quantificationOfConsensusProtocolSecurity
A methodology and application for quantifying the security of cryptocurrency consensus protocols. (by fresheneesz)
bitcoinThroughputAnalysis
Analysis of Bitcoin's current and future transaction throughput bottlenecks. (by fresheneesz)
Our great sponsors
quantificationOfConsensusProtocolSecurity | bitcoinThroughputAnalysis | |
---|---|---|
15 | 16 | |
7 | 114 | |
- | - | |
0.0 | 0.0 | |
over 2 years ago | almost 3 years ago | |
JavaScript | Python | |
MIT License | - |
The number of mentions indicates the total number of mentions that we've tracked plus the number of user suggested alternatives.
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
quantificationOfConsensusProtocolSecurity
Posts with mentions or reviews of quantificationOfConsensusProtocolSecurity.
We have used some of these posts to build our list of alternatives
and similar projects. The last one was on 2022-08-10.
-
Kraken released an analysis of PoW vs. PoS - Results are fascinating and proves why Bitcoin PoW is king.
Very true. However, the situation is worse for PoW. I did quite a bit of work on this subject and found that the best case scenario for PoW is that 0.625% of the supply of bitcoin would be required to buy out enough miners for a 51% attack. Even requiring a few % of the total supply for an attack on a PoS chain would be a substantial improvement in blockchain security. However, while PoW has strict limitations on how much security can be profitably created via mining (because of the high costs of mining), PoS is much less limited in that regard because the low costs of minting mean far more coins can be put towards profitably minting.
-
Bitcoin POS ??
Proof of Stake is A. not one thing and B. still in reasearch mode. It would be irresponsible to switch bitcoin over to any proof of stake system without a ton of research and vetting. That work has not been done yet, and so we leave it to altcoins to forge ahead mostly be recklessly ignoring design problems and learning by crashing. Hopefully PoS will succeed someday because it would mean 1/100th the fees and 10+ times the blockchain security. But until we create an indisputably secure PoS consensus protocol, its not for Bitcoin.
-
Why Proof-Of-Work Is A Superior Consensus Mechanism For Bitcoin
These two are the only actual arguments against PoS in the article and they both apply equally to PoW. For anyone that actually wants to learn about the security of consensus Protocols, this research is a lot more in depth.
-
Simon Chandler's article on PoW and PoS at Business Insider is predictably misleading
This is controversial, but it is false, in my studied opinion. The Bitcoin blockchain is certainly the most secure blockchain, but does this mean proof of work is the most secure consensus protocol? No it doesn't. To explain why, its important to understand what security is and critically, how to quantify it. The security of a consensus protocol is the difficulty of attacking it, which can be measured using the cost of executing a successful attack. The critical piece of this security is that both Proof of Work and Proof of Stake have securities that are proportional to the total value of the currency. The more a currency is worth in total, the more value there is in the system to secure it.
-
Why Proof of Stake is Flawed with Lane Rettig — What Bitcoin Did
I already have a deep understanding because I've already put in the time. I don't want to put in double the time, which is why I think every podcast should put the effort in to make a searchable transcription. That way I can find the interesting 1 or 2 points I haven't heard before that might make for interesting discussion.
-
PoW vs PoS
I've done much more than 5 minutes of thinking about this. So I'd appreciate less condescention.
-
[bitcoin-dev] Opinion on proof of stake in future
I don't know why you think that. In fact, I wrote a paper specifically about how to compare the security of consensus protocols apples to apples.
-
PoW vs PoS. Help me
Look, I agree that proof of stake can work and I also think it can be more secure than PoW. But just wanting to upgrade it does not make it possible. There are a lot of technical and security issues that can't just be wished away. I've done the technical thinking to be confident that PoS can work, but the vast majority of people who tout PoS have not. So please realize that its not that simple.
-
What is stopping Bitcoin from being replaced by a competitor with better underlying tech?
