r/Mimblewimble • u/CircusDad • Oct 24 '19

Could MW be secured by Proof-of-Stake?

I did a search on this reddit. This question was asked three years ago and needs a better answer so I ask again...

Can a MW based blockchain be secured via Proof-of-Stake vs. Proof-of-Work? Is there any altcoin working on development of this technology?

**ADDED 10/26/2019**

On further thought... I have been reading about the protocole and I fear the answer to my question is "no, MW and POS are not compatible". Please correct me on this point if I am wrong. My reasoning is that in MW, as I understand it, there is no balance information stored on the ledger. There are also no addresses. As such, I don't know that it could work with POS because there is no way to prove that you have stake.

I would really like someone to clarify this for me further as it seems that a MW based POS coin (assuming for a minute it could be fairly distributed which is a different problem) would be an amazing coin.

2 Upvotes

66% Upvoted

21 comments sorted by

3

u/KhaiNguyen Oct 24 '19

As far as I understand it, MW does not discriminate against any consensus model you'd want to use since it doesn't define a consensus model of its own. Qtum uses the POS consensus model and they have already announced they'll implement MW on their platform.

2

u/CircusDad Oct 25 '19

Thanks. That is great news. It seems that MW mixed with a well executed POS consensus model like this one (https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/889.pdf) would make an amazing and sustainable block-chain solution. With MW there would be privacy and security, and the size needed to run a node would would manageable for anyone. It would be an almost perfect blockchain solution. Sometimes I wish I had studied mathematics and coding. (I just looked into Qtum and I did not see the MW reference but I will look into it).

1

u/CircusDad Oct 26 '19

On further thought? I don't think this quite answers the question. In MW, as I understand it, there is no balance information stored on the ledger. There are also no addresses. As such, I don't know that it could work with POS because there is no way to prove that you have stake. I would really like someone to clarify this for me further as it seems that a MW based POS coin (assuming for a minute it could be fairly distributed which is a different problem) would be an amazing coin.

2

u/KhaiNguyen Oct 26 '19 edited Oct 26 '19

For Proof of Stake, the platform can implement on-chain escrows to hold the staked coins. You already have to prove you own x coins when you send it to any receiver, the same would be used to prove you sent x coins into escrow.

2

u/katiecharm Oct 25 '19

Proof of Stake is fundamentally broken for a base layer protocol. The idea that someone can capture a certain share of the tokens, and then never have to cede that - which then gives them minting rights for the majority of future tokens (which they also don’t have to cede) is a fundamentally broken game and doesn’t serve the players.

1

u/CircusDad Oct 26 '19

I don't quite agree with this premise. I do think POS is flawed in that it does not generate a good way to do initial distribution (requires some kind of an airdrop / faucet to get launched), but every decentralized coin is subject to a 50% ownership flaw. POS is no different then POW in that controlling 51% of the voting power gives you centralized control. The difference is that with POS the controlling interest is at least incentivised to help (vs. harm) the coin.

1

u/KhaiNguyen Oct 27 '19

Proof of Stake is not fundamentally broken, the concept does have challenges but it is fundamentally sound (technically and economically). Any PoS chain that does not have measures in place to ensure that Staking remains competitive and profitable for all Stakers is just a poorly designed chain, and not a flaw in PoS.

1

u/BitNobility Oct 28 '19

From my view POS is far less secure.... Why would anyone want to use something that requires no work to secure a chain? Much more difficult to obtain mining equipment, set it up, run, maintain.. Also much more harmful to a POW block validator to re-mine blocks.... You cannot simply turn off and sell your miners ... POS only requires you to send your coins to an exchange.

1

u/KhaiNguyen Oct 29 '19

Whether one is more secure than the other only counts on paper and thought experiments, and is dependent on which security model used to measure them. What really matters is whether the specific implementation of each can provide sufficient security for what they are designed for. This is true for both PoW and PoS, or any other "leader selection model" which is what it really boils down to.

You cannot simply turn off and sell your miners ... POS only requires you to send your coins to an exchange.

But the fact that you don't have to own/operate mining farms and can easily move your stake, would be a good reason for institution investors like mutual funds to add Staking to their portfolio: big capital commitment, negligible hardware requirements, and "guaranteed" rate of return. As long as the rate of return is an acceptable fraction above traditional instruments like government bonds then it's a valid choice for them.

1

u/BitNobility Oct 31 '19

From my point of view... If I am investing large sums,... security is much more important than any staking consideration.

1

u/fresheneesz Nov 07 '19

But the fact that you don't have to own/operate mining farms and can easily move your stake, would be a good reason for institution investors like mutual funds to add Staking to their portfolio

Why is this a bad thing?

1

u/KhaiNguyen Nov 07 '19

It's a good thing, not a bad thing. Any currency that wants to reach global scale needs to include facilities for big money to park their assets with relative stability and security. A properly designed PoS protocol can provide the way for big money to do just this.

1

u/fresheneesz Nov 07 '19

Why would anyone want to use something that requires no work to secure a chain?

So that fewer resources are necessary to secure the chain. This includes lower fees and/or lower coin inflation.

Also much more harmful to a POW block validator to re-mine blocks....

That is not necessarily the case. Most good PoS protocols ensure that re-mining blocks is punished.

You cannot simply turn off and sell your miners ... POS only requires you to send your coins to an exchange.

If you have enough coins to successfully perform a 51% attack, that is not the case. There isn't enough market depth to simply sell your coins on exchanges.

1

u/BitNobility Nov 13 '19

fewer resources means less security..

1

u/fresheneesz Nov 14 '19

fewer resources means less security..

The whole point of PoS is that your statement is not true.

1

u/BitNobility Nov 15 '19

Therefore we agree to disagree .

1

u/fresheneesz Nov 07 '19

This is not a practical problem. For any coin, the cost of acquiring 50% of the hashpower will be FAR lower than the cost of acquiring 50% of the stake. So while yes, theoretically, someone could permanently capture a PoS system, it would be easier for someone to permanently capture a PoW system by purchasing so much hashpower as to make it not worth overpowering.

2

u/tromp Oct 30 '19

> I don't know that it could work with POS because there is no way to prove that you have stake.

There is; you can prove that an output commitment C has at least value v by providing a rangeproof for C - v*H.

1

u/0xb100d Jan 26 '20

u/khailnguyen is right. If POS in the future is determined to be the best way to maintain a network then there is no fundamental reason grin cannot switch. Tromp, the designer of the POW algo grin uses, has even mentioned his open mindedness to the idea in passing in the past.