Proof of Stake...

[Lodewijk andré de la porte]

2014-02-07 Sean Lynch <seanl at literati.org>:

> The different transactions change the block hash, though, so it's the same
> problem for the attacker that you originally pointed out with
> proof-of-work, no?


The problem is that you've introduced trust into a trust-free system. And
you didn't even pick wisely, you picked wealthy.

The assumption used to justify wealthy is that people that are wealthy will
want to preserve the system, and it's value. They are actually more likely
driven with increasing their wealth.

This, of course, is not unreasonable. But a "pretty cracked up currency" is
still okay to enough people. You can't trust people to judge the
crackedupness of a (psuedonymous) system. This is the same reason "regular
banking" fails.

@David, this would probably cause some trouble amongst those wealthy people.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 1424 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20140207/ff97cd0d/attachment-0001.txt>