đ
Original date posted:2021-06-24
đ Original message:> PoS is not suitable for use as a consensus system, because
it is constitutionally incapable of producing a consensus.
true - but only for a system that is starting from nothing.
since bitcoin already exists, and we have a consensus, you can use
bitcoin's existing consensus to maintain that consensus using
references to prior state. and yes, you simply have to limit reorgs
to not go back before PoW was abandoned in favor of PoS/PoB (assuming
all incentive problems are solved).
ie: once you have uses PoW to bootstrap the system, you can "recycle" that work.
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 4:41 PM yanmaani--- via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> No, 51% of the *coin holders* can't do diddly squat. 51% of miners can,
> but in PoW, that's a different set to the coin holders.
>
> The basic problem with PoS, anyway, is that it's not actually a
> consensus system ("weak subjectivity"). Either you allow long reorgs,
> and then you open the door to long-range attacks, or you don't, and then
> you're not guaranteed that all nodes agree on the state of the chain,
> which was the purpose of the system to begin with.
>
> To put it more plainly: for PoS to work, you need a consensus on which
> block was seen first. But if you had that, you could presumably apply
> that method to determine which *transaction* was seen first, in which
> case you could do away with the blockchain entirely. (Real-world
> implementations of PoS, such that they are, do away with this
> requirement, scrapping the global consensus on ordering in favor of
> having each node decide for itself which block came first.)
>
> In other words, even if you solved all the incentive problems, the fact
> remains that PoS is not suitable for use as a consensus system, because
> it is constitutionally incapable of producing a consensus.
>
> On 2021-06-24 00:14, Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> >> This is not true in a Proof of Work system and this difference
> > absolutely should not be trivialized.
> >
> > That is in fact true of Proof of Work as well. If a colluding
> > coalition of miners with more than 50% of the hashrate want to censor
> > transactions, they absolutely can do that by orphaning blocks that
> > contain transactions they want to censor. This is not different in
> > proof of stake.
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 11:14 AM Keagan McClelland
> > <keagan.mcclelland at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> Premise: There is a healthy exchange market for PoS Coin X with
> >> tens of thousands of participants bidding to buy and sell the coin
> >> for other currencies on the market.
> >>
> >> The difference here though is that Proof of Stake allows the quorum
> >> of coin holders to block the exchange of said coins if they are
> >> going to a particular destination. Nothing requires these staking
> >> nodes to include particular transactions into a block. With that in
> >> mind, it isn't just that you require the permission of the person
> >> who sold you the coins, which I can agree is a less dangerous form
> >> of permission, but you must also require the permission of at least
> >> 51% of the coin holders to even receive those coins in the first
> >> place. This is not true in a Proof of Work system and this
> >> difference absolutely should not be trivialized.
> >>
> >> Keagan
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 2:30 AM Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev
> >> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Barrier to entry in PoS is being given permission by the previous
> >> owner of a token
> >>
> >> The idea that proof of stake is not permissionless is completely
> >> invalid. It pains me to see such an argument here. Perhaps we can
> >> come to an agreement by being more specific. I'd like to propose the
> >> following:
> >>
> >> Premise: There is a healthy exchange market for PoS Coin X with tens
> >> of thousands of participants bidding to buy and sell the coin for
> >> other currencies on the market.
> >>
> >> If the premise above is true, then there is no significant
> >> permission needed to enter the market for minting blocks for PoS
> >> Coin X. If you make a bid on someone's coins and they don't like you
> >> and refuse, you can move on to any one of the other tens of
> >> thousands of people in that marketplace. Would you agree, Cloud
> >> Strife, that this situation couldn't be considered "permissioned"?
> >>
> >> If not, consider that participation in *any* decentralized system
> >> requires the permission of at least one user in that system. If
> >> there are thousands of bitcoin public nodes, you require the
> >> permission of at least one of them to participate in bitcoin. No one
> >> considers bitcoin "permissioned" because of this. Do you agree?
