Create account

Emin Gün Sirer talks about the 3 different types of consensus protocols, including an exciting new one released by an anonymous group last year called Avalanche

Watch here:
---
---
replied · 7d
Interesting video. Helped me understand avalanche a little more. One confusing thing though, is he said a few times "there is no mining." I think he means, no mining to validate TXs.
replied · 7d
But the TXs will still get mined into the BCH blockchain, right? Avalanche is just a pre-filter on the TX to try and prevent double spends attempts by "locking-in" the 1st seen TX.
replied · 7d
It's not sufficient itself to maintain the chain. Also, it was a little confusing when he was talking about randomly picking red an blue. In the real system, it's not random.
replied · 7d
There's a True correct choice, the real 1st seen TX, & it's very unlikely a double spend attempt will win the metastable race. So once you see your TX accepted by avalanche
replied · 7d
You can trust more that it is the one that will end up on the block chain. This made me feel better about Avalanche as I was a bit skeptical before.
replied · 7d
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 · 6d
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 · 5d
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 · 4d
I just saw your video interviewing Chris Pacia.

Now I get it. Thank you!
replied · 4d
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 · 4d
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 · 4d
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 · 4d
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 · 4d
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 · 4d
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 · 4d
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 · 5d
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 · 5d
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 · 5d
Yeah I'm not sure either, but I'm curious to ask him some more questions and looking forward to seeing it launch
replied · 7d
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 · 7d
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 · 7d
If that's the case, hopefully that is only a minor setback that can be ironed out quickly.
replied · 7d
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".
replied · 7d
Maybe you can convey a follow-up question to Emin? If Avalanche needs low hashing power, what is stopping me from posing as 100,000 individuals, effectively carrying out a 51% attack?
replied · 7d
These are great points, I will reach out to him to see if I can clear things up!
replied · 6d
Sharing the lines from the interview that tickles my brain…

https://memo.cash/post/9c963b2776011388de97ffee4a3d4c0cc1543c3c3288dcc51d8505359f7b85c8
replied · 5d
Thanks!
replied · 7d
Thank you for sharing, this is phenomenal! It made a lot of sense, and is a great candidate for adoption by practically all blockchain operations.
replied · 7d
Thanks so much for watching :)
replied · 8d
Ah, that explains why I'm getting so much hate on twitter about my Emin interview 😂🤦‍♀️
that would explain it alright lol, crazy what goes on.