It’s actually more true for proof-of-work mining than it is for proof-of-stake. PoW mining has strong economies of scale, a professional miner with a warehouse full of mining rigs and a special deal with an industrial electricity supplier can churn out hashes more cheaply than a home miner can. Whereas the hardware needed for PoS is negligible so there’s nowhere near that disparity between small and large miners.
Also, under Ethereum at least (the largest proof-of-stake chain and the one I’m most familiar with the workings of), stakers don’t “dominate” the network. They have no decision-making power over what the consensus rules are. If the users decide to upgrade to a new version and the stakers refuse to go along with that or try to push an upgrade that the users don’t want then those stakers lose their stake after the resulting fork.
I agree with you but holding ETH up as a shining example of decentralization is a bit misguided, IMO.
Since they had to move to PoS from PoW, things have gotten SIGNIFICANTLY worse for their decentralization numbers. Another damning aspect of their staking tech is that, in order to stake to a pool, you need to lock your tokens away, making them impossible to spend for a specified time period. That directly compromises decentralization in that only those with vast amounts of wealth will want to lock their tokens away for long periods of time.
Anyway, most of the criticisms I have of ETH are more critical of the way they went about the transition between two radically different consensus algorithms than about Proof of Stake itself.
edit: I should have known that ETH bagholders would come out of the woodwork to present outright lies about ETH’s shoddy, compromised implementation of PoS.
I went Googling for sources, and what I found says the opposite. Ethereum was becoming increasingly centralized under PoW but after the switch to PoS it became significantly more decentralized.
in order to stake to a pool, you need to lock your tokens away, making them impossible to spend for a specified time period.
This is exactly the point of proof-of-stake. You can’t prove you’ve staked some coins if you don’t actually stake them. If you’ve retained control over your tokens then they’re not staked. I’m not sure how you think it could work otherwise.
most of the criticisms I have of ETH are more damming of the way they went about the transition between two radically different consensus algorithms than about Proof of Stake itself.
The transition from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake has been on Ethereum’s roadmap since the beginning. It was rolled out in stages over the course of years. What was “damning” about the transition?
Wow. I’m not going to take the time to reply to most of that but your most glaring bit of misinformation: that staking requires locking
Look up zero lock staking or liquid staking. You’re pretending that staking requires the inability to spend your tokens but this is demonstrably false when you look at existing implementations of PoS that don’t require it: Cardano and Polkadot are two off the top of my head that offer zero lock staking.
I googled “zero lock staking” and I’m not finding anything that contradicts what I said. There are systems that allow for delegated staking, where you hold transferable tokens that represent a share in a staking pool - rETH, for example. But there’s still locked stake in that case. And this Quora response lists various proof-of-stake systems where you can unstake immediately, including Cardano and Polkadot, but those don’t give you rewards while your tokens aren’t staked - the token still needs to be locked during the staking itself.
I asked for clarification on what you found “damning” about the transition to proof of stake, I don’t see how asking for clarification is “misinformation.”
I presented a source for Ethereum’s centralization trends. Got any of your own?
Wow, you went from zero to furious at the drop of a hat. And I’m not a “bagholder”, as I’ve said in other comments, I’m just interested in the tech.
I haven’t argued any of these facts. “How TF else should they do it?!” could be my line here, except that I’m trying to remain civil so I wouldn’t have worded it that way. This ultimately comes from your statement:
Another damning aspect of their staking tech is that, in order to stake to a pool, you need to lock your tokens away, making them impossible to spend for a specified time period.
Which I still don’t see as “damning” because - as you just said - how else would they do it? Cardano and Polkadot do it the same way, they’ve just changed the value of what that “specified time period” is.
I specifically mentioned Rocket Pool’s rETH as an example of delegated staking that would let you sell your staked tokens more quickly, that’s on Ethereum so if the exit queue is too long for you there you can try that instead.
This is exactly the point of proof-of-stake. You can’t prove you’ve staked some coins if you don’t actually stake them. If you’ve retained control over your tokens then they’re not staked. I’m not sure how you think it could work otherwise.
WOW. Straight up wrong.
I’m guessing you have a YUGE bag of ETH staked. 🤣
Since you’re so wrong, it’s clear that you are absolutely guessing here while anon is spitting facts, being intellectually honest about which drawbacks actually exist in the world for proof of stake. Take the L, dude. haha
I agree that PoS (due to its consensus algorithm being weighted toward stake) can be compromised by billionaires…but I’d counter that it’s also the best system we currently have. Can you honestly tell me that USD has a fair allocation? With that in mind, PoS is Far better than the centralized technologies you seem to be defending by attacking the one alternative.
If the engineers behind non-scam projects (that actually seek to revolutionize currency and wrestle control from the world bank) could accomplish one person one vote, they would…but the network game theory is run by that same principle: that it would be impossible for anyone but Jeff Bezos to compromise a sufficiently valuable cryptocurrency just as it would be cost prohibitive for Bezos to afford enough bitcoin mining rigs to give him control of the network.
Luckily there are actual metrics that help us pinpoint those kinds of compromised technologies (especially in regards to Proof of Stake). Personally, when vetting a Proof of Stake crypto, I like to look at “initial token allocation” as well and other metrics that help to quantify how decentralized they really are. How many unique wallets are there? What does their consensus algorithm look like? How easy it is for me to run a stake pool? Do I need a super computer (Solana)? Does it prevent that sort of centralization using game theory?
Just a small example of how you’re glossing over some fairly elegant engineering that enforces decentralization: Cardano has invented some pretty revolutionary ideas in this area. They have all kinds of added parameters that prevent one actor from controlling the network. When the algorithm is selecting the next pool to mine a block, a pool that has more than a certain amount of the token is disqualified for having TOO MUCH stake. It’s called “saturation”. I could go on and on about the technologies that aid decentralization and make it AT LEAST significantly more decentralized than any other system we currently know of but I’m sure you won’t even read it.
Initial token allocation, for one, is such an important metric for understanding decentralization. If a small group of insiders has the most tokens, the decentralization of the network is compromised. That’s why, when I look at a cryptocurrency that uses Proof of Stake, I always look to that before doing anything. It helped me to avoid FTX, Luna, Solana, and other crypto’s where a small group of insiders was given more than 25% of the tokens in the network before the public was even allowed to receive airdrops (which are a way of making sure that that one person, one vote principle stands at that crucial stage where the tokens are dispersed into the market).
I don’t defend anything - I simply do not consider the existing crypto assets as an alternative to currencies at all. They are still so far from being reliable or stable to be a good means of general exchange. They have their place in the area of investment and speculation and that works fine for me.
With the disadvantage of large stakeholders dominating the network and undermining the decentralization.
deleted by creator
It’s actually more true for proof-of-work mining than it is for proof-of-stake. PoW mining has strong economies of scale, a professional miner with a warehouse full of mining rigs and a special deal with an industrial electricity supplier can churn out hashes more cheaply than a home miner can. Whereas the hardware needed for PoS is negligible so there’s nowhere near that disparity between small and large miners.
Also, under Ethereum at least (the largest proof-of-stake chain and the one I’m most familiar with the workings of), stakers don’t “dominate” the network. They have no decision-making power over what the consensus rules are. If the users decide to upgrade to a new version and the stakers refuse to go along with that or try to push an upgrade that the users don’t want then those stakers lose their stake after the resulting fork.
I agree with you but holding ETH up as a shining example of decentralization is a bit misguided, IMO.
Since they had to move to PoS from PoW, things have gotten SIGNIFICANTLY worse for their decentralization numbers. Another damning aspect of their staking tech is that, in order to stake to a pool, you need to lock your tokens away, making them impossible to spend for a specified time period. That directly compromises decentralization in that only those with vast amounts of wealth will want to lock their tokens away for long periods of time.
Anyway, most of the criticisms I have of ETH are more critical of the way they went about the transition between two radically different consensus algorithms than about Proof of Stake itself.
edit: I should have known that ETH bagholders would come out of the woodwork to present outright lies about ETH’s shoddy, compromised implementation of PoS.
I went Googling for sources, and what I found says the opposite. Ethereum was becoming increasingly centralized under PoW but after the switch to PoS it became significantly more decentralized.
This is exactly the point of proof-of-stake. You can’t prove you’ve staked some coins if you don’t actually stake them. If you’ve retained control over your tokens then they’re not staked. I’m not sure how you think it could work otherwise.
The transition from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake has been on Ethereum’s roadmap since the beginning. It was rolled out in stages over the course of years. What was “damning” about the transition?
Wow. I’m not going to take the time to reply to most of that but your most glaring bit of misinformation: that staking requires locking
Look up zero lock staking or liquid staking. You’re pretending that staking requires the inability to spend your tokens but this is demonstrably false when you look at existing implementations of PoS that don’t require it: Cardano and Polkadot are two off the top of my head that offer zero lock staking.
