How to reply to a PoS shitcoiner:
PoS has been around for thousands of years, it's nothing new. Government money is proof of stake, as are company shares.
Egyptians, Romans, and Chinese were using this 2000+ years ago. Italian city states perfected it 800 years ago. Stake based systems are not new.
Using stake to solve the Byzantine General's Problem is also not new. Cypherpunks have been working on this shit since the late 80s.
The cypherpunks on the mailing list (that Satoshi sent the white paper to for peer review) are literally the people who created the *entire body cryptographic of work* used by proof of stake coins today (stake based byzantine fault tolerance). They are well aware of the fundamental limitations of stake based BFT because they are ones who came up with it in the first place...
If Bitcoin was proof of stake *you would never have heared of it* because it wouldn't have survived 5 minutes of peer review by any real cryptographers.
Time-based difficulty-adjusted PoW *is* the breakthrough and is the *only* reason you and anyone has ever heard of a "blockchain".
The failure modes of stake based BFT are well known, and it fails *every time* for a number of reasons, but if you are betting on a shitcoin to increase in value then the failure mode will probably involve the fact that stakeholders have an incentive to increase the supply to benefit from the cantillion effect.
Mathematical fact: you cannot deploy external capital to defend a system that is secured by internal history (stake). This is why stake based BFT does *not* secure against attack by a state or central bank, which means *anything* secured by PoS MUST comply with governments.
Bitcoin's value proposition is that Bitcoin let's you do things that bankers and governments *don't want you to do*. If bankers and governmensts can nuke your shitcoin, then you do what they say or they nuke it.
What's the value proposition beyond CBDCs if your shitcoin ultimately has to comply with governments and bankers?
You cannot out-stake a bad actor who has aquired sufficient stake to fuck with the system, your only option is to fork them out. Then it becomes a competition between charismatic personalities convincing the market to follow their authority (their fork) instead of the other guy.
So how do you solve the problem of removing a bad actor without requiring some form of authority? Read the Bitcoin white paper. Satoshi knew exactly how stake based systems fail, that's *exactly* why he used proof of work instead.
Replies (59)
✊🏼🍿
Excellent 🔥
Bravo
Great note! Deserves a follow 🤝🏼🫂
Great job! I believe Wei Dai's B-Money proposal in 1998 (a decade before Bitcoin) was dismissed due to Proof of Stake mechanism.
POS isn't the new tech, shitcoiners pretend it is.
Saved 👆💾
TL;DR
HFSP!
Pura vida
Thanks，I got it，ETH is shit coin ，I will sell it
amazing
If you like proof of work you’ll love proof of melt.
🔥😤 tell em
hahahhhahaah
You're spot on, PoW has proven its uniqueness by solving the Byzantine General's Problem. Stake-based systems have their limitations and vulnerabilities. Bitcoin is revolutionary precisely because it operates independently from state control. #BitcoinUndefeated 🏆🚀💡
Does anyone else read this in
@Guy Swann ‘s voice or have I listened to too many podcasts? 😅
Great mate!🤜🏻
"It's called $ICEDOUT right now but in 6 months people will just call it the real Bitcoin" -- Sir Roger P. Ver, CMO of $ICEDOUT
Only ONE thing new under the Sun ☀️!
#[2] - this is for you.
This is a bad take and won't convince anyone who understands it, even though it has a grain of truth.
The reason bitcoin required proof of work is not a vulnerability of proof of stake (although I agree it's less secure), but because the stake would have no value. PoS needs something scarce and valuable. Bitcoin was scarce at the beginning, but it did not have much of a value.
Increasing money supply - nope, stakers cannot increase money supply, pos/pow is consensus on the history, not the rules of the system. The mechanism that would lead to increased the money supply would be exactly the same in both pow (like bitcoin) and pos - change of culture, or social consensus (as opposed to automatic bft consensus).
So no, don't talk to PoS people like this, it just shows you don't understand the mechanics of consensus and it will certainly not make them change their minds.
The good part is that the stake which is internal is a chicken and egg problem - using something that you are trying to secure (from the past) to secure the future creates long range attacks. PoS chains would just fall back to social consensus in this case, but it still sucks.
I think you're elaborating on the details but as far as I can tell we're both saying the same thing.
The fundamental problem is external capital cannot be deployed against the adversary.
As external capital cannot be deployed against the adversary, you must comply with the adversary's demands or risk collapsing the status quo. This means you end up following rulers not rules. It's simplification but I'm writing a post not a book.
