ಟ್ವೀಟ್‌ಗಳು

	Ari Paul @AriDavidPaul	4 ಗಂ.
	ಇವರಿಗೆ ಪ್ರತಿಕ್ರಿಯಿಸಲಾಗುತ್ತಿದೆ @pyskell @eric_lombrozo ಮತ್ತು 2 ಇತರರು Are you currently able to profit from broken DPoS algorithms?
	ಸಂವಾದವನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ ·

	Ari Paul @AriDavidPaul	4 ಗಂ.
	ಇವರಿಗೆ ಪ್ರತಿಕ್ರಿಯಿಸಲಾಗುತ್ತಿದೆ @ercwl @alonsovalenciav @eric_lombrozo This has nothing to do with what I wrote. I’m not talking about trusting math. You’re trusting people. What is your source for determining how much accumulated difficulty Bitcoin should have today versus 2 years ago? How does your method distinguish BTC from recent fork BTCari
	ಸಂವಾದವನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ ·

	Ari Paul @AriDavidPaul	4 ಗಂ.
	ಇವರಿಗೆ ಪ್ರತಿಕ್ರಿಯಿಸಲಾಗುತ್ತಿದೆ @pyskell @eric_lombrozo ಮತ್ತು 2 ಇತರರು PoW can use many different algorithms. SHA256 is one choice. It might eventually be broken as other similar algorithms have been.
	ಸಂವಾದವನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ ·

	Ari Paul @AriDavidPaul	4 ಗಂ.
	ಇವರಿಗೆ ಪ್ರತಿಕ್ರಿಯಿಸಲಾಗುತ್ತಿದೆ @CGale20 But “their tribe” is now a tribe of opinions, not of extended family as the word “tribe” connoted in the past.
	ಸಂವಾದವನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ ·

	Ari Paul @AriDavidPaul	4 ಗಂ.
	ಇವರಿಗೆ ಪ್ರತಿಕ್ರಿಯಿಸಲಾಗುತ್ತಿದೆ @ercwl @alonsovalenciav @eric_lombrozo 2/ also, everything you wrote about all you need to know is a statement based on knowledge you have that you got from somewhere. You’re “trusting” a mix of sources for that info.
	ಸಂವಾದವನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ ·

	Ari Paul @AriDavidPaul	4 ಗಂ.
	ಇವರಿಗೆ ಪ್ರತಿಕ್ರಿಯಿಸಲಾಗುತ್ತಿದೆ @eric_lombrozo @ercwl @alonsovalenciav 2/ I know this seems silly, because we all “know” these things so easily and with such confidence. The point is that the same can apply in response to long range attack to a lesser degree.
	ಸಂವಾದವನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ ·

	Ari Paul @AriDavidPaul	4 ಗಂ.
	ಇವರಿಗೆ ಪ್ರತಿಕ್ರಿಯಿಸಲಾಗುತ್ತಿದೆ @eric_lombrozo @ercwl @alonsovalenciav But check against what. We all “know” that Bitcoin has a 21 million coin limit and that mainnet launched in early 2009. How do we know that? Why can’t we “know” similar things about the “valid” PoS network?
	ಸಂವಾದವನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ ·

	Ari Paul @AriDavidPaul	4 ಗಂ.
	ಇವರಿಗೆ ಪ್ರತಿಕ್ರಿಯಿಸಲಾಗುತ್ತಿದೆ @alonsovalenciav @eric_lombrozo Extremely. I’m spending many hundreds of hours to get a B level understanding, relying heavily on top experts.
	ಸಂವಾದವನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ ·

	Ari Paul @AriDavidPaul	4 ಗಂ.
	ಇವರಿಗೆ ಪ್ರತಿಕ್ರಿಯಿಸಲಾಗುತ್ತಿದೆ @sashandiggers @alonsovalenciav @eric_lombrozo This is the point. You’re sourcing research from trusted sources. Take an extreme, hyperbolic example, let’s imagine Satoshi, Core team, and most “thought leaders” are all NSA employees. They’re not, but the point is you’re always relying on third parties.
	ಸಂವಾದವನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ ·

	Ari Paul @AriDavidPaul	4 ಗಂ.
	ಇವರಿಗೆ ಪ್ರತಿಕ್ರಿಯಿಸಲಾಗುತ್ತಿದೆ @ercwl @alonsovalenciav @eric_lombrozo This only confirms that you’re on some chain with a lot of work, not that it’s a network that anyone else uses, that was created by Satoshi, is Bitcoin, has economic value, etc etc. could be a recent fork.
	ಸಂವಾದವನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ ·

