This is incorrect. Slashing isn't necessary, but ETH folks seem erroneously wedded to it.
Nakamoto Consensus does not assume an honest majority. It assumes a rational majority and incentivizes them to behave honestly. Slashing is necessary in PoS to prevent Nothing-at-Stake, i.e. individually rational validators equivocating, with incentives.https://twitter.com/jadler0/status/1129803787932246016 …
-
-
-
Could you explain why it's not necessary? Without slashing, what prevents someone from signing on many chains in parallel, potentially opening the door for massive re-orgs?
- Još 7 drugih odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
I'm not sure I agree. Nakamoto/PoW and PoS have pretty similar incentives actually (CapEx + OpEx at stake), the main difference being that OpEx are lower in PoS, which is not that significant IMO. That being said, how can we claim that PoS requires slashing and PoW doesn't?
-
I would say because the opex is orders of magnitude higher in PoW than PoS. Performing a re-org is very expensive in PoW, but not in PoS. Capex is also higher in PoW since hardware decays, is made obsolete by better hardware and has bad resell value, which is not the case in PoS.
- Još 10 drugih odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Most of these consensus mechanisms, including traditional BFT make no assumptions over incentives or honesty in general. They make assumptions that with the same information the network can come to an agreement.
-
Regardless of whether that information is propagated by a dishonest majority or not. Hence why economic stake/incentives and sybil controls must be bootstrapped to them to make public networks successful.
- Još 1 odgovor
Novi razgovor -
-
-
This reminds me of a question I had for
@kevinsekniqihttps://twitter.com/PhABCD/status/1216759079592439808 …Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
Slashing is only necessary because of the degrees of freedom in NC. It works fine since the first organisms evolved. Avalanche has no such degrees of freedom, since they are unnecessary. Having Zero slashing vs having slashing which is "Lindy"...works either way. Apples-Oranges.
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
The seems incorrect. Consensus is an equilibrium outcome in a game, rationality is not a strategy in any game, rationality is one particular way of selecting a strategy among many alternatives.
-
In these terms, honesty is a strategy, and Nakamoto consensus has (nash) equilibrium whenever >50% of hashpower follows honest strategy. By honest, I just mean = mine on top of heaviest valid chain known to you.
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.