“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:
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.)
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
Take off those glasses, you’re talking nonsense now. Good night.
-
I'm speaking objectively, no colored glasses here

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