From a historical perspective, what is the essence of the consensus debate between PoW and PoS?
Blockchain is not only a technical topic, but also a governance topic. We first discuss how to reach a consensus, and then use a series of technical approaches to achieve it.
The path selection between PoW and PoS is one of the most basic topics in the blockchain. Do you use computing power or equity to determine the governance of the blockchain? In essence, we have encountered similar confusion and debate in history.
This week, stake.fish compiled an article by Colony.io R&D engineer Daniel Kronovet. From another perspective, he analyzed the debate between PoW and PoS consensus algorithms, and the debate between "real politics" and "international institutions". the same as above. The article was first published in March 2018, a few months after the Ethereum 2.0 roadmap was announced.
textstake.fishIt is expected that support for about 10 well-known networks will be added in Q1 next year, and the potential of PoS as an "alternative consensus" to explode and become mainstream is clearly felt.
PoW and PoS consensus have their own advantages and disadvantages. I believe we can use the perspective of this article to conduct more dialectical considerations on the two consensus algorithms and similar discussions.
Original title: Proof of Work vs Proof of Stake: a Mirror of History
By Daniel Kronovet, Colony.io R&D Engineer
Compile: stake.fish
image description
Although PoW and PoS are two very different manifestations, the way we look at them has very similar characteristics.
PoW vs PoS
A while ago I attended an event organized by Crypto NYC. During the event, two well-known PoW (Proof of Work) advocates and PoS (Proof of Stake) advocate Nate Rush had a heated debate to discuss an important issue facing the blockchain community.
A brief introduction to readers who are new to the blockchain: PoW and PoS are what we often talk about as "consensus algorithms". They are a series of criteria used to determine which transactions are "standard" transactions on a specific blockchain. . The consensus of the blockchain is like the "constitution" of the chain: it defines the blockchain and determines its "behavior".
Of the two, PoW is de facto the standard currently driving Bitcoin and Ethereum — the two largest cryptocurrencies. Essentially, PoW requires participants to prove that they have performed a certain amount of computational work in order for the transaction to conform to an approved specification. In this way, on Bitcoin and Ethereum, the implementation of fraudulent transactions requires a large economic cost. As long as the "good guys" have at least half of the computing power of the computer, the transactions in the blockchain can be considered accurate, and the "bad guys" ” there is no way to record harmful transactions to the network.
PoW was first proposed by Satoshi Nakamoto in the Bitcoin white paper. The "double spend problem" is the "Achilles' heel" commonly faced by Bitcoin's previous cryptocurrencies. This problem that hinders the development of cryptocurrencies is solved by the PoW consensus algorithm.
The PoW algorithm has been praised for being effective, simple to understand, and easy to implement. His main disadvantage is that it consumes a lot of energy, because this kind of "work" requires a lot of unproductive computing power. To some extent, the competition becomes a competition of "who wastes the most electricity".
PoS is another attempt on the consensus algorithm that has emerged in recent years. It is called an alternative to PoW, and it is used to avoid the situation where PoW consumes a lot of resources. PoS does not use computing power to determine which transactions can be selected as canonical transactions, but to determine the number of owned and invested tokens.
Whoever owns tokens has more say in the network. There is also a greater risk of losing tokens if those tokens are invested in an attempt to act against the network. Therefore, the PoS consensus creates an environment that encourages more honest transactions (assuming that most token holders will choose honest transactions). The downside of PoS is that it is more vulnerable to manipulation of token prices. The Ethereum community is very interested in the shift from PoW to PoS consensus algorithm, and research in this area is also very active. (Note: Ethereum 2.0 is an effort in this area. Many rules have been established, and Phase 0 will be officially launched at the end of this year.)
secondary title
Listening to the debate (and looking back at some of my past reading on these agreements), I can't help but think of a similar debate about the line in international affairs. In international affairs, there is a concept of "Realpolitik" developed in Germany in the 19th century. Realistic factors determine the relationship between countries.
This view holds that states coexist in a "state of nature" in which ideologies, values, and customs and norms are irrelevant or have little influence. As a philosophy, it works, is simple to understand, and is easy to implement.
In the absence of credible diplomacy, countries are more motivated to engage in an arms race, building stronger militaries with more advanced weapons to compete with each other. As countries that are prosperous but outdated in armaments will inevitably be trampled, resources will naturally shift from public goods such as schools and hospitals to armaments.
When a country is so strong that there is no challenger (hegemony), or when many countries are of equal strength, countries are in a stable period, and together present a peaceful and stalemate world (multipolar world), and wars are interspersed in history like punctuation marks between chapters.
image description
Towards the end of World War II, the Allies gathered in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, and set about developing an alternative. They said that this "individual war" dilemma has lasted too long, and an international organization system should be established to connect countries through financial and trade networks and establish mechanisms for discussion, supervision and dispute resolution. All countries in the world should turn hostility into friendship, and there should be no more wars.
This new system proved to be very effective. While it facilitated the concentration of global wealth in the hands of a few, it also succeeded in preventing all-out war between great powers, and, it is generally believed, the new system promoted the advancement of science, technology, culture, and quality of life for billions of people. improvement.
secondary title
Comparing these two systems for dealing with international affairs with the two consensus algorithms currently proposed in the blockchain world, and thinking about their similarity in solving problems, you will find more interesting things. In both different arenas we seek to bring about order among competing and potentially opposing parties.
The first method is to resort to force, and regard force as the spokesperson of resource control, organizational ability, and tradition of belief. This method is easy to understand and implement. But this approach is limited because it requires spending hard-earned energy on unproductive work. If you measure by "the basic process of life is to acquire and distribute energy", this approach must be suboptimal.
The second way is to try to create a more subtle system that enhances the connection on a spiritual level. Use this framework to build resilience against those who seek to influence outcomes through exploitation and extraction. This approach is more vulnerable to disruption than previous approaches, making it difficult to predict, detect, and respond to.
If a community (whether it is a cryptocurrency community or an international community) has the determination and the means to realize its vision, then this approach allows participants to connect with each other, level the playing field, and demonstrate results that not only reflect the goals of the system. properties and traits, and is able to run efficiently—doing work while consuming as little energy as possible. Although the risk of this method is higher, the possibility of return is also increased.
Cryptographic consensus and international relations — these two debates, essentially one debate.
We should take a moment further and look back in time to find another connection: the development of these debates and the development of human beings have a similar feature, and both develop complex minds from simple bodies over time.
The conflicting relationship between the two schools of thought is the same as the conflicting relationship between people's bodies and minds: on the one hand, people's spirits often have an adventurous quality, and we often wonder whether the body is all we need; On the other hand, the body is limited, but the spirit has such great promise.
Do we have the ability, vision, and perseverance to make the leap without getting lost?
text
