/biz/ - Business & Finance

Basically it's a bunch of j*ws colluding with each other what/whose transaction can be included into the next block

if you boughted eth congrats you just played urself

>>51491302

cont.

>Once a block has been proposed by the validator, it gets sent to the beacon-chain and is then broadcasted to the attestors who must vote in their time slot (I will explain this in sharding).

>The validation comes from the attestors and the block is accepted, the block also needs to pass many pre-conditions, similarly to PoW with current hash meeting parent hash, time is greater than... you get the idea.

https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/66572/how-does-the-network-validate-a-block-in-pos

So, if I’m reading this right, a validator pulls a block out of his ass with a bunch of transactions on it, the other nodes then “vote” on it and pass it as long as it “looks right”… this is fucking insane, how is this secure? Seriously, I want a meth head to explain to me how this is remotely accurate or secure.

>>51491302
You are relying 100% on Amazon Web Services to tell you. Same as a traditional bank. This is the Ethereum network working as intended.

>>51491406

how does the validator know the transactions are right, how do the attestors? has no one asked this question? this is fucked

>>51491302
normal crypto
>validators buy ASICs
>validators vote on blocks
>huge amount of energy and coins are spent on this
POS
>validators buy stakes
>validators vote on blocks
>negligible energy, in theory less coins, spent on this

>>51491417
how do you know a bitcoin block is valid? Nothing stops a miner from mining invalid blocks

>>51491475

they’re not voting on blocks in PoW you disingenuous piece of shit, they are doing work to prove that the block is correct, it cannot be faked,

pos they just pull the transactions out of their ass and then vote like a bunch of faggots, it’s completely arbitrary

>>51491500
The thing about NP problems is they are hard to solve, but easy to determine if the solution is correct. There is nothing stopping a group of validators declaring an invalid hash as correct. This is the 51% problem. So yes, it is still the same kind of "voting" mechanism.

>>51491500
Yeah you're right, there's no voting. So a single random miner determines what block is valid. And if they do fraud there is zero consequences since it's all anonymous. LMAO what a secure system you have there.

>>51491475
>>51491490
>>51491577
Imagine trying to purposely mislead people on an Armenian nonferrous metals forum

PoW
>node: hey I’m adding this transaction that was submitted to the queue, here’s a bunch of gay math to prove it
>validators; yup
PoS
>Node: hey you all saw that transaction in the queue? Here it is in the block, that cool?
>validators: yup

>>51491765

except with pow there is no doubt that transaction belonged in the queue because the hash would be all fucked honor it wasn’t

there is no mechanism to check in PoS you are fucked

>>51491637
Refute it instead of posting a template

>>51491302
dem lankferiums bitchass yt

>>51491824
My first post says everything that needs to be said about Ethereum. Open a high-yield savings account with a bank and buy US T-bonds, you receive all the benefits of the Ethereum network without any of the risk associated with it

>>51491302
you’re starting to get it got. now sell your ETH (WEF COIN) and eat the goyslop

>>51491360
It's not. Ethereum is dead now.

It's essentially the same shit in terms of block VALIDITY but not consensus.
It depends on the particular consensus method, but this is essentially the difference:
(simplified but the basic concept)
>PoW
>Build on block with the most weight(work in this case)
>Hash that block
>Do extra work on it(this is the main difference) where extra work is hashing the previous block's blockheader to a certain number of leading zeros for the hash (00000001234567...) the more zeros the harder it is(difficulty)
>When you hit the target difficulty you send it out there
>Sending it out there is sending it to nodes who VALIDATE it and will only propagate it if you mined a valid block. If you fucked up and it's invalid then you cost yourself a lot of money and it will not be part of the chain as people will build on the previous block.

>PoS
>Build on block with the most x(something effectively similar to weight) but varies by consensus method, stake weight or group of validators proposing a builder/leader and rotating agreed on by consensus to be proposed next with penalties if you fuck around(slashing)
>Hash that block
>Hash the previous block's blockheader(no extra work required, no wasted energy if the consensus method is sufficiently secure and decentralized for your needs)
>Send it out there to nodes or validators who VALIDATE it. If you fucked up and it's invalid then you cost yourself a lot of money(slashing) and it will not be part of the chain as people will build on the previous block.

It's the same fucking concept in general but there have been many advancements in consensus methods since 2009. There are tons of variations on PoS consensus though.

>>51492267

>Here’s your problem: how do you know which version was first? If you were there from the start and saw it first hand, it’s easy. But what if you just installed it, and your node is trying to sync? What happens if you’re presented with two identical blocks, and have to decide which one to pick?

>The entire point of the consensus mechanism was to allow us to tell which transaction was first, without personally having seen it take place. That’s why you solve the decentralized timestamp problem - so you can solve the transaction ordering problem, so you can solve the double-spending problem.

>>51492267
>slashing
Uber’s infra, which runs on AWS, got completely hacked this past week. I mean everything. Coinbase also runs on AWS. If someone hacked them the same way they did Uber, then imagine this. Some chud hacker gets control of the staking nodes, starts broadcasting garbage, and poof all the funds on that pool are gone because the other validators will say fuck you rouge validator. All it would take is a chud to social engineer an infra admin at coinbase for their passwords to wreck their exchange. ETH is so fucked but maxis will insist you eat the bugs.

>>51491765
Ok so you admit to no verification kek

>>51492347
Uber's hack has nothing to do with the fact that they run on AWS.

>>51492384
>picrel: the uber hacker leaked this image
>they got admin AWS account access into Ubers infra
it completely does. if a hacker gets access to a coinbase AWS account that holds the validators nodes, it’s all downhill from there. They can remote in and wreck havoc right from the console

>>51492324
That's where building on the block with the post weight comes in. It's simple in PoW since it's just the cumulative amount of work.
The reason why PoS is slower to become a reality is making up different systems where you can achieve effectively the same thing replicating the weight concept by doing things like using stake or voting with validators.

>>51492347
AWS is such critical infra for the world at this point that you have to imagine there's not one single backdoor to completely own it all...maybe the US gov could. I dunno.
You can run hardware validators too though.

