Difference between revisions of "Talk:Proof of Stake"

From Bitcoin Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(section title "Malicious forking", and some further wording tweakings)
(Adaptive Difficulty)
 
(18 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
= Malicious forking =
+
== Adaptive Difficulty ==
 +
Deleted old discussion and am including link to page that summarizes Ian Stewart's ideas:[[Adaptive_difficulty|adaptive difficulty]]
  
Surely proof-of-stake is vulnerable to malicious forking of the blockchain, whether motivated by double spending or just sowing destructive confusion of multiple versions?
+
== New Discussion Here ==
 
 
Each version of the blockchain is a full, self-contained "version of reality". If you (the malicious party engineering a fork) burn through your "stake" - whether bitcoins owned, bitcoin days destroyed, or anything similar - on one version of the blockchain, that still doesn't stop you creating another version, starting from the same block-before-yours as you started from for your first effort, where your same "stake" still exists and hasn't been burned through. (And then another, and another... All forking from the blockchain-as-was (just before you started your malicious antics), which records your untouched stake.) So with trivial computational effort, you can create huge multiple forks; and there's no easy way for the network to pick a winner.
 
 
 
Proof-of-work doesn't suffer from this problem. A malicious party trying the above trick would have to perform fresh work for each fork, since the work done in finding a difficulty-satisfying hash on one fork has no transferable value to the task of finding one on the other fork(s).
 
 
 
Am I missing something? [[User:Ids|Iain Stewart]] 23:24, 24 March 2012 (GMT)
 

Latest revision as of 02:23, 23 November 2012

Adaptive Difficulty

Deleted old discussion and am including link to page that summarizes Ian Stewart's ideas:adaptive difficulty

New Discussion Here