<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Interactive Proof-of-stake · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1601.00275/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1601.00275/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Interactive Proof-of-stake — mentioned by kushti</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10849304</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1601.00275:10849304</guid><pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2016 08:34:20 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Blockchain shouldn&amp;#x27;t include Proof-of-Work. Proof-of-Retrievability at least provides the same properties(paper: http://cs.umd.edu/~amiller/permacoin.pdf impl: https://github.com/ScorexProject/Scorex-Lagonaki/tree/master... ). And Proof-of-Stake also could do the same under some assumptions(please see a new paper of mine http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.00275 ). Formal model of a lottery with anti-Sybil identity tools is definitely needed to shape borders.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1601.00275/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CR</category></item></channel></rss>