>>51492448
>ever heard of single-sign-on
every enterprise has this. there are always a handful of engineers who have god mode access into all the infra at any company. Compromise one of them through a social engineering attack for their credentials and the rest is history. No gov/nsa magic needed. Cope.

>>51492448

you’re missing the point.

PoS doesn’t actually solve the double spending problem. The entire point of PoW is to prevent this from happening,

>This security assumption, the idea of "getting a block hash from a friend", may seem unrigorous to many; Bitcoin developers often make the point that if the solution to long-range attacks is some alternative deciding mechanism X, then the security of the blockchain ultimately depends on X, and so the algorithm is in reality no more secure than using X directly - implying that most X, including our social-consensus-driven approach, are insecure.

>However, this logic ignores why consensus algorithms exist in the first place. Consensus is a social process, and human beings are fairly good at engaging in consensus on our own without any help from algorithms; perhaps the best example is the Rai stones, where a tribe in Yap essentially maintained a blockchain recording changes to the ownership of stones (used as a Bitcoin-like zero-intrinsic-value asset) as part of its collective memory. The reason why consensus algorithms are needed is, quite simply, because humans do not have infinite computational power, and prefer to rely on software agents to maintain consensus for us. Software agents are very smart, in the sense that they can maintain consensus on extremely large states with extremely complex rulesets with perfect precision, but they are also very ignorant, in the sense that they have very little social information, and the challenge of consensus algorithms is that of creating an algorithm that requires as little input of social information as possible.

>-Vitalik Buterin

https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/11/25/proof-stake-learned-love-weak-subjectivity

He literally admits PoS is an insecure piece of shit no different from social consensus.

>>51492469
It's not cope.
Not sure why you assume I would defend anything about AWS. Crypto should not depend on shit like AWS. The world should not depend on it but it does. If it's really one person compromised away from completely being owned then the world is in big trouble and probably deserves what it gets anyway.
Crypto should also not depend on giant mining farms.
In short crypto is generally not great. Could be decent if the market gave a shit.
>P2Pnice id
nice

>>51492524
It does though? You're not able to build on invalid blocks and get away with it if that's what you mean.
And different chains have different definitions for finality. It normally doesn't take long.
And in a straight up If anything it's better at double spending because you won't get as many reorgs as PoW.

>>51492695
>https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/11/25/proof-stake-learned-love-weak-subjectivity
>He literally admits PoS is an insecure piece of shit no different from social consensus.
uhhh
>2014
>pretending no research and progress in the most important crypto topic since Bitcoin itself in 8 years
grats

It should be pretty simple. If you have to look for people writing blog posts on this issue, you are being manipulated

in pow you can prove the chain history is correct.

Can you do that in PoS ?

Is PoS just a shortcut for trust me i am rich ?

>>51492825

>presenting no argument

kys

>>51492818

no, it doesn’t because it’s so centralized an attack isn’t even possible. It doesn’t use PoW so there is no way to definitely prevent double spending. It’s a complete piece of shit scam and it’s centralized on AWS complete scam.

>>51492937
You're right.
Let's wrap it up boys.
It's over.
Shut it down.
I hope you don't mind but I'm going to take this argument and publish it in all the distributed computing journals I can under my own name. So I can take credit for invalidating the last 10 years of research in to one of the highest stakes topics facing humanity from both an ecological and economic perspective.

>>51493000

holy cope

https://twitter.com/SpiritOfNakadai/status/1543661965268107271

OP your premise is incorrect. in nakamoto consensus, transaction verification is indeed separate from block production. look up the verifier's dilemma to learn more. like everything in crypto, security is probabilistic; while it is not impossible, for instance, for SHA2 collisions to occur, it is so incredibly improbable that we can safely create cryptosystems that rely on it for keygen. sybil resistance (the sole thing PoW and PoS are ultimately for) relies on similar probabilistic security, with the idea that it is difficult for an attacker to gain the hashpower or validation share necessary to propose sequential bad blocks and fork the chain. it is in fact possible for an attacker to attempt an attack with less than 51% of a controlling share, the 51% attack simply *guarantees* that probabilistically on a long enough time frame they will be able to insert sequential bad blocks and execute their attack

>>51492876
> Is PoS just a shortcut for trust me i am rich ?
Yes. It’s quite literally ‘dude trust me’.

>>51493142
that's a whole lot of cope to handwave a system that clearly works and is just as secure as PoW, if not more so, if we consider more attack vectors than simply a sybil attack

>>51492415
you're fucking stupid, Uber got hacked because one of their employees got socially engineered and the hacker got their credentials. Then he found a file share that had a powershell script that had admin credentials in it, again everyone this anon is retard af fr fr no cap, he can't buss even if he wanted to.

>>51493186
>I’ll take the bait
I literally said it was a social engineering attack for god mode creds. Cope. ETH is just a text message away from going to zero.

>>51493223
and the social engineering hack has nothing to do with AWS, if they didn't have their creds in plain text in a powershell script they wouldn't've got into AWS, it was human error not AWS.

>>51493268
>missing the fucking point coping chud
once you are in the coinbase infra, like in the case of Uber, you are in a position to compromise any system with enough skill, including their AWS env. The powershell script with admin keys made it that much easier, just nmap around for a network share. Your midwit IQ is too low to understand this. Stay in your lane. Continue to stay fixated on “muh AWS” mongoloid. It’s not about AWS specifically, it’s about a centralized environment with critical ETH validator nodes holding $B’s of dollars that can be compromised/funds slashed because some admin engineer chud fell for a social engineering attack. Then they used their creds to escalate their privileges to get AWS STS creds into any coinbase AWS account they had access to, which would include the AWS account that has these ETH validators nodes.
>theme here: privilege escalation, read a fucking book
>the social engineering part is just the first step to achieve such a task
>exactly what happened at Uber, except the initial creds to escalate privileges were out in the open

>>51493385
if you still hold ETH after not comprehending this glaring attack vector that is very possible given what we saw with the Uber hack, there is no hope for you. Cope and go broke.

>>51491475
now add two validators doing 70% of validation

>>51493428
Wow it's just like PoW

>>51492876
https://medium.com/@undersearcher/how-secure-is-cardano-5f1e076be968

tldr: fuck you, go read it. Eth is garbage, btc maxis are delusional

>>51493404
you don't have to stake from only coinbase retard. Holding on coinbase with any crypto centralizes it and also, you don't have to stake on coinbase, you can stake from anywhere.

>>51493499
There is no hope for you. You still don’t get it. Godspeed, it’s clearly too much for you to comprehend, respectfully.

PoS works, the problem is it just tends towards centralization. if you own 51% of the coins, you own the network, fullstop. there's no "slashing" or any retarded vitalik term like that if you have majority you can determine the consensus. only way to fix it is to fork the network and remove the attackers coins.

with a 51% attack in PoW there is an ongoing cost of energy and resources that you could theoretically outcompete, failing that you can change the mining algorithm to make it resistant to the attackers' hardware, you don't have to invalidate the blockchain's history by adding / removing peoples coins. reminder that vitalik already did this years ago, its why ETC exists. if you think in 10 years the exchanges which now OWN the ethereum network won't be working with governments to censor specific transactions or actors, you are fucktarded. enjoy your scam

you don't have to own it or get involved. so much asspain in this thread. bitcoin exists and has for years. 5000+ pow alternatives also exist if you think bitcoin has a problem. the only reason to be mad is if you think eth was the 1 and only better alternative to bitcoin and now it is bad. but if you think that you can just sell your eth and buy bitcoin.
you're all just mad that the WEF chose this coin and not yours to pour fiat money onto.

>>51493627
then why the fuck is it dumping
CAPTCHA: DAYP00

>>51491325

I own no ETH, is what OP saying correct cause I'll kek hard

>>51493587
this. cardano attempts to mitigate the centralization problem, how successful they will be is yet to be seen, but so far, it has been.

>>51493646
tl:dr "validator" is just a person with economic stake to prevent them from including invalid transactions ie doublespends in the block. the validators determine what is in the block, if they arent in consensus they lose staked funds
HOWEVER
as anyone with a brain could guess, like 3 entities now control 80% of the fucking staked funds, making it an extremely easy attack vector
>duurrrrrrr theres an huge economic risk for attacking PoS durrrrrr
there might be zero economic cost if someone can infiltrate those handful of entities with staked coins, i.e. some insane hacker or the government. government demands control of lido, coinbase, etc.
wow, they just got control of the network for zero dollars. now you have to fork and remove those funds. epic, what a win for le environment!!! neoliberal faggots

>>51493652
people are so stupid they dont realize the genius of satoshi to originally design the network in such a way that the possible attack vectors (ie getting millions or billions of dollars in computational power) are the least likely to happen in reality. they actually thought satoshi didnt' think of such a simple setup as PoS, they can't see the implications it has for how a blockchain network is created (how much power have venture capitalists circa ETH's premine inherited in PoS?), or how it is sustained in the case of hostile governments (like if the US govt demands control of coinbases staked coins)
they literally thougth some random hanger ons and a 26 year old russian money skeleton knew better than one of the most ingenious programmers ever, easily the most influential computer scientist of the 21st century so far. delusional

>>51493558
no i get what you're saying but it's not necessary for all of eths infra to be on AWS because everyone is staking on CB and you just can't accept that . maybe now it is but it doesn't have to stay on AWS as only people staking using their CB accounts are on AWS, what don't you get about that? if the majority of staking is done on linux boxes that are run at home or in various colo's / clouds then our point is mute.

>>51493674
this exactly. it doesn’t even need to be a technical attack like I was explaining above, it can just be the government plopping it’s nuttsack on coinbase or whomever the validators pool is to comply with X sanction for “muh national security”. No amount of “just stake over here bro” will save ETH from this.
>inb4 “muh just fork bro”
If ETH ever has to consider a fork because of events like this, it’s over for ETH. Sentiment, enthusiasm dies. Why would anyone want to hold a vulnerable asset at that point.

>>51493587
>only way to fix it is to fork the network and remove the attackers coins
> failing that you can change the mining algorithm to make it resistant to the attackers' hardware
These are effectively the same action in that they're both a social user driven hard fork. Making the differences between the two systems a lot murkier than people assume.

>>51493674
>control of lido
Thankfully Lido decentralized in time and is actually a shit ton of separate validators.
Coinbase, not.
If it really were just Lido and Coinbase it would not be as good.

>>51493751
>they actually thought satoshi didnt' think of such a simple setup as PoS
"simple" it is not really.
Without PoW to bootstrap value into the crypto as a concept it would be extremely hard to go cold from zero to PoS crypto.
Bitcoin was a great first step. Probably would not have happened without it. But it's just that, a first step.

>>51493768
no, retard, they are completely different because one requires you to edit a ledger that is supposed to be immutable
you can't see the ramifications of this because you are brain damaged. once "dude we'll just delete that persons coins" becomes the norm you have just created a shittier version of a central bank ruled by the liberal, degenerate majority. enjoy having your funds deleted from le proof of shart chain because big players are incentivised to do so to protect themselves from governmental intervention to stop online racism. i'll enjoy my system that actually works

For context, we had hybrid PoW/PoS in 2012 as the first step.
Then real PoS in 2013. But this early PoS has the problems that people still focus on today while ignoring the research and improvements.
Now you have hundreds of flavors of PoS all with varying levels of decentralization and tradeoffs.

>>51493751
yes, and, they see an autistic sperg like themselves, and he is the savior. another win for satoshi. nobody knows who satoshi is, there is no btc savior, yet btc goes on.

>inb4 CW get lost bsv cunts

>>51493761
you are entertaining a world where every ETH holder has at least 32 ETH (not the case and likely never will be) to run a validator and have it be economically viable to run a it at home as well.

PoS is like democracy, sounds great on paper, it’s basically two wolfs and sheep deciding what’s for dinner. Now it’s only the upper echelon of wealthy ETH holders pooling together and dictating the direction of ETH and all of its transactions. PoW gave the power of the network in the hands of anyone who wanted to participate, with the most humble of mining rigs. You had a voice before, now you basically don’t.