	Ari Paul @AriDavidPaul	5 ಗಂ.
	ಇವರಿಗೆ ಪ್ರತಿಕ್ರಿಯಿಸಲಾಗುತ್ತಿದೆ @alonsovalenciav @eric_lombrozo How does a person understand anything about a network? Who are they trusting for the information behind that understanding? How do you even know you’re reading the real white paper? Trust (and thus vulnerabilities) are everywhere.
	ಸಂವಾದವನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ ·

	Ari Paul @AriDavidPaul	5 ಗಂ.
	ಇವರಿಗೆ ಪ್ರತಿಕ್ರಿಯಿಸಲಾಗುತ್ತಿದೆ @Fiskantes @eric_lombrozo Agreed. Butbwe don’t declare Bitcoin worthless just because it has clear vulnerabilities (like ongoing reorganization attacks by entity with 51% hashpower or indirectly via ASIC backdoors.) need to contrast vulnerabilities and estimate practical risk.
	ಸಂವಾದವನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ ·

	Ari Paul @AriDavidPaul	5 ಗಂ.
	ಇವರಿಗೆ ಪ್ರತಿಕ್ರಿಯಿಸಲಾಗುತ್ತಿದೆ @eric_lombrozo Why is that relevant to a discussion of game theory vulnerabilities? Are you saying it’s a bad example because the concentrated ownership mitigates things like long range attack? I agree that Ripple owning 70% of XRP makes some types of attack redundant. Maybe Steem is better.
	ಸಂವಾದವನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ ·

	Ari Paul @AriDavidPaul	5 ಗಂ.
	ಇವರಿಗೆ ಪ್ರತಿಕ್ರಿಯಿಸಲಾಗುತ್ತಿದೆ @eric_lombrozo 3/ in both cases except in extreme adversarial conditions (like state actors spreading disinformation, co-opting community leaders etc), a user can figure out which network they want to participate in.
	ಸಂವಾದವನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ ·

	Ari Paul @AriDavidPaul	5 ಗಂ.
	ಇವರಿಗೆ ಪ್ರತಿಕ್ರಿಯಿಸಲಾಗುತ್ತಿದೆ @eric_lombrozo 2/ and that with PoS you have no equivalent longest chain to trust. But my point is how does someone even know what Bitcoin’s consensus rules are in the simplest terms or what network they should be on? The answer seems trivial, but it is for PoS too.
	ಸಂವಾದವನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ ·

	Ari Paul @AriDavidPaul	5 ಗಂ.
	ಇವರಿಗೆ ಪ್ರತಿಕ್ರಿಯಿಸಲಾಗುತ್ತಿದೆ @eric_lombrozo Wasn’t referring to that. A common argument is that with PoW someone new to network (or who has been disconnected for years) can identify longest chain.
	ಸಂವಾದವನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ ·

	Ari Paul @AriDavidPaul	6 ಗಂ.
	ಇವರಿಗೆ ಪ್ರತಿಕ್ರಿಯಿಸಲಾಗುತ್ತಿದೆ @eric_lombrozo 3/ for example, with BTC, you have to have a trusted original source for consensus rules and client code. In practice, this is extremely similar to the long range attack vulnerability of PoS.
	ಸಂವಾದವನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ ·

	Ari Paul @AriDavidPaul	6 ಗಂ.
	ಇವರಿಗೆ ಪ್ರತಿಕ್ರಿಯಿಸಲಾಗುತ್ತಿದೆ @eric_lombrozo 2/ will send you a draft when I complete, would love to debunk my own ideas. I’m not making any absolute assertions, rather that some vulnerabilities in DPoS and PoS are smaller than alleged for practical reasons.
	ಸಂವಾದವನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ ·

	Ari Paul @AriDavidPaul	6 ಗಂ.
	ಇವರಿಗೆ ಪ್ರತಿಕ್ರಿಯಿಸಲಾಗುತ್ತಿದೆ @eric_lombrozo This is a very complex discussion (working on a loonngggg essay) but, let’s take, say Ripple for example. Plenty of clear game theory vulnerabilities, but PoW has plenty as well. In practice, I think many vulnerabilities, like long range attack are mostly academic.
	ಸಂವಾದವನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ ·

	Ari Paul @AriDavidPaul	6 ಗಂ.
	ಇವರಿಗೆ ಪ್ರತಿಕ್ರಿಯಿಸಲಾಗುತ್ತಿದೆ @MweneChanga @TimBichara No, it’s tautological. Religions require faith by their own definition. It’s not an insult. You can’t reason your way to the correct religion or it wouldn’t be a religion.
	ಸಂವಾದವನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ ·