RE: W3C and the Ethereum Foundation Attacking Bitcoin... and Decentralisation?

[borislavzlatanov]

On one side we have the Status Quo pushing for POS Bockchains, because it is a system they are sure they can control; on the other side we have Bitcoin, Monero and other POW Blockchains, something that the Elites cannot control, no matter how much money they own.

How is it that the elites can control a POS blockchain but not a POW blockchain? In my understanding, a lot of money allows someone to buy a lot of equipment and dominate in hash power. Whereas with POS, presumably someone with money can find ways to get a large stake (as happened with Justin Sun buying a heavily discounted massive stake in STEEM), but then the community can fork into another blockchain, which is how the Hive blockchain was born. How do you see this? Can you inform me some more on the superior decentralization of POW blockchains?

Comments

[trincowski]

Hi there!

Those are interesting questions... and much can be said about it. I'll try to sum it up though and my answer will likely be very incomplete.

With POS, all you need is to get your hands on a large stake, as you say. Since most coins are left on Exchanges, these Exchanges can even make an attack without having to buy anything. They already control that stake, after all. We're just praying they are honest and don't use it against us. Now, imagine that a Government takes control of an Exchange and forces them to attack a network? That also doesn't take a lot of money, just violence.

With POW it's a whole different scenario. In theory, a Government could buy a lot of rigs and control over 51% of the Network. Why is that very difficult with Bitcoin, if not impossible?

• First, that requires buying more Mining systems that are currently available in the market;
• Even if they order those systems, they will take a lot of time to be delivered... and the other participants in the network would have bought some more, too;
• Assuming they, somehow, could do that, gathering that equipment is not enough. They would need to have a very large space with access to a huge energy production to set up a rig larger than half of the network combined;
• The rigs require work and technical skills, as well... and let's face it, Government IT departments usually have trouble even to open Outlook and send an email, let alone do more complicated tasks.
• If, by some miracle, they could spend all that money, resources and skills to make the attack, the network would adjust quickly and ignore it... leaving them alone in their own chain. The rest of the network would remain on the real chain and all that effort would be in vain.

For all these reasons, POW is an extremely resilient system and with a magnitude of strength and security over POS systems, which are a lot easier to attack.

I hope this helps.

[borislavzlatanov]

OK, thanks for the elaboration.

How would a POW network adjust if someone were to acquire a majority hash rate? Even if they migrate to a new chain, how could they prevent the hash rate owner to use and have the same influence on the new chain?

In regards to POS, the things you pointed out actually did happen last year - the exchanges staked their STEEM and helped a single actor take control over the network. So all of us forked over and created the Hive blockchain. And we implemented some tweaks - when someone stakes their tokens (which allows participation in governance), it takes one month before their stake can be used for governance decisions. So this should prevent exchanges from interfering with governance.

And again, even if someone manages to take control of a majority or very substantial stake and acts in a way that the community doesn't like, the community can create a fork and make it so that the new chain doesn't have that actor's stake.

[ammonite]

Hive has done a great job at showing the way forward for POS chains.