>>51493788
>l-lido is decentralized
youre right dude, DAOs have never been hacked before. you are good to go.
hey, remember that time that Ethereum blockchain was forked by vitalik due to a hack, even though that hack didn't actually put the network at risk and was just a monetary loss? gee, i wonder what will happen next time a DAO is hacked, but this time it's not just a monetary loss but also represents a permanent injury to the security of the network. im sure NO forks will take place. nope.

>>51493850
you are ignoring the reality of mining btc in the current year.

>>51493850
PoS is PoW, except big players dont have to pay to keep their dominance within the network. genius. it took 180iq concentration camp survivor skeleton to dream this up

>>51493587
Powtards think they are magically immune to 51% attacks. If you own 51% of the ASICs, you control a PoW coin. Fullstop. Already the case if the major ASIC manufacturer decides to stop selling to middlemen and just do mining themselves. Which they have done for limited periods in the past.

Or it's not an ASICcoin. Well great, now any idiot can rent 10k computers for an hour and own your network. As has happened

>"failing that you can change the mining algorithm"
>powtards think they are the only ones that can hard fork
>which is what that is
>also just screw all the people that invested in mining your shitcoin
>new ASICs will take 2 years to arrive, so good luck in the meantime

The centralization problem is entirely social. If the majority of investors in your coin put their trust in centralized exchanges, well, they are the majority. If coinbase or an ETF starts offering ASIC investments like they want, PoW has the exact same problem. The economics are exactly the same.

>>51493879
funny, you just described the reason democracy is a failed joke and will never work without even realising it. you ignored everything i said and posted le epin anime, so i will just ignore you too. funny how that works

>>51493893

>>51491302
>How the fuck do they even know if the transactions are legit or not
are you retarded?

>>51493874
i will disagree on this point. with pow, the biggest players(governments) can buy or make more miners, get free(to them) power to run them. with POS, they have to buy the coins. that means someone has to sell. a lot of people have to sell.

>>51493823
>acting like Bitcoin didn't roll it back 2010 after an exploit
(I agree that the eth case is much worse, but all these things are still much murkier than people pretend)
I mean honestly at the time in 2016 when that happened with eth, I thought like you and thought it actually mattered. That people would care about immutability. They do not.
Even if you could quantify decentralization and censorship resistance perfectly and Bitcoin had an edge it really wouldn't matter. The US 100% has the power to completely fuck the whole thing in the ass if they chose to. And if they did, what would even have a higher chance of surviving? Bitcoin which given the resources physical locations and resources needed to mine makes a huge fucking target to be shut down, or in theory some level of hardware you can actually run at home and run a validator over TOR or whatever in this post-crypto world where it's questionable if it would even have any value at that point more than it did in 2011.
None of this shit matters. It's all shittier versions of shitty things. Bitcoin has been full of shit over the years with it's mining pools often directly flirting with 50%(deepbit, cex.io), the massive Chinese centralization before it was banned, the constant narrative lies and shifting of goal posts.
The whole thing is fucking scam anyway and I've seen first hand over 11 years now what a fucking joke crypto is that anyone who falls for whatever bullshit emotional narrative they use today to convince you to hold and not just make money selling tops is an absolute cuck.
The technology is interesting. Other than that its just for making money. It's tolerated by the US for now. Somehow it's manged to avoid getting killed. Could happen though for sure. And it isn't going to matter what consensus method you use when people have to decide risking going to jail to run their miner or validator and not even be able to cash out their profits.
It's just a weird blip in history.

>>51493879
PoW has a simple path to secure the network. More good actors participate in the network. Whether it’s CPU/GPU/ASIC mining. If a network gets 51% attacked, like BTC, then the consensus required to fix it is easier to achieve (let’s fork and have more good people spin up machines to secure the network) rather than PoS where you can’t do anything. All the control is still concentrated. What are you going to do, buy a fuck ton of ETH to gain majority control? PoW model works for the people

>>51493854
TheDAO was a poorly coded contract that was drained.
Lido is not really similar other than using the acronym that can mean anything from everyone from this thread coming into a discord and calling ourselves a DAO to actual contracts on the chain and voting based on tokens.
The letters themselves don't tell you much.

>>51493945
don't forget, all fiat is all the bad things you say, except worse. that said, yes, you are mostly correct.

>>51493956
>TheDAO was a poorly coded contract that was drained
not the point. they rolled it back, because " i say so". if they can reset it for that, they can reset it because vitalik had a bad day and wants everyones money. bad design

>>51491490
It's called a hard fork.

>>51493953
cardano POS has the same model. more good actors. bad actors can buy and spin up more mining rigs too. you have to buy the coins from good actors to get them. not foolproof, but neither is your buy more mining, especially if the bad actors have infinite resources. like governments, who can shut off your electricity if you a re a miner, and use it for their rigs. they can't force you to sell your coins to them(barring physical torture to get your seed phrase).

>>51493953
There is nothing you can do with a PoW network that you can't do with a PoS network. You can fork it just as easily. You can bring in new miners just as easily. You can centralize or decentralize it just as easily.

The reverse isn't true. There are a few things you can do with PoS that are impossible with PoW. Stakers have reputations and documented history. If some stakers misbehave, the community can blacklist them. You can not blacklist PoW miners. They are totally anonymous. It costs them only the block reward to mine invalid chains. Stakers can theoretically lose everything if they sign an invalid chain even once.

>>51494016
there are 15 billion phones in existence ready and willing to back any PoW. No amount of AWS or cloud whatever can match that power. It’s in peoples hands. Alone the phone is powerless but it’s compute power working together, it’s unmatched.

>>51491824
He can't. The consensus layer does not determine the validity of a transaction.
People like >>51491500 don't understand how a blockchain works but they come here and make shit up.

>>51494041
ready? yes
willing? hold on, gotta post my selfie. wait, this mining thing is fing up my phone. uninstalled.
you have to be fucking kidding me with this argument.

>>51494041
>just run your battery down to zero for 1 cent bro

>>51494061
you don’t have to give it 100% of your compute power. Set it to 20%. Most people have apps running in the background of their phone all day everyday draining their battery. They wouldn’t notice the difference.

