|
|
|
|
|
|
by yanmaani
1669 days ago
|
|
|
I want to take a moment to note what you're doing here. You're making a negative argument, in want of a better word. It goes something like this: 1. X is a problem? 2. But Y is also a problem, in my opinion. 3. X and Y are both the same, I think. 4. Therefore X is not a problem. We can - theoretically - verify the correctness of PoW software by downloading the source code, reading it over, etc. We can also refuse to update, reducing ourselves to SPV security. We can internally verify the checkpoints using 100% objective standards. There are other things as well. This is not the case for PoS, where our "signature A existed at time B" has to be taken as faith, or evidence of things unseen. There is no internal way to verify the veracity of such a statement. The fact that users aren't personally doing this, is not the same as saying it makes no difference whether they are able to or not. I'm not personally going to withdraw all the money in my bank account - that would be ridiculous - but if the bank informed me I was no longer able to withdraw the money in my account, that would not be suitable at all. The assurance that I can do it makes it so that I don't have to. |
|
|
It seems like you reject this premise, maintaining that PoW networks are objectively verifiable? But you didn't really refute the parent's point there, which was that there are no "objective standards" in deciding which bootstrap nodes to use; it's ultimately a matter of trust. If I trust the wrong bootstrap nodes, I can be eclipsed from the real network.
Granted, I only have to trust that a single bootstrap node from the list will faithfully connect me to the honest network. But PoS involves a very similar 1-of-n trust model; I can request checkpoints from n semi-trusted sources and check that they match.
Also, granted, if I pick bad bootstrap nodes, I can still detect if I'm being eclipsed by looking at the hash rate. But how do I know what hash rate to expect? I could check n websites with hash rate charts, but that brings us back to 1-of-n trust.
> 4. Therefore X is not a problem.
IMO it's a manageable problem. Users just need to be cognisant of these trust assumptions they're relying on, and be thoughtful about picking semi-trusted peers (whether bootstrap nodes or checkpoint providers).