| > 3. X and Y are both the same, I think. 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). |
Right, but it's not about trust in the same way. I can add an infinite list of bootstrap nodes. Quantity matters, not quality.
> 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.
"Very similar," not the same. You need "semi-trusted sources", and there's no objective standard in case they disagree.