Also worth repeating is that the security of ECDSA / public-key cryptography in general is *relative*. It is only secure from the POV of the owner of the private key. By forcefully switching roles cost of attack can be significantly smaller than brute-forcing the key.
-
-
Show this thread
-
This is also another fundamental issue with PoS: it relies on private security to protect the ledger, a public good. The network is secure so long as the private keys of the large stake holders are secure.
Show this thread -
Drastic change of coin ownership, change of staking participation & low rate of staking participation could have serious consequences for PoS protocols. I discussed this at length my PoS part 2 article.https://medium.com/@hugonguyen/proof-of-stake-private-keys-attacks-and-unforgeable-costliness-the-unsung-hero-5caca70b01cb#---0-560 …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
No. The public security is paid for by signed transactions. The public security is *economic* in nature. Incrementing nonces etc is just an implementation, what matters for public security is the game theory which is paid for by inflation then fees, both need signed txs.
-
The relevance here is that public security provided by PoW is what makes the whole distributed consensus thing possible in the first place.
-
Talking about signatures (or lack thereof) outside the context of PoW-enabled consensus is meaningless, and backward. Blockchain signatures/transactions depend on PoW to have meaning, not the other way around.
-
PoW without signatures/transactions *absolutely* has value. PoW, judged on its own merits, is a new consensus mechanism and a breakthrough over traditional BFT systems (which PoS protocols are a subset of).
-
The opposite of your statement is true: “Signatures/transactions without PoW have no value”.
-
So the whole subject of cryptographic signatures, which has been used for decades in many other use cases, has no value?
-
That's not what I meant. Of cos cryptography has value. But in the context of distributed consensus, talking about signatures before consensus is putting the cart before the horse. You need consensus first to establish meaning.
- 1 more reply
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.
