Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose Millions

Re:Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose M... by jsutton on Wednesday May 23, 2018 @06:24PM (#17138947)

Not necessarily, non-hashing consensus seems to be where most blockchain projects are going. So these would require a stake of assets or similar, instead of wasting computing cycles.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose M... by ufo on Wednesday May 23, 2018 @06:27PM (#17138982)

Creating a proof-of-stake algorithm that doesn't degenerate to proof-of-work and that doesn't require a central authority (checkpoints, etc) is still an open problem.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose M... by arez on Wednesday May 23, 2018 @06:33PM (#17139035)

I'm waiting for the cardano guys on this one, testnet with PoS will start soon and they don't make bullshit hype announcements ever

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose M... by celticninja on Wednesday May 23, 2018 @06:28PM (#17138987)

Proof-of-Stake(POS) is still theoretical at this stage, there is no working solution or proof-of-concept. It is a nice(ish) idea to reduce the energy consumption of blockchains but isnt really a solution to decentralisation.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose M... by dlubarov on Wednesday May 23, 2018 @07:49PM (#17139568)

There are some working solutions now, like NEO, Dash, and NXT. Ethereum is sure to adopt it as well; a lot of details are TBD but there's little question that the community will adopt some form of PoS.

I'm not saying it's perfect -- there are some downsides like needing a cap on fork distance in order to prevent stake bleeding attacks [1] -- but it's certainly viable.

[1] https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/248.pdf

[ Parent | on HN ]