>>51494075
>run your battery down to 80% for 0.2 cents bro

>>51494084
>”muh battery life”
>it’s now 80% instead of 86% REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
wow if that’s the only downside you can think of what a world.

>>51494075
most people don't give a shit about bitcoin, or any of this. most people couldn't be bothered to install a btc wallet on their phone if you said i will give you one btc to do it. most people think government is good, so if they say btc bad, btc bad. if anything, google and apple will put miners on their older phones run in the background at 20% and consoomers will not notice, and if they do, will be told to buy next product, and will do so. are you 12?

>>51491302
Is this not literally the same fucking thing as mining? It's all consensus
>>51491500
No that's not right. You can absolutely fake transactions on the blockchain. You can also submit invalid transactions such insufficient funds txns etc. This is how hard forks happen btw

>>51493922
BOOM! Someone refute this please, we'll be waiting . . .

>>51494102
to be clear, google and apple putting it on phones would NOT be to make the BTC network more secure. if you belive it would be, you are the problem.

>>51494102
you’re like the guy from earlier. fixating I’m the phone and “muh battery life” “buy muh next product”. The point is we have spare compute lying around ready to add to a network that’s under attack to save it. A phone is just one way.

>>51494113
we have more compute than the government can rent. similarly we have more guns in the hands of citizens than all the government agencies combined. they are not always in use but are ready to be used. the people are in control when we have an abundance of microprocessors over what a gov can rent or buy in a meaningful amount of time.

>>51494092
No one is going to sell whatever% of their battery for subpennies. It doesn't make economic sense. Maybe you think they will do this out of charity?

It's not even secure. For less than a million dollars, you can rent 15 million desktop-tier server CPUs for an hour and doublespend as much as you want.

>>51494113
you are not listening. each of those billions of products has to have a human install some kind of software and use it, and keep it running. the vast majority of humanity does not give a single fuck about btc let alone the security of it's network. your argument is like saying there is a ton of free fusion energy from the sun, we just plug some wires into the side, and hey, free electricity for everyone!

no one is expected to carry their guns around to show the government how powerful the people are. Same way you don’t have to participate in mining all the time. If an attack is presented, then you defend it with your arms, or in this case your citizen owned chips. we are probably overdue for an amendment to the constitution “the right to own and bear computing devices”

>>51491302
Is this a stealth chainlink thread? Because the answer to op is that chainlink keepers will validate.

>>51494150
>the ride never ends

>>51493465
all pos is by definition an algorithmic plutocracy, it STARTS with the richest having control.
pow begins with striving for nobody to have 51% power (the complete opposite).

>>51494150
Based

>>51494150
>>51494166
chainlink is owned and controlled by 60% by 1 single company, and that in turn is controlled by 1 single person.

it's worse than even pos; at least they pretend to try to not be plutocracy; link begins with just being 1 guy.

i'm out guys, 12 year olds are thinking tiktokkers are going to install miners on their phones to protect btc, and some dumbshit thinks the answer is always chainlink. fuck you all, i tried.

>>51494174
and it runs on ETH. double kek

>>51494164
Most of the ETH supply was mined what are you even talking about.

>>51491417
I've always had this question about POS but no one seems to care. It's like it's all a fiction.

>>51494180
65% of the stake is already on CEXes and locked on-chain, and all of the CEXes are controlled by governments.

it's algorithmically a plutocracy; it's funny that it's not a danger for the future; it's the default now.

>>51494174
Eric holder lied, Paul walker died.

>>51494175
my argument makes sense so you leave instead of concealing. I didn’t say everyone needs to actively participate, shit I wouldn’t mine myself on a daily basis. it’s about citizens having the capability to fight back against an attack. I dare a gov try to 51% BTC. They’ll watch in shock as average citizens with their humble phones fight back.

>>51494180
It’s chainlink fud copypasta. Might actually even be a bot considering how quickly he replied to my post.

>>51494204
paid shill, personally attacking others isn't an argument. start by proving to us link isn't owned by 60% and controlled by 1 single company that isn't in turn controlled by 100% by 1 single guy.

>>51494191
Who controls the bitcoin mining companies? cause it sure ain't average bitcoin enthusiasts.

Eth is centralized because the $100k minimum stake, or whatever it is now. no shit people have to stake through third parties. That's an ETH specific problem, the tech is fine.

>>51494209
You know we have archives right? And that they’re searchable? Anyone who plugs your earlier post into a search can find ever time it’s been posted.

>>51494197
your argument is invalid.
>i wouldn't mine on a daily basis
you know about btc
>average citizens
need to tweet
need to post selfie
need to comment on facebook
need to .. oh, what's this?
>gov say btc bad
>media say btc bad
>fauci say btc bad
>twitter say btc bad
uninstalled, i need a latte and some nazi btc isn't going to get in the way of that.

you. are. delusional.

The can of worms

>>51494197
>it’s about citizens having the capability to fight back against an attack. I dare a gov try to 51% BTC
Do you even know what a 51% attack allows? Do you think they just siphon your bitcorns from your wallet? If they shut down or censor one blockchain just move to another, and think about the consequences of such a stupid action on their part.

>>51494236
> mining companies
the biggest pools are just random joes, who can switch pool in seconds or even entire asset to mine in seconds so decentralization is easy to be restrored in seconds (and also: the pool can't control the algorithm the random joes use).

pos just locks people's funds on-chain and most of it already controlled by the biggest exchanges (and the worst part is that aside from that entire: it's a plutocracy to begin with).

>>51494236
> mining companies
the biggest pools are just random joes, who can switch pool in seconds or even entire asset to mine in seconds so decentralization is easy to be restored in seconds (and also: the pool can't control the algorithm the random joes use).

pos just locks people's funds on-chain and most of it is already controlled by the biggest exchanges (and the worst part is that: aside from that entirely: it's a plutocracy to begin with).

