undefined | Better HN

0 pointsthruway5164y ago0 comments

"The majority of the article frames distributed consensus mechanisms in an extremely sophomoric understanding of asset value and the PoW security model"

This is one of those sentences that reads like it is saying a lot but might actually be nonsensical. Care to elaborate on this? i.e how exactly does the article 'frames distributed consensus mechanisms in an understanding of asset value'.

I read the article and I didn't see anything about asset value (whatever that is). As far as I can tell they point out that the article you cited pretty much agrees with what they're saying (about PoS by itself not being self-certifiable or irreversible) but disagree with the position that this can be acceptable in the real world. Whether you agree with that is subjective but the main criticism in the article seems to be directed at those who selling PoS as a sufficient distributed consensus algorithm to replace of PoW. There are blockchain projects raising literally Billions of dollars on this false guarantee so it is valid to criticize them.

0 comments

TTPrograms4y ago

I don't particularly care to rebut the author point by point, but "asset valuation" is an extremely common term that anybody discussing the properties of a novel currency should understand: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/assetvaluation.asp

In relation to that I was specifically referring to the misunderstandings present in "Nothing at stake".

You say:

"There are blockchain projects raising literally Billions of dollars on this false guarantee so it is valid to criticize them."

Are you not presupposing the correctness of the author's argument by calling it false? Have you already made up your mind?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse