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).
-
-
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 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
Take off those glasses, you’re talking nonsense now. Good night.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I do have to say, out of all the PoS projects, I found Tendermint to be the most honest, least hand-wavy, & I highly appreciate that
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
You’re still wrong, in a network partition Bitcoin miners unsafely mine blocks and a large faction will regret having spent that energy, and upon partition healing all hell breaks loose. Respect the laws of BFT which still apply for Bitcoin.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
1/ Yes I talked about this risk in my 1st article. The benefit, like I said, is this healing process in PoW is deterministic & automatable. Your “halt chain with every fault” solution is a manual solution which has its own set of caveats.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
2/ Tendermint security relies on the continued existence & proper functioning of a group of stake holders who (i) knows how to audit forks/restart chain every time there is a halt, (ii) can accurately distinguish good/bad actors & (iii) can always coordinate & come to consensus.
-
-
Replying to @hugohanoi @jaekwon and
3/ Frequent change of coin ownership, change of staking membership, and likely low rate of staking participation can cause either of 3 conditions to fail. Ultimately, introducing manual human intervention into your protocol makes it less robust, less scalable & corruptible.
0 replies 1 retweet 3 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.