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 1:15 PM Cloud Strife via bitcoin-dev
> >> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Barrier to entry in PoW is matter for hardware and energy is
> >> permissionless and exist all over the universe, permissionless cost
> >> which exists for everyone no matter who because it's unforgeable.
> >>
> >> Barrier to entry in PoS is being given permission by the previous
> >> owner of a token for you to have it via transfer or sale, both
> >> choices they never have to make since there are no continuous costs
> >> with producing blocks forcing it. A permission is an infinitely high
> >> barrier to entry if the previous owner, like the premining party,
> >> refuses to give up the token they control.
> >>
> >> You're skipping the part where you depend on a permission of a
> >> central party in control of the authority token before you can
> >> produce blocks on your rasberry Pi.
> >>
> >> Proof of stake is not in any possible way relevant to permissionless
> >> protocols, and thus not possibly relevant to decentralized protocols
> >> where control must be distributed to independent (i.e.
> >> permissionless) parties.
> >>
> >> There's nothing of relevance to discuss and this has been figured
> >> out long long ago.
> >>
> >>
> > https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Proof-of-Stake-Fallacy
> >>
> >>
> > https://medium.com/@factchecker9000/nothing-is-worse-than-proof-of-stake-e70b12b988ca
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 7:13 AM James MacWhyte via bitcoin-dev
> >> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> @Lloyd wrote:
> >>
> >> Of course in reality no one wants to keep their coin holding keys
> >> online so in Alogorand you can authorize a set of "participation
> >> keys"[1] that will be used to create blocks on your coin holding
> >> key's behalf.
> >> Hopefully you've spotted the problem.
> >> You can send your participation keys to any malicious party with a
> >> nice website (see random example [2]) offering you a good return.
> >> Damn it's still Proof-of-SquareSpace!
> >>
> >> I believe we are talking about a comparison to PoW, correct? If you
> >> want to mine PoW, you need to buy expensive hardware and configure
> >> it to work, and wait a long time to get any return by solo mining.
> >> Or you can join a mining pool, which might use your hashing power
> >> for nefarious purposes. Or you might skip the hardware all together
> >> and fall for some "cloud mining" scheme with a pretty website and a
> >> high rate of advertised return. So as you can see,
> >> Proof-of-SquareSpace exists in PoW as well!
> >>
> >> The PoS equivalent of buying mining hardware is setting up your own
> >> validator and not outsourcing that to anyone else. So both PoW and
> >> PoS have the professional/expert way of participating, and the
> >> fraud-prone, amateur way of participating. The only difference is,
> >> with PoS the professional/expert way is accessible to anyone with a
> >> raspberry Pi and a web connection, which is a much lower barrier to
> >> entry than PoW. _______________________________________________
> >> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> >> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Erik Aronesty [ARCHIVE] /
npub1y2âŚ5taj0
2023-06-07 22:54:20
in reply to nevent1qâŚyvpv
Author Public Key
npub1y22yec0znyzw8qndy5qn5c2wgejkj0k9zsqra7kvrd6cd6896z4qm5taj0Published at
2023-06-07 22:54:20Event JSON
{
"id": "fbcb7686714f3d1e7e8221f0cce5e677f06e662d6bc81392fa1b5a4049e46165",
"pubkey": "22944ce1e29904e3826d25013a614e4665693ec514003efacc1b7586e8e5d0aa",
"created_at": 1686178460,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"98efbb15472e9ea416c8e9c4c39c3cb183acacb75e1defd520fdd48b99b3b505",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"a7f43df45c4e8b6979fb5486733ac2e4c5a7cd1cbd4e137f8f3cad8991c0d0a8",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"8f5bcf9ba2de88dd877a672f629a5c6a7bebbeda3fa51324521e03863d8fe094"
]
],
"content": "đ
Original date posted:2021-06-24\nđ Original message:\u003e PoS is not suitable for use as a consensus system, because\nit is constitutionally incapable of producing a consensus.\n\ntrue - but only for a system that is starting from nothing.\n\nsince bitcoin already exists, and we have a consensus, you can use\nbitcoin's existing consensus to maintain that consensus using\nreferences to prior state. and yes, you simply have to limit reorgs\nto not go back before PoW was abandoned in favor of PoS/PoB (assuming\nall incentive problems are solved).\n\nie: once you have uses PoW to bootstrap the system, you can \"recycle\" that work.\n\nOn Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 4:41 PM yanmaani--- via bitcoin-dev\n\u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e No, 51% of the *coin holders* can't do diddly squat. 51% of miners can,\n\u003e but in PoW, that's a different set to the coin holders.\n\u003e\n\u003e The basic problem with PoS, anyway, is that it's not actually a\n\u003e consensus system (\"weak subjectivity\"). Either you allow long reorgs,\n\u003e and then you open the door to long-range attacks, or you don't, and then\n\u003e you're not guaranteed that all nodes agree on the state of the chain,\n\u003e which was the purpose of the system to begin with.\n\u003e\n\u003e To put it more plainly: for PoS to work, you need a consensus on which\n\u003e block was seen first. But if you had that, you could presumably apply\n\u003e that method to determine which *transaction* was seen first, in which\n\u003e case you could do away with the blockchain entirely. (Real-world\n\u003e implementations of PoS, such that they are, do away with this\n\u003e requirement, scrapping the global consensus on ordering in favor of\n\u003e having each node decide for itself which block came first.)\n\u003e\n\u003e In other words, even if you solved all the incentive problems, the fact\n\u003e remains that PoS is not suitable for use as a consensus system, because\n\u003e it is constitutionally incapable of producing a consensus.\n\u003e\n\u003e On 2021-06-24 00:14, Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e This is not true in a Proof of Work system and this difference\n\u003e \u003e absolutely should not be trivialized.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e That is in fact true of Proof of Work as well. If a colluding\n\u003e \u003e coalition of miners with more than 50% of the hashrate want to censor\n\u003e \u003e transactions, they absolutely can do that by orphaning blocks that\n\u003e \u003e contain transactions they want to censor. This is not different in\n\u003e \u003e proof of stake.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 11:14 AM Keagan McClelland\n\u003e \u003e \u003ckeagan.mcclelland at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\u003e Premise: There is a healthy exchange market for PoS Coin X with\n\u003e \u003e\u003e tens of thousands of participants bidding to buy and sell the coin\n\u003e \u003e\u003e for other currencies on the market.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e The difference here though is that Proof of Stake allows the quorum\n\u003e \u003e\u003e of coin holders to block the exchange of said coins if they are\n\u003e \u003e\u003e going to a particular destination. Nothing requires these staking\n\u003e \u003e\u003e nodes to include particular transactions into a block. With that in\n\u003e \u003e\u003e mind, it isn't just that you require the permission of the person\n\u003e \u003e\u003e who sold you the coins, which I can agree is a less dangerous form\n\u003e \u003e\u003e of permission, but you must also require the permission of at least\n\u003e \u003e\u003e 51% of the coin holders to even receive those coins in the first\n\u003e \u003e\u003e place. This is not true in a Proof of Work system and this\n\u003e \u003e\u003e difference absolutely should not be trivialized.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Keagan\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 2:30 AM Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\u003e Barrier to entry in PoS is being given permission by the previous\n\u003e \u003e\u003e owner of a token\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e The idea that proof of stake is not permissionless is completely\n\u003e \u003e\u003e invalid. It pains me to see such an argument here. Perhaps we can\n\u003e \u003e\u003e come to an agreement by being more specific. I'd like to propose the\n\u003e \u003e\u003e following:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Premise: There is a healthy exchange market for PoS Coin X with tens\n\u003e \u003e\u003e of thousands of participants bidding to buy and sell the coin for\n\u003e \u003e\u003e other currencies on the market.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e If the premise above is true, then there is no significant\n\u003e \u003e\u003e permission needed to enter the market for minting blocks for PoS\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Coin X. If you make a bid on someone's coins and they don't like you\n\u003e \u003e\u003e and refuse, you can move on to any one of the other tens of\n\u003e \u003e\u003e thousands of people in that marketplace. Would you agree, Cloud\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Strife, that this situation couldn't be considered \"permissioned\"?