[HN Gopher] Ouroboros: A Provably Secure Proof-of-Stake Blockcha...
___________________________________________________________________
Ouroboros: A Provably Secure Proof-of-Stake Blockchain Protocol
[pdf] (2019)
Author : dgellow
Score : 50 points
Date : 2021-01-31 18:50 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (eprint.iacr.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (eprint.iacr.org)
| JohnJamesRambo wrote:
| How does this compare to the current implementation of proof of
| stake in Ethereum 2.0?
| gvhst wrote:
| They claim (via formal verification, I cannot speak to their
| threat model with much accuracy) that they are able to achieve
| the same or better security properties as ETH 2.0 without
| lockups (staked funds earning income are like demand deposits)
| or slashing (penalties for bad behavior / bad network
| performance).
|
| The project as a whole (Cardano) has some other notable
| advantages. Personally, it has a built in governance system
| which actively funds projects / improvement proposals paid for
| by some of the block rewards & fees. Cardano just had their
| first round of voting and funding which gave in aggregate $250k
| to a variety of projects [0]. Funding batch sizes are expected
| to grow to $10 million dollars a year in 2021 (at current
| prices). This is where I'd draw the largest difference between
| ETH 2.0 and Cardano (the project which developed and uses
| Ouroboros)
|
| [0] https://iohk.io/en/blog/posts/2021/01/12/project-catalyst-
| th...
| dgellow wrote:
| You may also want to see this video from 2018 where the paper is
| presented by Christian Badertscher:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCA0h73q3qQ&list=PLnPTB0CuBO...
| Mindless2112 wrote:
| Unfortunately, the introduction of the presentation took too
| much time, so the novel part of the presentation is very hand-
| wavy.
| ypeterholmes wrote:
| Important paper here because almost all the next gen blockchains
| will be using POS. Ethereum is trying to switch mid-flight
| (yikes) but others like Cardano have incorporated it
| foundationally.
|
| If you're a no-coiner or Bitcoin maximalist, none of this really
| matters. But if you accept the premise that the future of
| financial infrastructure is moving towards decentralized,
| blockchain based systems, then a secure, scalable, performant,
| and energy efficient approach like this is pretty darn awesome.
| nikdot wrote:
| craig wright is NOT satoshi nakamoto
| poisonborz wrote:
| I have the tingling feeling that one could think of a better name
| for a blockchain protocol.
| wmf wrote:
| It's a great name because PoS doesn't require using outside
| resources (e.g. energy). Once the system gets going it secures
| itself.
| martindale wrote:
| Proof of Stake not only replicates the same dynamics that Bitcoin
| was designed to eliminate (more wealth -> more power in system)
| but also can only be made secure against a maximum of 1/3
| byzantine actors, compared to Proof of Work's superior 1/2.
|
| As for using it for Layer 1 systems, Andrew Poelstra nailed it in
| his conclusion [0]:
|
| "We showed that by depending only on resources within the system,
| proof of stake cannot be used to form a distributed consensus,
| since it depends on the very history it is trying to form to
| enforce loss of value."
|
| Proof of Stake might be useful at Layer 2 (becoming equivalent to
| voting stock in a company), but not as a base-layer consensus
| mechanism.
|
| [0]: https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf
| dgellow wrote:
| The Ouroboros paper seems to say that it is 50% resistant. See
| the parts highlighted here and the additional comments in this
| forum thread: https://forum.cardano.org/t/is-cardano-51-attack-
| resistant/1....
| RhodoGSA wrote:
| Check out Polkadot - They NPOS system works and not how you
| described.
| dane-pgp wrote:
| I wasn't familiar with Polkadot, but this documentation page
| seems to be a good introduction to how its "Nominated Proof-
| of-Stake" system works:
|
| https://wiki.polkadot.network/docs/en/learn-staking
| wmf wrote:
| It's true that PoS requires subjectivity to prevent long-range
| attacks, but everyone is already using subjectivity so this is
| not an additional constraint. (People say that, in theory, new
| users _might_ not use subjectivity in PoW but this is not
| actually true in practice.)
| dane-pgp wrote:
| > only be made secure against a maximum of 1/3 byzantine
| actors
|
| What is the threat model here, and in particular what is the
| outcome of a successful attack?
|
| For example, if the only "power in the system" the attacker has
| is the ability to prevent transactions from occurring, then the
| attacker is damaging the value of their own coins. The honest
| majority could, as a last resort, also decide to manually fork
| the currency to invalidate the attacker's coins.
|
| Assuming the 1/3 number is weighted by stake, the attacker is
| potentially risking billions of dollars in order to carry out
| this short-term attack. With that amount of money it would be
| cheaper to locate and destroy the major bitcoin mining farms.
| wmf wrote:
| There are concerns (or concern trolls) about an attacker
| buying old keys for almost nothing, trashing the chain, then
| profiting by shorting. And there are concerns that the honest
| majority can't figure out how to switch to the honest fork.
| regisg wrote:
| That's why there are KES keys.
| gvhst wrote:
| Not sure if you are claiming that BTC currently solves the
| "more wealth -> more power in system" problem but it clearly
| doesn't. The current state of affairs is more wealth -> more
| ASICS R&D and infrastructure budget -> more hash power -> more
| power in the system.
| splintercell wrote:
| Matthew principle strikes again.
| Geee wrote:
| There's a difference. You can't physically centralize energy
| production. Local energy price will increase when more energy
| is used. This ensures that no one can get in a position of
| control. In PoS, it's possible to get > 50% ownership, and
| it's game over.
| wmf wrote:
| Is 70% of Bitcoin mining still in China?
| sp821543 wrote:
| Aren't 65% of all bitcoin miners in China? Couldn't the CCP
| sabotage the network at any time? Say, a month before the
| launch of their digital currency?
|
| https://cbeci.org/mining_map
| martin1975 wrote:
| was this submitted to any crypto journals for peer review (CCS,
| Eurocrypt) or did the author arrive at this conclusion in
| isolation?
| regisg wrote:
| Ouroboros Genesis ? Yes : CCS 2018.
| fsociety wrote:
| Admittedly I skimmed the paper but didn't see any comparison with
| state of the art. How does this differ from Tezos'
| implementation?
| jki275 wrote:
| https://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.07091.pdf
|
| Pgs 19 and 20.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-31 23:01 UTC)