Re:Proof-of-stake is inherently self-referential
by endisneigh on Friday May 21, 2021 @01:46PM
(#27237353)
thanks for the reply
I'd argue that pretty much every civilization has tried the peer-to-peer thing in the beginning. I won't get too much into the history of bartering, but to your point regarding a central pain in the ass, I think that's why the entire world has sort of settled on "proof of violence." ultimately, like you've said, the only way to defend your position when you're a large central authority is with violence.
Re:Proof-of-stake is inherently self-referential
by delaaxe on Friday May 21, 2021 @01:56PM
(#27237524)
There isn't much evidence that bartering ever was the way people did business.
Lots of evidence for lending & borrowing though (debt).
Re:Proof-of-stake is inherently self-referential
by endisneigh on Friday May 21, 2021 @02:00PM
(#27237569)
indeed - bartering really isn't a sustainable thing, and like you mentioned debt ended up being heavily used to facilitate exchanges. said debt in many cases ended up being centrally facilitated. the rest of history.
It might have overtones, but this is the decentralized versus centralized control (peer-peer vs client/server) merry-go-round that we are all stuck on.
There are practical reasons why you don't want a central authority: because other central authorities can destroy it. But with no central authority what do you do when someone tries to make themselves... for lack of a better term, a central pain in the ass?
Peer systems fail when someone can make everything about themselves with far less effort than it takes for a simple majority to stop them. It's asymmetric warfare if I can be naughty for 5 hours and 100 people have to spend an equal amount of time to undo whatever I've done.
The central authority can often do this much cheaper, especially if there is a collaborative health system (eg, report user). But they also paint a target on themselves in the process.