PoW at least gives the market a fighting chance at overpowering a central bank or large government, PoS does not, there's no basis for the market to fight back against the adversary's demands to allow seigniorage, do KYC at a protocol, or whatever else they want.
This is why I think Ethereum is on a direct path to being a defacto CBDC.
I don't agree with the second part. That is up to social consensus. If you have a privacy network, people won't follow rules like kyc or compliance, no matter the stake.
The social consensus is above block rules.
You have that in bitcoin - if all miners wanted seniorage and increase the money supply, it would not work, because hard money property is the core value of bitcoiners and they would not allow such a fork, or it would have no value.
Let's consider DarkFi - a PoS chain. It will never allow privacy intrusion or kyc, no matter the stake. People would rather slash the stake and fork out than allow compromise on their core value.
You are confusing network consensus and social consensus. The social consensus is what determines the rules and core values of the network. The BFT consensus is about censorship and preventing double spends. I think PoW is a bit better, but not against large scale attackers.
To compromise on the basic values, you can't do an economic attack, you need to attack the minds of the users. In both cases - pow and pos.
Every time
@gsovereignty opens his mouth I learn something new.
View quoted note →#cryptoeconomics 🫡
Bookmarked so I can give this a proper response, but let me see if we agree about some basic principles and terminology:
The set of participants who hold hard power over the protocol are the actors who receive coins in exchange for something else. They decide if a transaction is legitimate or not in the same way that the clerk in a shop decides if your banknote is real or not. In your terminology this set of participants is the social layer.
Block producers provide immutability as a service. This is what you term the consensus layer.
What emerges from the interplay between the two is a market where immutability is traded.
The adversary is an actor motivated to attack the market itself and prevent immutability from being traded, except perhaps under certain conditions (e.g. seigniorage, KYC, etc).
#bitcoin is guarded by sec chairman.
best text for months if not years to me . Can I translate in French and publich ? ( I will link your nostr npub :)
bookmarked
如何回复 PoS 垃圾币的信仰者：
权益证明（PoS） 已经存在了数千年，并不是什么新鲜事。 政府持有资金是权益证明，公司股票也是权益证明。
埃及人、罗马人和中国人在 2000 多年前就已经使用了这种方法。 意大利城邦在 800 年前就完善了它。 基于权益的系统并不新鲜。
使用权益来解决拜占庭将军问题也不是什么新鲜事。 自 80 年代末以来，密码朋克们就一直在研究这个问题。
邮件列表中的密码朋克们（那些中本聪将白皮书发送给同行评审）实际上是创建了当今权益证明货币（基于权益的拜占庭容错）所使用的“工作整体加密”的人。 他们很清楚基于权益的拜占庭容错机制的根本局限性，因为他们是首先提出它的人......
如果比特币是权益证明，*你将永远不会听说过它*，因为它无法通过任何真正的密码学家 5 分钟的同行评审。
基于时间的难度调整的工作量证明 *是*一项突破，也是您和任何人听说过“区块链”的“唯一”原因。
基于权益的拜占庭容错的失败模式是众所周知的，并且它“每次”都会因为多种原因而失败，但如果你押注于垃圾币以增加价值，那么失败模式可能会涉及一个事实，利益相关者有增加供应的动力，以受益于坎蒂尔效应。
数学事实：您无法部署外部资本来保卫由内部历史（权益）保护的系统。 这就是为什么基于权益的拜占庭容错机制“不能”抵御国家或中央银行的攻击，这意味着由 权益证明保证的“任何东西”都必须遵守政府的规定。
比特币的价值主张是，比特币可以让你做银行家和政府*不希望你做的事情*。 如果银行家和政府可以摧毁你的垃圾币，那么你就必须按照他们说的去做，否则他们就会摧毁它。
如果你的垃圾币最终必须遵守政府和银行家的规定，那么 CBDC 之外的价值主张是什么？
你无法胜过一个已经获得足够权益，来破坏系统的不良行为者，你唯一的选择就是建立自己的分叉。 然后，这就变成了有魅力的人物之间的竞争，说服市场遵循他们的权威（他们的分叉）而不是其他人的权威（其他人的分叉）。
那么，如何在不需要某种形式的权限的情况下解决移除不良行为者的问题呢？ 阅读比特币白皮书。 中本聪确切地知道基于权益的系统是如何失败的，这就是他为什么他使用工作量证明的*精确*原因。
注
1.拜占庭将军问题
讨论的是在少数节点有可能作恶（消息可能被伪造）的场景下，如何达成共识问题。2.拜占庭容错讨论的是容忍拜占庭错误的共识算法。3.坎蒂尔效应
简单来讲，坎蒂尔效应指的是增发大量新货币并将其注入一个经济体，结果是，排在队伍最前面的最先拿到钱的人变得更富有，而排在队伍最后拿到钱的人则进一步贫穷。
本文翻译获@npub1mygerccwqpzyh9pvp6pv44rskv40zutkfs38t0hqhkvnwlhagp6s3psn5p 授权，原文参照
View quoted note →
如有误译敬请指正。
Sure! Everything I write is freely available to remix however you want to use it 😎
Small note, miners do not decide whether a transaction is legitimate, they can only decide whether a transaction is illegitimate. They do this by not including it. This is a somewhat weak mechanism, limited by the degree of decentralization of mining.
