It seems people confuse the “public security” aspect of Bitcoin (ledger integrity protected by PoW) with the “private security” aspect of Bitcoin (safe ownership of coins protected by ECDSA). Signatures are only relevant to private security.https://twitter.com/aridavidpaul/status/985536073668456448 …
-
-
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 threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
And PoW suffers from the inverse. Private keys are cryptographically secured. ASIC farms aren't. State level actors that see the ledger as a public nuisance rather than public good can attack it without having to undermine private key ownership.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
PoW is only as secure as the large ASIC farms... and if a large staker ever did get hacked, it would be slashed. An insecure ASIC farm could be compromised again and again, and doesn’t even have that much incentive to prevent it
-
Isn't loss of profits an incentive to prevent it?
-
A relatively modest one, compared to how much a staker would get slashed for a major violation. And if someone used the ASIC farm as part of a successful 51% attack it could actually be profitable
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.