I googled “zero lock staking” and I’m not finding anything that contradicts what I said. There are systems that allow for delegated staking, where you hold transferable tokens that represent a share in a staking pool - rETH, for example. But there’s still locked stake in that case. And this Quora response lists various proof-of-stake systems where you can unstake immediately, including Cardano and Polkadot, but those don’t give you rewards while your tokens aren’t staked - the token still needs to be locked during the staking itself.
I asked for clarification on what you found “damning” about the transition to proof of stake, I don’t see how asking for clarification is “misinformation.”
I presented a source for Ethereum’s centralization trends. Got any of your own?
of course you don’t get rewards if you spend your staked tokens. How TF else should they do it?!
It is not locked in chains like Polkadot and Cardano. You can, quite literally, stake your coins then two seconds later spend them. They aren’t locked from being spent. That is called ZERO LOCK or LIQUID STAKING. THERE IS NO LOCK PERIOD LIKE THEY HAVE IN ETH.
At this point, I am done arguing about literal facts with an ETH bagholder.
Wow, you went from zero to furious at the drop of a hat. And I’m not a “bagholder”, as I’ve said in other comments, I’m just interested in the tech.
I haven’t argued any of these facts. “How TF else should they do it?!” could be my line here, except that I’m trying to remain civil so I wouldn’t have worded it that way. This ultimately comes from your statement:
Which I still don’t see as “damning” because - as you just said - how else would they do it? Cardano and Polkadot do it the same way, they’ve just changed the value of what that “specified time period” is.
I specifically mentioned Rocket Pool’s rETH as an example of delegated staking that would let you sell your staked tokens more quickly, that’s on Ethereum so if the exit queue is too long for you there you can try that instead.
deleted by creator
WOW. Straight up wrong.
I’m guessing you have a YUGE bag of ETH staked. 🤣
Since you’re so wrong, it’s clear that you are absolutely guessing here while anon is spitting facts, being intellectually honest about which drawbacks actually exist in the world for proof of stake. Take the L, dude. haha
You’re guessing wrong, I’m not a “bagholder.” I’m just interested in the tech.
I’ve provided specific examples and links to references. Anon’s not done any of that, he’s just got mad. Like you, too. Calm down.
I agree that PoS (due to its consensus algorithm being weighted toward stake) can be compromised by billionaires…but I’d counter that it’s also the best system we currently have. Can you honestly tell me that USD has a fair allocation? With that in mind, PoS is Far better than the centralized technologies you seem to be defending by attacking the one alternative.
If the engineers behind non-scam projects (that actually seek to revolutionize currency and wrestle control from the world bank) could accomplish one person one vote, they would…but the network game theory is run by that same principle: that it would be impossible for anyone but Jeff Bezos to compromise a sufficiently valuable cryptocurrency just as it would be cost prohibitive for Bezos to afford enough bitcoin mining rigs to give him control of the network.
Luckily there are actual metrics that help us pinpoint those kinds of compromised technologies (especially in regards to Proof of Stake). Personally, when vetting a Proof of Stake crypto, I like to look at “initial token allocation” as well and other metrics that help to quantify how decentralized they really are. How many unique wallets are there? What does their consensus algorithm look like? How easy it is for me to run a stake pool? Do I need a super computer (Solana)? Does it prevent that sort of centralization using game theory?
Just a small example of how you’re glossing over some fairly elegant engineering that enforces decentralization: Cardano has invented some pretty revolutionary ideas in this area. They have all kinds of added parameters that prevent one actor from controlling the network. When the algorithm is selecting the next pool to mine a block, a pool that has more than a certain amount of the token is disqualified for having TOO MUCH stake. It’s called “saturation”. I could go on and on about the technologies that aid decentralization and make it AT LEAST significantly more decentralized than any other system we currently know of but I’m sure you won’t even read it.
Initial token allocation, for one, is such an important metric for understanding decentralization. If a small group of insiders has the most tokens, the decentralization of the network is compromised. That’s why, when I look at a cryptocurrency that uses Proof of Stake, I always look to that before doing anything. It helped me to avoid FTX, Luna, Solana, and other crypto’s where a small group of insiders was given more than 25% of the tokens in the network before the public was even allowed to receive airdrops (which are a way of making sure that that one person, one vote principle stands at that crucial stage where the tokens are dispersed into the market).
edit: further reading about the most academically/game theoretically rigorous open source implementation of Proof of Stake called Ourobouros , created by the Cardano team but also adopted by the Polkadot team.
I don’t defend anything - I simply do not consider the existing crypto assets as an alternative to currencies at all. They are still so far from being reliable or stable to be a good means of general exchange. They have their place in the area of investment and speculation and that works fine for me.
How about stabletokens, many of which are pegged directly to the value of the USD?