So to my last point, if an altcoin does come up with something like that and the technical bitcoin community agrees that technology is sound, Bitcoin can incorporate it. However, there are fundamental barriers to higher base-layer transaction speeds, and most coins that offer higher speeds do so because they sacrifice security and resilience against attack. Something that consumes less security is basically going to be some kind of proof of stake. There is massive opposition in the bitcoin community against proof of stake, however if its shown that a proof of stake consensus protocol fulfils all of Bitcoin's the security goals, its possible for bitcoin to be transitioned to a different consensus protocol. I believe that proof of stake has fundamental properties that make it not only less costly but also more secure. However, it will take a lot of time to convince the community, and likely will take running into the limits of bitcoin's current consensus protocol in a much worse way before people take PoS more seriously for bitcoin. Bitcoin's consensus protocol works fine for now and there are a lot of other higher priorities to focus on at the moment.
-
Q: Difference between proof of work / proof of stake. Can someone explain both principles in a non-abstract way?
That is also not at all true. I assume you mean that there is zero net incentive to mess with anything, because there sure is massive incentive to double spend if a miner could. A double spending attack could extract billions of dollars from the economy if done properly. This is certainly a large inecentive to cheat. However, bitcoin's proof of work is secure enough at this point to make the capital requirements of doing such an attack enormous - in the tens of billions of dollars. However, if an attacker or group of attakers is willing to put tens of billions of dollars to work, its certainl plausible that they could make a solid profit.
bitcoinThroughputAnalysis
Posts with mentions or reviews of bitcoinThroughputAnalysis.
We have used some of these posts to build our list of alternatives
and similar projects. The last one was on 2022-01-15.
-
Future self custody road block?
I did an analysis a while back that concluded that we should be able to safely increase the block size to a degree where we can see a 5-10X increase in transactions per second in the next 15-20 years because of proposed scaling improvements and increased average machine resources.
-
Why Proof-Of-Work Is A Superior Consensus Mechanism For Bitcoin
I agree. But that's unrelated to the points I was making.
-
Simon Chandler's article on PoW and PoS at Business Insider is predictably misleading
Hileman is completely wrong here. Pretty sad to see the head of research at blockchain.com get this one so wrong. The choice of consensus protocol does not affect transaction throughput or "capacity" ("capacity" as far as I can tell is not different from throughput in this context). What affects transaction throughput is the size of your transaction data and the limits placed on the blocks that hold that data. You can increase the size of your blocks to increase throughput, but as a result you inherently increase the computing resources required to participate in the network. The larger your blocks, the fewer people will be able to participate, which is one kind of centralization pressure a blockchain can create for itself. Fundamentally, distributed consensus is limited by the speed of light and physical size of the network. There are many ways to increase throughput of a blockchain like Bitcoin's, but they all boil down to reducing the data per transaction or making it more acceptable to increase the amount of data allowed in a block.
-
Do you think that the maximum blocksize limit will be ever increased?
I wrote a paper a while back on bitcoin throughput. Basically, we need as many people to run public full nodes as possible. Probably around 5 million would be enough. However currently we have orders of magnitude less than that. So until we have enough, we need to keep it easy to run a full node - as easy as possible.
-
The Limits to Blockchain Scalability
Some really good points in there. Bottle necks are basically whack a mole. I wrote a related paper on scalability in the context of bitcoin: https://github.com/fresheneesz/bitcoinThroughputAnalysis
-
Hal Finney sent this email only days after #Bitcoin was created. Mind you, a coin had no value at the time and cost $0.00. Something to think about...
If you want to discuss that, I'd be happy to. You might be interesting in reading this paper I wrote on the subject of blocksize and throughput: https://github.com/fresheneesz/bitcoinThroughputAnalysis
-
Should we consider slowing bitcoin's inflation in order to reduce energy usage?
The number of public full nodes. Bitcoin still has only about 10,000 public nodes. An attacker would only have to spend $1 million per year to eat up all the public node bandwidth that is likely available. That's only $160k per month. If someone wanted to disrupt bitcoin, that's the way to do it.
- An Analysis of Bitcoin's Throughput Bottlenecks, Potential Solutions, and Future Prospects
- An analysis of Bitcoin's throughput bottlenecks
What are some alternatives?
When comparing quantificationOfConsensusProtocolSecurity and bitcoinThroughputAnalysis you can also consider the following projects:
Bitcoin - Bitcoin Core integration/staging tree
solana - Web-Scale Blockchain for fast, secure, scalable, decentralized apps and marketplaces.
bips - Bitcoin Improvement Proposals