>>51494250
I thought you left chud. Average people don’t need to participate in mining on their phones, that’s the point. TikTokfags wouldn’t know where to start for one, but It just takes a small percentage of people to participate and help fend off a 51% attack with their phones. this has parallels with other historical examples where all it took was a small percentage to enact change.
>the civil war was only about 10%-15% actively fighting everyday. normies stayed home.
You can go now chud and jerk it to your PoS WEF coin

>>51494281
>inb4 those same stacking pools don’t allow you to leave the pool because they have the power to do that

>>51494281
>you're not allowed to start an ETH pooling service because...you just can't ok not unless you're a CEX
The simulacrum is never what hides the truth - it is truth that hides the fact that there is
none. The simulacrum is true.
-Ecclesiastes

>>51494263
I think we agree just said differently. And yes I know what a 51% attack entails. why else would I be arguing against it.

>>51494290
you have no idea what you are talking about.
1) i'm not advocating for eth. if you read the thread, you would know that.
2) 10-15% of people use their phone to stop a gov 51% attack on btc. then, gov tells apple and google, just install this little thing on everyones phone, and make it so you can't uninstall it, it just mines a little btc, give them the btc if they want to claim it. NO ONE WILL CARE. the amount of npc idiots who ignore this overwhelms your average citizens who want to do the right thing.
You need to wake up, and soon.

>>51494105

bro how many times do you need this explained >>51491417

you need PoW to prevent double spending, PoS is just social consensus.

>>51494333
bro, the government just bought/confiscated 100,000 asic miners. enjoy your btc

>>51494349
??

enjoy your permissioned premined Russian excel sheet

>>51494329
jesus you are actually retarded, a phone is just an example for fucks sake. all methods have vectors for compromise. a solar flare could hit the earth and wipe out all magic internet money. your example is actually retarded. if the government ever did something like that, we would have larger societal problems than worrying about some magic internet beans we call BTC. you are arguing your own hypothetical nonsense, whereas I’m arguing for a model that provides capabilities to the average citizen to meaningfully resist such attacks. shit your tv could mine who fucking cares.

the fucking point is a PoW gives people the power to fight back attacks on the network with relative ease with various available means, whereas PoS does not. get off the phone example high horse and understand that concept in plain english. you can actually leave this time, or do you miss me? ;)

>>51494371
click on my id, and tell me again how much i love eth.
tldr: fuck you, and fuck eth

>>51494333
>>51494349
Both pos and pow work on financial disincentives. The reason not to buy and operate bitcoin miners so as to destroy bitcoin is the same reason not to give bad data in pos consensys. You’re burning money. But I think pow is more secure because you actually have to own and operate real things which are subject to the jaws of scarcity. We’ll see. Ultimately we’re moving into a multichain space where multiple chains will be used in standard transactions and the difficulty for bad actors will increase quadratically so I think the point is moot.

>>51494309
I could claim that exchanges already control most of the stake in practice (at least 65% to be exact) which can be directly controlled by governments, but the argument pales in comparison to biggest point,

pos is programmatically a plutocracy; it BEGINS with the default of giving more to the few richest; pow instead begins with striving to avoid 51% attacks.

>>51494382

the point is not moot

pow is better, period

pos is a scam, it’s based on social consensus

>>51494380

fuck you faggot I made this thread to examine how shit eth is take your meds schizo

>>51494400
I agree that pow is better. But there are always trade offs in regards to the security, decentralization, cost, efficiency of any blockchain. In a multichain world users can arbitrage between chains for their own best interests.

>>51491302
Y'all miners should stfu and evolve. I too saw the validator staking and find it worthwhile, I do it on cosmos gems like Juno, Osmo, Atom, Evmos and believe me there are fucking insanely rewarding and if Eth can fucking pull that off confidently then I gotta say I got a new place to put my ETH to work asides BlockFi, Sylo pool after liquidity mining on Uniswap, Kucoin and the rest.
This is so cringe.

>>51491500
>>51491810
>they are doing work to prove that the block is correct
pow/pos are not about deciding if a block is valid, it is about deciding if the block is canonical.
verifying that the block is valid is just a matter of verifying its hash. txs are valid if they are signed by their source.
mining is done to decide what the next block is going to be. verifying if a block is "valid" is trivial

>>51494379
still missing the point.

the government controls idiots. idiots do not care about pow pos or any of this. your little fantasy about suddenly everyone cares! is cute. it is not hypothetical nonsense, apple(they resisted at first, but are all on board now) and google work with the government to give them any info the gov wants from them, in exchange for them being allowed to dominate the market. if the gov says jump, install this miner on all phones, they say how high, and how much of a cut do i get. so you have an army of npcs, who have to keep their miners enabled to be able to post on facebook, against some imaginary percentage using phones, computers, asics to defend btc. oh, also, sorry, your address has used up your allotment of electricity this month, since you voted the wrong way.
>various available means

>>51494419
ok WEF information warrior agent #13267 whatever you say. I’m not even a miner but PoW is better for everyone than PoS. if you only care about yield, then provide liquidity somewhere. Yield doesn’t care about the engine it runs on (POW or PoS).

>>51491302
we're trusting a bunch of rich people who own the money with the record of who owns the money, when you boil it down
everything else is just noise to make it seem fair
decentralized LARP

>>51494412

no, it’s not even a valid choice, it’s not even crypto, there’s no point using a blockchain if it’s not decentralized, PoS is not crypto, it’s a fucking permissioned server, just use a bank.

>>51494434

ok

>>51494406
then why are you attacking me by telling me to enjoy eth. i am defending pos, but not eth. but if you insist, no, fuck you

>>51494455

pos is a scam they are all shit dumbass

>>51494438
look I think we agree that governments can suck a cock but I would say your sentiment aligns with how early we are in this crypto space. No one (generally) cares yet, it’s all just been a meme for everyone. but I’m saying is more of a principled stance that can outlive me. POW provides a future for people to participate and secure the network collectively. All it takes is one 51% event for people to care and wake up. Until then it’s just crying wolf until someone is right. If the govs go full jew and install miners on our phones, then we have larger problems to solve before anything else. That action could trigger a civil war for all we know. No one knows. But I stand with PoW regardless and I don’t even mine myself. It just makes sense.

