|
|
|
|
|
by denisnazarov
3215 days ago
|
|
> serves as a building block for Proof of Stake networks. Can you elaborate on this, as there is almost no mention of PoS in the post? From a high level, your response to my previous comment can be interpreted as the validators being "hardcoded" upfront, which would be very different decentralization properties from PoW systems. What assumptions does Tendermint make in contrast to PoW systems, and what applications do you see it being most useful for? |
|
All Tendermint wants to know is an initial set, and leaves it up to the App to tell it how the validators should change with every block.
You can build PoS at the application level, if you need it. This is what we're doing with https://cosmos.network/. With every block, the application can decide, according to its particular PoS design, how the validators should change.
There's actually no reason you couldn't build a Tendermint app that determines who the next validators are based on PoW they did and submitted as a transaction. Not quite the PoW we're used to, but it shows Tendermint is quite flexible. That said, a 2/3 coalition of the current validator set always has complete control on what goes in the blockchain, and a 1/3 coalition can halt it - we can't bail out of that without a hard fork.
Note PoW is also only safe in a synchronous network, though it hedges this with an economic random lottery. Of course PoW guarantees a thermodynamic immutability that nothing else can.
Tendermint isn't inherently economic, and is safe so long as <1/3 of the validating power is malicious, even in asynchronous networks. That's what Jepsen shows here (well, fails to disprove).
Arguably, Tendermint is most useful as an analog of Paxos/Raft but in a multi-stakeholder, or otherwise more adversarial, setting.
We aim to prove it's also useful for structuring global financial systems and scaling cryptocurrencies :)