Author: Erik Aronesty 2021-05-21 20:57:51
Published on: 2021-05-21T20:57:51+00:00
The discussion revolves around the benefits and drawbacks of Proof of Stake (PoS) versus Proof of Burn (PoB) consensus mechanisms. It is argued that while PoS has had some issues with distribution and security, it is possible to build a PoS protocol that has higher security while costing less resources than PoW without compromising critical security properties. However, there are concerns about oligopolistic control in PoS systems, which are refuted by the claim that the system does not have centralization pressure like PoW does. The energy usage debate is also brought up with the suggestion that if there is a way to do better, we should eventually try to do so. In relation to PoS, it is pointed out that there seems to be a proof of stake consensus protocol that could be built that has substantially higher security while costing far fewer resources than PoW. PoS is also said to have no centralization pressure, unlike PoW. Additionally, it is claimed that allowing a 51% attack is already unacceptable and that PoS can make the capital required to 51% attack a chain substantially greater, making the attacker stand to lose more if the attack is successful. Other points discussed include the failure threshold of PoS systems, which varies depending on the design. It is argued that PoW is not resilient up to the 1/2 threshold as attackers do not need to obtain all the hashpower. Finally, it is suggested that a burned coin + VDF system might be more secure in the long run, but consensus is needed before initiating a hard-fork.
Updated on: 2023-06-14T21:06:36.077357+00:00