Combining GHOST and Casper · HackerPapers discussions

Combining GHOST and Casper — mentioned by Jasper_

Fri, 12 Aug 2022 16:20:50 GMT

Do you have any explanations of proof of stake? I've tried to read https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/consensus-mechanisms... and https://arxiv.org/pdf/2003.03052.pdf but I feel they're intentionally obfuscated. I understand proof of work very well. I tried reading the Tezos proof-of-stake scheme [0], but it seems like it has some very obvious holes that leave security gaps wide open (namely, once you get to somewhere around 50%, probably less, you can completely predict and control the PRNG outputs, giving you full capture of the network), which makes me feel like I still don't quite…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Combining GHOST and Casper — mentioned by DennisP

Thu, 11 Aug 2022 21:14:36 GMT

If you really want to dig in, here are the key papers on the PoS algorithm: https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.09437 https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.03052 To learn about the sharding plan and various other stuff in the roadmap, this is a great technical overview: https://members.delphidigital.io/reports/the-hitchhikers-gui...

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Combining GHOST and Casper — mentioned by 676234e117

Tue, 02 Aug 2022 22:36:47 GMT

If you want more details you can always read the Gasper paper[1], the spec[2], or client code. It is complex to somebody not familiar with consensus and blockchain execution, but you might say that about any modern engineering. PoW is undoubtedly simpler but also exponentially more environmentally destructive. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.03052 [2] https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/blob/dev/specs/p...

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Combining GHOST and Casper — mentioned by DennisP

Tue, 27 Apr 2021 19:56:58 GMT

> if over 1/3 of the staked coins are malicious So now you've escalated the attack to be a 33% staker, which I don't think you'd mentioned before. I'll note that 33% of stake is likely to cost more than 50% of mining hardware, and certainly would at the high levels of staking you're concerned about. > The system doesn't know how many distinct validators exist Each validator has 32 ETH. If you want to stake more, then you run more validators. The system does continue running with a split chain, each side apply the leak to the other side. Seems to me if the network reconnects, the side with the…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Combining GHOST and Casper — mentioned by mratsim

Sun, 18 Apr 2021 20:53:57 GMT

It's a relevant answer to your personal attack "I don't think you've studied how the attack would work." My job is literally implementing proof-of-stake securely. Also when I work and implement an algorithm, I provide references and sources, which my PR is. > The coordinated bribery attack can be done by having people stake on a different chain until a majority is reached and then softfork and slash the minority. Changing the vote is a slashable offense in the Gasper paper (cited in my PR). https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.03052 A change of vote will be ignored and the validator will be deemed…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Combining GHOST and Casper — mentioned by DennisP

Tue, 02 Mar 2021 16:45:17 GMT

Here are the two papers on Casper: Casper the Friendly Finality Gadget: https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.09437 Combining GHOST and Casper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.03052 A very simple summary is that it's a fairly traditional consensus protocol, in which if anyone breaks the rules it's possible to prove who did it and penalize them by burning their stake. It achieves scale by using aggregated signatures.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Combining GHOST and Casper — mentioned by DennisP

Fri, 19 Feb 2021 11:28:27 GMT

Shard execution isn't necessary for migrating to proof-of-stake. The PoS migration just links a single EVM to the beacon chain; that's enough to remove PoW, i.e. the main concern in this discussion about GPUs. Around the same time is the migration to data sharding, which multiplies data storage by 23X initially. That's without code execution on the shards. Zkrollups in production now do the execution off-chain. On chain, you store compressed state data and a compact proof that everything executed correctly. That's good for a couple thousand tx/sec today, and 23X that after data sharding.…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.