Proof-of-work is absolute truth, proof-of-stake is relative truth. Both have their role. But for the most important transactions it's better to produce more clean energy than to give up on the undeletable history that accumulated work provides.
It's hard to express this compactly to a non-technical person, but basically: it's harder to fake the results of a massive calculation done over ten years with datacenters full of hardware than it is to convince a fixed set of humans to change their minds and rewrite history.
This is what we get when there is no absolute truth.
Using Merkle trees, we can prove the existence of arbitrary amounts of data using just one tx on the Bitcoin blockchain.
Data availability is nontrivial (IPFS?) but proof that the original photo existed would be feasible.
Using Merkle trees, we can prove the existence of arbitrary amounts of data using just one tx on the Bitcoin blockchain.
Data availability is nontrivial (IPFS?) but proof that the original photo existed would be feasible.
A scenario: so long as the heaviest proof-of-work chain exists, every other chain can hash its state to it as a sort of backup every ~10 mins, then use whatever local mechanisms it wants.
They'd all be paying "tribute" in fees to Bitcoin, king of coins.
They'd all be paying "tribute" in fees to Bitcoin, king of coins.
https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1163873923903025152
A scenario where chains buy BTC to pay fees to hash state to Bitcoin — then do their own thing — isn't the favored outcome of any partisan, but it's not that expensive.
6 blocks/hour * 24 hours * 365 days * $4-40/tx = $200k-$2M/year.
Not bad for state-resistant proof-of-state.
6 blocks/hour * 24 hours * 365 days * $4-40/tx = $200k-$2M/year.
Not bad for state-resistant proof-of-state.
There's also the value signaling aspect.
It's hard to attack someone as anti-Bitcoin if they are provably buying $200k-$2M of BTC per year to pay fees to run their operation.
I'm sure some will still try it. But said critic probably wouldn't be buying as much BTC themselves.
It's hard to attack someone as anti-Bitcoin if they are provably buying $200k-$2M of BTC per year to pay fees to run their operation.
I'm sure some will still try it. But said critic probably wouldn't be buying as much BTC themselves.
To argue the other side of it, proof-of-stake does have the advantage of being N globally distributed, possibly pseudonymous individuals rather than M geographically fixed mining farms.
This kind of thing has always been the concern with proof-of-work:
This kind of thing has always been the concern with proof-of-work:
https://twitter.com/bigmagicdao/status/1406257506586791940
On the other hand, Bitcoin mining is no longer in the exponential growth phase. Hashrate isn't increasing 100X in a year, hardware now lasts longer, opex/capex is more predictable, and tools for bounding risk now exist. So it's easier to mine anywhere. blockchain.com/charts/hash-ra…
Good post making the case that PoS has greater robustness to several different kinds of attacks than PoW. I agree, and would add in one he didn't, which is ASIC supply disruption.
But I prefer having both as they're each strong against different attacks.
But I prefer having both as they're each strong against different attacks.
https://twitter.com/FigoETH/status/1406517660410683397
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
