liveness" eliminates (b) but the risk of (a) is now multiplied several folds. My larger point remains: not as robust as PoW.

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        4. jae kwon‏ @jaekwon Apr 8
          Replying to @hugohanoi @lightcoin @NickSzabo4

          You’re closer to truth but you need to take off your pow colored glasses first.

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        5. jae kwon‏ @jaekwon Apr 8
          Replying to @jaekwon @hugohanoi and

          Bitcoin currently chooses liveness, which is the worse choice of the two. After a network partition heals you’ll likely end up with two forks and two groups that disagree about which chain should be called Bitcoin, or, it will shed a large fraction of people who finally “get it”

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        6. Hugo Nguyen‏ @hugohanoi Apr 8
          Replying to @jaekwon @lightcoin @NickSzabo4

          Hugo Nguyen Retweeted Hugo Nguyen

          https://twitter.com/hugohanoi/status/982910735729635329 …

          Hugo Nguyen added,

          Hugo Nguyen @hugohanoi
          Replying to @jaekwon @lightcoin @NickSzabo4
          I disagree. It might appear chaotic but PoW provides a significant breakthrough over traditional BFT systems in this aspect: the chain-split healing process is deterministic, automatable & not corruptible by humans. (Not to mention how PoW shields you from long-range attacks.)
          0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
        7. End of 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.

        Promoted Tweet

        false

        • © 2018 Twitter
        • About
        • Help Center
        • Terms
        • Privacy policy
        • Cookies
        • Ads info