
Code your own Proof of Stake blockchain in Go - nosequeldeebee
https://medium.com/@mycoralhealth/code-your-own-proof-of-stake-blockchain-in-go-610cd99aa658
======
gtrubetskoy
The only problem here is that Proof-of-Work is the evolution of Proof-of-
Stake, not the other way around.

PoS is how Paxos and RAFT work, and it was described in Wei Dai's b-money in
1989 [1]. But it didn't work for an adversarial byzantine network, and so it
wasn't until Satoshi invented a Proof-of-Work based solution in 2008 that we
had a crypto-currency.

1\. [http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt](http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt)

    
    
      "Each server is required to deposit a certain amount of money in a special account to be used as potential fines or rewards for
      proof of misconduct."

~~~
api
PoS is also plutocratic isn't it? Money would always flow to those that
already have the largest stake. Economies already naturally do that, so also
coding it into the monetary system would double the exponent on the effect.
Winners take all, and are then the arbiters of all transactions.

~~~
ttt111222333
Money flows to everyone, just more goes to those with more money. However that
isn't as bad as it sounds. If you own 10% and someone owns 1%, after the money
has been given out you will still have 10% and they 1%. From a relative wealth
perspective it actually just maintains everyone's position in society, neither
benefiting nor disadvantaging anyone...

That's the spiel at least...

~~~
pdpi
If I have 10% and you have 1%, I might be able to keep 5% locked as my stake
and 5% liquid, where you need 0.9% liquid and can only lock 0.1%. What was a
10:1 ratio in capital becomes a 50:1 ratio after we each chunk some out for
liquidity.

------
everdev
Isn't the P2P feature what makes blockchain useful? I've seen many tutorials
to code a blockchain in 10min, but they leave out this seemingly vital piece.

It's like how to a SaaS tutorial without user authentication or payment
processing.

~~~
zaarn
Blockchains can be useful without P2P, notably when all actors in the chain
know eachother but don't trust eachother. In this case everyone can just
forward ports and hardcode nodes into a config.

------
cocktailpeanuts
I think it's a great thing that people are trying different approaches.

One factor is that a technology on its own doesn't create its success, but
it's also dependent on the sociological environment the technology is born
into.

This is why we see many technologies get hyped up and die off, just to come
back decades later to succeed. The success depends heavily on the context.

That said, just like gtrubetskoy said below, proof of work was the solution
that came after and solved all the seemingly impossible problems in an elegant
manner.

The reason I'm skeptical about most "proof of stake" fanboys is that they are
not even aware of all this history, and they also fail to realize the elegance
of proof of work.

If you think about it, "proof of stake" is a very natural and even an obvious
idea. I'm not saying the researchers who came up with proof of stake concept
didn't achieve much, I'm saying the "proof of work" is almost like an alchemy
compared to "proof of stake" because proof of stake is purely a system based
on social factors ("let's vote to make decisions!") whereas proof of work is
something not one person can easily wrap their head around.

And the craziest part is that this system has worked for a decade now. The
only reason we know this works is because it's worked for a decade. I'm pretty
sure Satoshi Nakamoto himself had no idea if it would work when he invented
the scheme.

Overall I do think that proof of work is beautiful piece of technology that
most people don't appreciate enough.

I run into many people just getting into "crypto" outright criticizing proof
of work and not even understanding how it actually works, which is a pity
because in their mind, proof of work is some stupid scheme that's like a
crappy MVP with all the shitty problems like global warming, etc., while
"proof of stake" is the clear future, and with a closed mindset like that you
can't create a true solution IMO.

~~~
gtrubetskoy
I definitely agree that PoW is very hard to understand because it is not a
computer thing, it's about the relationship between large number theory,
thermodynamics and statistics/probabilities.

I describe it to myself as a clock, I've written my thoughts down here, you
might find it interesting: [https://grisha.org/blog/2018/01/23/explaining-
proof-of-work/](https://grisha.org/blog/2018/01/23/explaining-proof-of-work/)

~~~
cocktailpeanuts
Wow that was a great post. Thanks for sharing. Yes I agree proof of "work" is
a misnomer and a red herring.

The work is just a means to an end which is "Time".

------
knowThySelfx
Is Hashgraph good? [http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/can-hashgraph-
su...](http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/can-hashgraph-succeed-
blockchain-as-the-technology-of-choice-for-
cryptocurrencies/article23348176.ece)

------
jtsiskin
How is this a valid PoS blockchain at all? Its just one centralized node
choosing the winner? What stops anyone from proposing a fake winner? How is
consensus reached if there were multiple nodes choosing winners?

