You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Blockchain Update 4: Resource Credit Implementation Details
You didn't read it - it clearly talks about PoS AND Delegated Proof-of-(mis)Stake.
Listen, even with checkpoints you guys are playing with fire.
But you know what? Go ahead, build your sandcastles in the air, just don't complain when it gets taken down.
I tried, and if you can't see it -- then that's your problem, not mine.
I did read it. The first two concerns assume that there is no mechanism to establish the longest chain and two forks will just continue on. In DPoS, 2/3 of the block producers are needed to establish an irreversible block. If the network split there would not be concensus to continue producing blocks. The network would halt - which is still bad, but not as bad as the scenario outlined in the post. The double spending scenario also does not take into account that 2/3 are needed for an irreversible block. I’m not an expert, but afaik there is not a way to make two irreversible blocks with conflicting data when both would need 2/3 of the block producers to create a block that agrees.
Let me lay this out for you - there are two scenarios for Steemit:
User retention slips or stays at a paltry 13%, and it gradually joins the long-tail of technological failures from lack of interest.
By some miracle users come to the platform, where it promptly seizes up after a frenzy of activity.
Hoping, wishing, promoting or nit-picking technical details isn't going to save it.
You disagree, fine. That changes nothing.
We are both entitled to our opinions, which is really all these latest comments are. Maybe you are right. Maybe not.. It is really speculation either way, so I don’t have anything else to say. I guess we will just have to wait and see.
Neither of them have anything to do with the security of DPOS though, which is what our original conversation was about.
And where are those scenarios mentioned in the article?
What have those two scenarios to do with DPoS?
DPoS is a flawed engineering solution. Just because we're shambling along with 45k users doesn't mean it will handle order-of-magnitude more.
Look at my prior posts, there is a comprehensive technical series about why.
Maybe or maybe not... but if DPoS is flawed and is way ahead of the number of users that any other blockchain out there can handle... Are you saying the BC technology is fundamentally flawed??
When your blockchain seizes up because its designed to throw an exception and FREEZE, I'd say you have a fundamental engineering flaw.
DPoS is a flawed technology. Steemit hasn't been pushing it hard, because frankly user retention sucks, so if Steemit ever gets any appreciable amount of traffic - the whole thing will implode.
Its easy to claim you're doing "great" when nobody is really using your technology. This whole house of cards will fall apart if any real amount of users started interacting here.
But still.... It is orders of magnitude better than anything out there...
Are you saying "lets go home, this block-chain effort is doomed?"
Or do you see a better alternative?
You're not really adding anything to this convo, and I have a rule about a few hops down from the parent conversation.
Time-To-Live on this one has expired. You believe whatever you want.