Any network gaining momentum will be again attacked vehemently, next to growing regulatory capture.
Everything that gets any traction will get attacked directly and new competition, the question is how it will be attacked, will elite bankers buy up majority stake of POS?
Or majority of mining hash in the case of shutting down POW coins, laws, regulations and influencing the key people in the projects appears to be cheaper than brute forcing projects.
Not necessarily buying up. seizing coins (like attacking huge exchanges) or cornering the markets just like they did using the USDT scheme.
I am not making the argument that Crypto coins are not possible to subvert or sabotage, I am asking the question about POS comparatively to POW.
Assuming the majority of coins can be seized by one attacker, does that coin being POW or POS make a practical difference? Both coins will effectively be shut down in both cases.
The only difference is that in case of POW coins, the funds won't give you direct control over the protocol.
Also, funds can be obscured more easily than hashpower.
As I understand POS is that you risk losing your stake if you're dishonest. Which is quite a punishment
Majority holder of POS don't lose their stake if they are dishonest, but losing price or reputation is supposed to safeguard majority sabotage in theory.
owning over 50% of all coins must be really difficult
Not that difficult if you have a printing press :D
haha damn that fucking elite :D
Either way, both has tradeoffs. What I personally prefer is the non-asic pow approach.
It is always possible to rent the majority Hash through renting the hash through paying out over-market-value pool rewards, cost of attack is proportional to mining reward.
Not really with widely available general purpose hw.
If the total mining reward is $100k per day someone with that amount of money can set up a pool and buy it by paying that money in return for the POW in whatever form it is in.
I think this attack would be way too uncertain. This is why banksters choose to subvert Core and the communication channels.
I agree that it is not a good attack, it is expensive and seems criminal from the outside, and does not ultimately give the ability to bend the coin in a desired direction.
Also, using general purpose hw is inherently more decentralized, enabling small scale mining which would make pulling off something like that successfully a lot harder.
General Purpose Hardware is by default more decentralized due to there not being monopolies or barriers to entry. This is a side point, but do you favor BCH changing the mining Algo?
I think the algo should have been changed by now. BCH would be in a lot stronger position.
Its possible you are just over predicting.
Do not change the BCH algo.
Start a new coin with a mining algo that Asic technology cannot address.
There exist many ways to achieve that.
The bch community looks at the algo change just like how the useful idiots of Coretards looked at the capacity increase back then. We'll see where this attitude leads...
Changing the algo is not conceivable for BCH.
Getting consensus would be impossible.
(context: Just fixing the DAA reads like a civil war story.)
Build better faster on new turf.
"Changing the algo is not conceivable for BCH."
Well, not with that attitude.
Trying to fix the difficulty algo with such low relative hashrate is just pathetic and blatantly retarded.
Is there a known way to prevent ASICs from being made? I know Monero is trying by frequently changing or randomizing the algorithm itself, but there is still the problem of pools.
Easy. with pow algo updates if needed. Bitmain learned swiftly to not develop asics for monero after their first attempt to fuck up the network.
pools are not much of a problem as they don't control the HW. ASICs inherently bring centralization pressure.
ASIC bring additional centralization pressure without imposing a cost on the maker of the ASIC, it rewards the ASIC maker, it makes centralization even more profitable.
...which is why Monero switched to RandomX, making ASICs virtually impossible
A malicious pool can pay to rent the POW by whoever has the general purpose HW and do what they want with it, there is no need to actually own any hardware, ASIC or otherwise to get-
-Majority POW power, all it takes is paying above market rate to rent the hash in a pool. There is no way around that. However, there are non-51% attack reasons why ASICs are bad.
And ASICs still has the rent problem + additional issues, so it is no better at some things and worse at other things.
Same with POW, other players can invalidate your blocks. The serious problems start when majority of the players are hostile.
true. i wonder on which of them it's the most difficult to gain majority. It looks to me like POS is the most difficult.
Considering how users tend to keep funds at centralized companies (and the big historical heists), and how asic mining centralized I think crypto "security" is highly overrated.
I think the real security comes from the normally OSS nature of these projects (eg, the network can be forked or split if a significant attack happens, like with the BSCore take-over).