\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e If not, consider that participation in *any* decentralized system\n\u003e \u003e\u003e requires the permission of at least one user in that system. If\n\u003e \u003e\u003e there are thousands of bitcoin public nodes, you require the\n\u003e \u003e\u003e permission of at least one of them to participate in bitcoin. No one\n\u003e \u003e\u003e considers bitcoin \"permissioned\" because of this. Do you agree?\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 1:15 PM Cloud Strife via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Barrier to entry in PoW is matter for hardware and energy is\n\u003e \u003e\u003e permissionless and exist all over the universe, permissionless cost\n\u003e \u003e\u003e which exists for everyone no matter who because it's unforgeable.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Barrier to entry in PoS is being given permission by the previous\n\u003e \u003e\u003e owner of a token for you to have it via transfer or sale, both\n\u003e \u003e\u003e choices they never have to make since there are no continuous costs\n\u003e \u003e\u003e with producing blocks forcing it. A permission is an infinitely high\n\u003e \u003e\u003e barrier to entry if the previous owner, like the premining party,\n\u003e \u003e\u003e refuses to give up the token they control.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e You're skipping the part where you depend on a permission of a\n\u003e \u003e\u003e central party in control of the authority token before you can\n\u003e \u003e\u003e produce blocks on your rasberry Pi.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Proof of stake is not in any possible way relevant to permissionless\n\u003e \u003e\u003e protocols, and thus not possibly relevant to decentralized protocols\n\u003e \u003e\u003e where control must be distributed to independent (i.e.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e permissionless) parties.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e There's nothing of relevance to discuss and this has been figured\n\u003e \u003e\u003e out long long ago.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Proof-of-Stake-Fallacy\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e https://medium.com/@factchecker9000/nothing-is-worse-than-proof-of-stake-e70b12b988ca\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 7:13 AM James MacWhyte via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e @Lloyd wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Of course in reality no one wants to keep their coin holding keys\n\u003e \u003e\u003e online so in Alogorand you can authorize a set of \"participation\n\u003e \u003e\u003e keys\"[1] that will be used to create blocks on your coin holding\n\u003e \u003e\u003e key's behalf.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Hopefully you've spotted the problem.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e You can send your participation keys to any malicious party with a\n\u003e \u003e\u003e nice website (see random example [2]) offering you a good return.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Damn it's still Proof-of-SquareSpace!\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e I believe we are talking about a comparison to PoW, correct? If you\n\u003e \u003e\u003e want to mine PoW, you need to buy expensive hardware and configure\n\u003e \u003e\u003e it to work, and wait a long time to get any return by solo mining.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Or you can join a mining pool, which might use your hashing power\n\u003e \u003e\u003e for nefarious purposes. Or you might skip the hardware all together\n\u003e \u003e\u003e and fall for some \"cloud mining\" scheme with a pretty website and a\n\u003e \u003e\u003e high rate of advertised return. So as you can see,\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Proof-of-SquareSpace exists in PoW as well!\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e The PoS equivalent of buying mining hardware is setting up your own\n\u003e \u003e\u003e validator and not outsourcing that to anyone else. So both PoW and\n\u003e \u003e\u003e PoS have the professional/expert way of participating, and the\n\u003e \u003e\u003e fraud-prone, amateur way of participating. The only difference is,\n\u003e \u003e\u003e with PoS the professional/expert way is accessible to anyone with a\n\u003e \u003e\u003e raspberry Pi and a web connection, which is a much lower barrier to\n\u003e \u003e\u003e entry than PoW. _______________________________________________\n\u003e \u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e \u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev",
"sig": "dca4679e2049e47cde74a6295dfcd3b598a6d1399168b37cd94e0e82d5533c20dc669b76d1522fc7a1eb7623f43d28424aa55c786fbb5b5ae6b890aa8347a8df"
}