Create account

replied 2633d
I heard that too. I believe what Emin meant by no mining is no conventional mining i.e. "brute-force solve a difficult puzzle", it needs far less energy to "interview 5 nodes".
replied 2632d
Apparently PoW should still be in there. Something was "missing in translation" here...

https://medium.com/@chrispacia/avalanche-pre-consensus-making-zeroconf-secure-ddedec254339
replied 2631d
I think they're 2 different things though, Emin is building a new coin from the ground up just using Avalanche, Chris is using avalanche for preconsensus on bch
replied 2630d
I just saw your video interviewing Chris Pacia.

Now I get it. Thank you!
replied 2630d
For BCH, it is an add-on pre-consensus method on top of existing PoW algorithm.

AVA instead uses it as a consensus method, as opposed to Nakamoto's, coupled with PoS algorithm.
replied 2630d
I believe Pacia and some other devs were talking about basing Avalanche participant selection on PoW over the past ~100 blocks so it's still critical for gaining control of the network
replied 2630d
Yes and no. Basically the old benefit of 51% is "few confirmations" accommodating a split for a double-spend. With Avalanche, network control can cause a sway. But remains _not_ split.
replied 2630d
I understand that, I'm saying they were proposing using PoW over the last 100 blocks as a selection mechanism for Avalanche instead of PoS
replied 2630d
Apologies, I seemed to have missed your point.

So what are you implying with "it's still critical for gaining control of the network" before?
replied 2630d
Just that centralization or any kind of attack would still rely upon gaining a large majority of hashrate on the network. Lots of people were irked by the idea of PoS Bitcoin
replied 2630d
Now there's an alternative: adjust to zero-conf PoW, or adopt PoS rejuvenated/perfected with Avalanche.

The issue with PoS was when it is coupled with Nakamoto consensus, isn't it?
replied 2631d
I guess I should also check check out the video of Emir in Ava, because truth be told I haven't gone through that one.
replied 2631d
Yeah after I saw the second video I started figuring that out. Definitely skeptical about an avalanche only coin, but interesting to investigate it.
replied 2631d
Yeah I'm not sure either, but I'm curious to ask him some more questions and looking forward to seeing it launch
replied 2633d
You think he meant that Avalanche would replace hash mining and not just supplement it? I didn't think that was the plan. I would not be in favor of that.
replied 2633d
Now that you mentioned it, I think it is just as susceptible to 51% attacks, and such attack may become easier to deploy because participation no longer requires expensive power.
replied 2633d
If that's the case, hopefully that is only a minor setback that can be ironed out quickly.
replied 2633d
That's my understanding. Satoshi's consensus method relies on whichever chain is the longest, backed by hashing power. Avalanche was depicted as needing no such "enormous energy".