Lloyd Fournier is always worth a read.

"Proof of squarespace" here is a nice joke name, but also the arguments are definitely worth a read:

· · Web · 1 · 2 · 5

@waxwing Oh, wow, something worth reading actually came out of that thread. I'd been mostly ignoring it.

@harding @waxwing it's interesting that the true catastrophic scenario of remote exec worm, taking over the chain for profit and/or destruction, is discarded as unlikely.
I suppose those who never hacked tens of thousands of systems automatically can't wrap their head around the fact that it is a true possibility, and a very high risk.
The only protection against such attack is PoW.

@robep00 @harding interesting. is this along those lines of "if attacker gains control, it cannot be later lost in PoS, but it can in PoW"?

This theme recurs in various arguments.

Otherwise, taking control of nodes could mean taking control of miners and therefore work, right? Like mining botnets etc.

@waxwing @harding
Taking control of the miners does not allow to re-write history, you still need to redo the work. And control of the miners would be quickly noticed by the miners.
Control PoS signers, and you can go backwards, then, who's telling the truth?
We seem to forget that this is the hardest problem to solve, and only PoW solves it with elegance and hacker's / bad actors resistance.

@robep00 @harding oh, history, yes. I was only thinking about 'forwards' control.

@harding Looking at it again this morning, his 1,2,3 points: point 1 seems like it doesn't apply to PoS in general? (you are not forced to stake), while point 3 is another way to phrase that central point that it is a less censorship resistant system due to not having a connection to something external.

@waxwing I guess for #1, it depends a lot on how significant the inflation is. If it's a non-inflationary currency and stakers are just competing for tx fees, then I agree it doesn't feel like forcing. But if there's significant inflation, then you *have* to actively manage your money some way, so your either forced into staking or some other scheme.

@harding @waxwing I think the risks of point 3 are even further amplified by the fact that a large number of users don't hold their own keys. A lot of users own coins that are held by exchanges/other custodians, leaving them even further removed from the ability to exert control over their 'contribution to network security'.
(Assuming the custodian decides to participate in staking, of course. It seems plausible that large custodians would have biz incentives to do so)

Sign in to participate in the conversation
unidentified instance

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!