[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Proof of Stake...
- To: [email protected]
- Subject: Proof of Stake...
- From: [email protected] (Juan Garofalo)
- Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 18:14:08 -0300
- In-reply-to: <CAFVRnyrrEF-c+muCE4AeFDbaMLiRrLhpHU00Jvdiavuc3ksD=Q@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <068380C434AB120536414E89@F74D39FA044AA309EAEA14B9> <CAFVRnyrrEF-c+muCE4AeFDbaMLiRrLhpHU00Jvdiavuc3ksD=Q@mail.gmail.com>
--On Thursday, February 06, 2014 11:27 PM -0500 David Vorick
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> From what I can tell, it does not.
>
> The problem is that there's nothing preventing hosts from mining on forks
> simultaneously. In bitcoin, if you mine on forks simultaneously you'll be
> working with different headers and wasting hashes. In POS, you have
> nothing to lose from mining forks, and then picking the fork that
> benefits you the greatest.
>
> Some bitcoin devs have called it the nothing-at-stake problem.
Thanks David. I guess I won't get the full picture until I spend some
mental effort understanding the mechanism. Which is something I've been
procrastinating on =P
At any rate, an attack against, say, nextcoin should be 'feasible' and
would be proof that proof of stake isn't too robust?
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 9:44 PM, Juan Garofalo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> ...does it work?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>