>>51494451
Well if you’re right then it will die off. We’re multichain now. There are other options and those options will increase. People will arbitrage between them.

>>51494382
this.
>scarcity
yes, but when you need electricity to run miners that have any effectivness(see 'but muh phones miners and the people will overcome' bs above) the government can: confiscate mining equipment. shut off your electricity. shut down your phone. shut off your internet.
they cannot make you sell them your coins.

>>51494491
@ me next time chuds

>can’t force you to sell
hahahahaha if the government intervened in crypto and did what you say they would do, you won’t be able to sell shit. damn that’s a retarded take.

>>51494481
fair enough. what i'm saying is that this is already in the works. and they have the power to shut it down. how do you think they catch mj grow ops? monitor power usage. again. they can take away/shut down pow whenever they want. they can not make you sell your pos coins.

>>51494505
you are literally retarded, but let's try again.


make me sell you my coins.

>>51494486

yeah people are retarded and the market is irrational, but the truth is the truth

>>51494516
they can take both down, it would all be worthless. PoS hands it to them on a silver platter to take down. POW is much harder. but I can also leave the country to a place that allows mining. The entire world wouldn’t cuck. Thats naive to think. very US centric minded world view that even I’m guilty of sometimes.

>>51494491

china banned bitcoin and nothing fucking happened, in fact they are still mining in china and hashrate is at ath

meanwhile massive stakes of eth are on coinbase and binance and the government could order them to do whatever the fuck it wants.

>>51494522
>biden: can you sanction this address through a fisa warrant and under threat of jail via the patriot act?
>coinbase: of course, yes sir government sir.
that’s how you’d lose everything. you still think you could sell lmao you wouldn’t have shit.

>>51492695
>the second biggest crypto on the market is now as secure as Micronesian rock tallying
It doesn't fill you with confidence, does it

>>51494530
again, not talking about eth

>>51494528
i'm trying really hard with you, i am. here is the point one last time.

btc
i have a mining rig
teh government can buy 10000
phones/pcs/etc
teh government can subvert this too

pos(NOT ETH WHICH IS FUCKING CENTRALIZED AS FUCK)
i have coins.
the gov can buy coins
but they have to buy them from someone else. me. people like me. force me to sell you coins. you can't. kill me. passhrase dies with me. coins still not in your control.

yes, i understand if they want they can burn it all down. but if you think pow is more secure than pos(AGAIN NOT ETH, ETH IS FLAWED AND CENTRALIZED POS), up until they just start killing everyone, you are mistaken.

>>51494548
also, i am not talking about being able to sell them, i am saying they can't force me to sell to them in order to get the coins they need to take over 51% of stake.

>>51494592
yay you’re trying or whatever.
have a cookie.

PoS doesn’t care about (((You))) it cares about your pooled vote. If you forget your passphrase, that pool still holds the voting power of your coins whether you like it or not. PoW model can have a whale leave their coins out on the network and miners still keep the power. Big difference. No one cares if you sell or not on PoW. PoS would actually hope you never sell and lose control so they keep your vote.

PoS is basically Piece of Shit. You forget to mention someone will sell to (((them))) maybe you won’t and there is plenty of new coins that will be generated available to be bought well after (((You)))

>>51494631
so, normies will defend btc with miners on their phones

but people who have a vested interest in a POS coin will definetly sell their coins when told to by the government?

POW doesn't care about you either. and the gov doesn't give two shits about POW. You know why? because at any time, they can buy a shitload of miners, and shut it the fuck down.

ONE LAST TIME: I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT ETH. ETH POS IS SHIT. ETH IS CENTRALIZED. NOW I AM JUST GOING TO SAY IT, SO YOU CAN LAUGH AND IGNORE ALL MY POINTS COMPLETELY LIKE THE RETARD YOU ARE ACTIVELY TRYING TO BE. I AM TALKING ABOUT ADA POS.

https://medium.com/@undersearcher/how-secure-is-cardano-5f1e076be968

enjoy your fantasies. oh, sorry here is where i am supposed to imply that you are actually the (((the))). have a nice life.

>>51494592

dude what don’t you understand, PoS is a scam.

>>51494705

dude just stop this is embarassing

>>51491500
Based

>>51494710
oh, now it all makes sense

>>51494722
i apologize for embarrassing you.

>>51494705
lmao he mad. I didn’t even bring up ETH in my last post lmao godspeed though
>drops a cardona link kek
we’ll if that isn’t a switch in topics, then I don’t know what is. anons who aren’t midwits don’t side with you arguments.

>>51494758
so, you didn't even bother to read the thread. fair enough, you win.

>>51494451 (OP)
You don't know how mining works. You don't know what validators do. You keep talking about social consensus but with the way you're using it so is PoW. You finally address someone telling you that your previous posts were blatantly incorrect with >ok
Fuck off you reddit spacing retard. Either lurk for 2 years and try to learn something or leave and don't come back.

>>51494040
who gets to decide which chain holds “everything” and which chain holds “nothing” in the event of a PoS fork? oh yeah, there is no dead-simple objective standard like there is in PoW (heaviest chain). in PoS, a fork turns the network into “Proof of Vitalik”

So this thread really just says to me that the people on this board screeching s out PoS don’t actually understand how PoW actually works, and don’t give a shit, they just hate ETH. Seriously all they talk about is ETH. Are you guys just Bitcoin maxis seething because Ethereum is outperforming Bitcoin?

>>51494805
they don't understand how any of this works

>>51494799
you are correct, as far as eth goes, but eth is not the only POS chain. ADA has been POS for years. read the link if you want to actually get an answer.

https://medium.com/@undersearcher/how-secure-is-cardano-5f1e076be968

>>51491302
Does that mean ETH is no longer decentralized?

>>51494835
It’s honestly quite interesting to see. In their minds it seems that people actually dig Bitcoin out of the ground, pickaxe in hand, under a PoW system, and the idea that it proves blocks are correct lol. Christ between this and the “backed by electricity” meme I swear these retards deserve to get flipped by ETH. I’ll never understand maxis getting married to a specific coin or token.

>>51494805
>>51494835
Is ETH still decentralized after the merge?

