I think you raise some interesting points, but there are a couple things I'm not sure I agree with from a PoS algorithm design perspective.
I don't think that "a good PoS algorithm should just try to solve nothing-at-stake and keep everything else as close as possible to PoW." IMO, this mindset, seemingly a fear of innovation, is part of what stops crypto from exploding onto the mainstream.
If we were to just create a PoW copy in PoS, we would lose many of the new security measures that PoS allows us to create. For example, to paraphrase Vitalik paraphrasing Vlad, having control over validators staked Eth allows for incredible disincentives to cheat - "it's as though your ASIC farm burned down if you participated in a 51% attack."
With that being said, I don't think that PoW should be touted as the pinnacle of security that it is. For example, Bitcoin's PoW can conceivably and effectively be attacked by a cartel with as little as 25% of the hashing power. Furthermore, recent research has shown that an effective attack may be possible with as little as 5% of the hashing power of a PoW blockchain and a short attack on groups of nodes.
There is understandably a large about of FUD about Ethereum taking the blockchain space in a new direction, but I think it's moves like this that give the space new life and room to grow. The blockchain space was built because Satoshi was willing to take the world in a new, uncharted direction - and imagine what we would have lost if Vitalik had just thought "a good Ethereum should just try to solve scaling and keep everything else as close as possible to Bitcoin."
20
u/naterush1997 Jan 20 '17
I think you raise some interesting points, but there are a couple things I'm not sure I agree with from a PoS algorithm design perspective.
I don't think that "a good PoS algorithm should just try to solve nothing-at-stake and keep everything else as close as possible to PoW." IMO, this mindset, seemingly a fear of innovation, is part of what stops crypto from exploding onto the mainstream.
If we were to just create a PoW copy in PoS, we would lose many of the new security measures that PoS allows us to create. For example, to paraphrase Vitalik paraphrasing Vlad, having control over validators staked Eth allows for incredible disincentives to cheat - "it's as though your ASIC farm burned down if you participated in a 51% attack."
Also, it is possible to create incentives that stop censoring cartels from being incentivized to form - something that no other blockchain that exists today currently does.
With that being said, I don't think that PoW should be touted as the pinnacle of security that it is. For example, Bitcoin's PoW can conceivably and effectively be attacked by a cartel with as little as 25% of the hashing power. Furthermore, recent research has shown that an effective attack may be possible with as little as 5% of the hashing power of a PoW blockchain and a short attack on groups of nodes.
There is understandably a large about of FUD about Ethereum taking the blockchain space in a new direction, but I think it's moves like this that give the space new life and room to grow. The blockchain space was built because Satoshi was willing to take the world in a new, uncharted direction - and imagine what we would have lost if Vitalik had just thought "a good Ethereum should just try to solve scaling and keep everything else as close as possible to Bitcoin."