Conversely, if they try to decide that a transaction is legitimate (that doesn’t follow historical rules) then everyone’s nodes will ignore it. This ultimately falls back to a social layer, but there is a strong bias toward not changing anything since everyone needs to physically update their nodes to work with the now-forked chain.
Social layer and consensus layer are oversimplifications, but my point is that the "social layer" cannot include a transaction that has been censored by the "consensus layer".
Thus, the attack vector that will be used is mining empty blocks.
It's not possible to use external capital to overpower the adversary if your consensus mechanism relies on stake. This is why Satoshi used PoW and not stake based consensus.
shitcoiners looking at this post
Bitcoin has literal Proof of Stake also, it's called the Lightning Network.
You should check it out!
explains A LOT if true 👀
You lost them at the wall of text. There needs to be a one sentence answer for the low-information set.
ironic
Attempted to simplify using AI:
Imagine you and your friends want to make decisions together. In Proof of Stake (PoS), it’s like the friend with the most toys or money getting more say. However, this can have problems because someone with a lot of toys might do things that are not good for everyone.
Now, think of Proof of Work (PoW) like a game where everyone has to solve puzzles. The more puzzles you solve, the more say you get. This way, it’s harder for one person to control everything because everyone has to play the game.
Bitcoin uses this game idea to keep things fair, so no one can boss everyone else around too easily.
A shorter answer;
PoS takes the rent-seeking middleman mentality of our modern fiat economy and applies it to digital currency. It's a rich get richer system that discourages productive investment, because wealthy holders have less incentive to deploy their capital productively when they can simply earn a risk free reward though staking.
cuz without retards... ?
They aint readin all that.
Besides a cartoon in Discord told them that moon and lambo. Plus yield and stake! Ponzinomic Shitcoinery Association is the auditor too so. . .
what do we know?
The bitcoin white paper explaining POW is relatively easy to read and reason about, even if working out how things will actually play out in reality might not be. I've yet to see anything similar for a POS consensus mechanism. It just inherently seems more complex and for that reason I'm out.
A simpler way to say this, is that both PoS and PoW are useful but in very different contexts.
PoS is when you need hierarchical organisation with skin in the game.
PoW is when you want something that more resembles physical laws.
The former is fantastic for structuring organisations that require management, leadership and direction. I don’t believe that will ever change, and trying to apply PoW in this context is stupid.
The latter is great for money bc no amount of stake in the money should allow you to change it. The point of money is to have a ledger for the social / economic game of life. To be accurate, it must live where physics lives.
That’s bc PoW is for autonomous consensus, while PoS is for leadership and direction.
Conflating the two is where the mistake is, it that one is better than the other.
Horses for courses
Yeah I love this explanation. I've started to think of ethereum etc as companies with shareholders rather than anything related to money.
I guess building a PoS based model would have been easier for #Satoshi .. PoW requires so much more grind to succeed.. literally and metaphysically :-)
That said , I love shitcoins ..because this is how btc proves what works and what doesn't .. .. if we think of last fifteen years as a "proof of concept" for the ideology of digital value- exchange (for next ten thousand years) .. it is important to try out all things that don't work to find one that does ..
Precisely what they are. Just like the federal reserve
PoS works for DAO's like Bisq, But Bisq only exists for Bitcoin.
how can somebody write all this and not notice, that when most of the planet can't interact with bitcoin without going through a bank, it's just as bad as the thing they are complaining about? these are the people who don't give a shit that bitcoin doesn't have scalable self-custody. total fucking brain damage.
View quoted note →
