[jude-]

If the means of coin production require owning coins, you have these problems that PoW does not have. Definitely true for Algorand.

[sibeliuss]

Owning coins is a means of validating the network and appending to the blockchain, not producing new coins.

[jude-]

Try reading the paper: https://people.csail.mit.edu/nickolai/papers/gilad-algorand-...

You have to own coins to produce blocks.

[sibeliuss]

> If the means of coin production require owning coins, you have these problems that PoW does not have

Producing blocks != coin production

[jude-]

If you're producing blocks, you're getting paid (otherwise what's the point). If the probability you get picked to produce a block is proportional to how many coins you own, then you're getting paid proportional to how many coins you own.

I don't care for Algorand's shell game of trying to say that all tokens have been minted already, and are just being distributed. If it's the case that nodes who stake more coins are getting paid more coins, then all of my analysis holds.

[sibeliuss]

> If it's the case that nodes who stake more coins are getting paid more coins, then all of my analysis holds

Thats fine, but it's an important clarification. All the tokens _have_ been minted already, and _are_ just being distributed. The mechanics are different. Owning 1 coin is one potential vote in a lottery to determine the validity of a proposed block. This is not the generation of new coins.

In any case, regarding nodes and payment, that process is being phased out by their new governance model which was just released the other day: https://algorand.foundation/the-algo/algo-governance.

[jude-]

I'm glad we agree, then, that Algorand is just as vulnerable as all the rest of the PoS systems.