>>51491360
If you try to manipulate in a way that the eth software detects it's bogus: you fail validation.

If you try to manipulate in a way that the eth software detects it's good: you pass validation.

If you pass a bogus transaction that eth considers bogus: you lose your stake.
If you pass a bogus transaction that eth considers good: you keep your stake.
If you pass a valid transaction that eth considers bogus because software bug: you lose your stake.

And now you've got L2/L3/L whatever the fuck that you could probably wire in this system to approximate capitalism/socialism/neetism or whatever economic doctrine you subscribe to.

>>51494891
they buy a bag and repeat whatever pumps their bag. no cryptocurrency will survive if this continues, because human greed is easy to control.

>>51494902
>still
They rolled back the chain before. look up the definition of permissionless.

think about who the validators are. not your keys, not your coins. how do i stake eth?

>>51494916
and this passing of transactions is done manually?

>>51494891
half the thread was debating the models (PoW or PoS). No one was shilling BTC or ETH. It had to be talked about for the sake of examples. Are you an ETH maxie? Are your bags getting heavy or something?

Two things can be true independently:
>ETH as a utility/computer through smart contracts is good
>ETH moving to PoS is terrible for ETH
everyone is so worried about “will muh coin pump” when it comes down to fundamentals, which model is actually better for the people long term. PoS is not. Coins are so heavily weighted on price rather than its engine and its utility. It muddies debate and straw man’s are always propped up “muh maxie”

>>51494990
the last 20% of the thread is people equating how eth does POS to all POS. and BTC maxis not understanding that. the link is above, but ignore it. it's probably nothing.

also, that is a old link, and just a precursory explanation of what cardano is, but not what it is now, which is true decentralized POS for 2 years or so. but whatever.

>>51495034
start a separate thread on ADA then. have people have at its fundamentals and let’s see how sounds it’s PoS model really is. I’m done beating this horse. It’s dead.

>>51492347
This is a valid critical security concern this anon raises.
I'm a Cloud engineer consultant, and I'm always telling the importance of that security issue for critical components like social hacking, and the safety of your critical engineers to my customers. Often they neglect the warnings because they are lured in with "cheaper TCO" (which is NEVER the case, every migration to PCP's was a nightmare and at least a triple of the estimated costs, effectively reaching the opposite of their goal) and the fact that "who's gonna attack or do harm to enginanon over here?" ...

I've assisted companies with their "hey we wanna do crypto" idea to basically tell them "your idea is worthless on the crypto space AND you don't understand crypto, and to be fair neither do I "

A goverment department was offered a PoC from a hipster startup "blockchain web3.0" comapny a blockchainsolution for reforestazation (The irony to use huge climate polluting tech to make people plant trees...) with their entire dApp on ETh on AWS...stupid startup fucks had their AWS credentials in their publig git repo (already long removed by now)

Gone were the goverment grants of 1.5 million...

>>51494799
In PoW the miners vote on the chain.
In PoS the stakers vote on the chain.
They are equivalent.

>>51495741
how much would it cost to bribe enough validators?

>>51493922
wtf nigger? they can seize coins much easier than they can make more miners

>>51491302
>How the fuck do they even know if the transactions are legit or not
You don't understand even the most basic concepts of how the blockchain works, but you feel entitled to critique consensus mechanisms.

>>51493922
>>51494109
with POW, if a big player tries to buy more miners, that means someone has to sell. a lot of miners have to sell. even if it manages to buy or make more miners, some other player can just make more. with POS, if a big player has access to most of the coins either through buying or collaboration, then it's over since another player can't make more coins like they can make more miners to take back the network share. so POW keeps the network decentralized through competition while POS does the opposite by eliminating any competition.

>>51493181
Do people exist that are more retarded than you? I wonder

>>51493922
>they have to buy the coins
lmao no they don't retard. they can just sit and collect their yield rent.

you PoWbrains dont even know what validation means, thanks for destroying my sides. nice thread OP

ok I’m actually baffled by the retardation exhibited in this thread

>Pos is good!
>ETH is bad, but ADA is actually good

holy fuck this space needs to be purged, you people make me sick, go back to fucking Reddit

>>51494788

no, you are playing semantic games and should kys. PoS has no way to determine if blocks are objectively canon because they don’t have any objective proof (like in PoW). Please please kys.

>>51494916

and what is this magic method if there is no objective proof like in PoW?

>>51491417
by comparing the cryptographic signatures
though the majority of the network could decide to do an "upgrade" and remove your public key from the chain oops

>>51498326
there is objective proof dipshit, it's the signing of transactions. >>51498373

>>51498385

signing transactions isn’t enough to prevent double spend you fucking fool

>>51494916
>If you pass a valid transaction that eth considers bogus because software bug: you lose your stake.
So if this happens and an exchange is the node, they would essentially turn into another Celsius that is unable to pay out their outstanding ETH, no?

>>51498431
you keep track of the state. A sends 1 to B, A is now -1 from their balance.

>>51493875
miners can just be unplugged in case of a hack, stake cannot. so once CBs AWS validator gets hacked, it's basically over for mETH heads.

>>51493922
kek no, the biggest player (gov) can simply seize the coins from Amazon's server and that's it. No recourse of any kind.

>>51491302
They just validate it! Haha!

Let me put this simply so you PoS fags can understand

PoW:
>sir, this is the police, you’ve been driving dangerously, please step out of the car, have you been drinking?
>we need to give you a breathalyzer test
>wow, you are way over the legal blood alcohol level, take him away boys!

PoS:
>sir, we need to give you a breathalyzer test, I suspect you have been drunk driving
>I’m not drunk bro, just ask my friends in the back seat!
>yeah bro, he hasn’t had a drop to drink all night! BREATHALIYZER TESTS ARE A WAST OF ENERGY WHEN WE CAN JUST AGREE HE’s not drunk OKAY
>Oh ok, in that case you are free to leave, have a nice day
>*crashes into tree and dies*

>>51499295
Gays together is okay

>>51499295
>Sir, have you been drinking this evening
>Well, it's MY truth that I identify as completely sober
>checks out, you have a nice day