From the creation of Cointelegraph to the mainstream and the development of a completely new blockchain, it is in the minds of blockchain inventors. In previous sections, Andrew Levin of Coinos discussed some of the key issues he has been trying to address since then, and noted three “crises” that are blocking blockchain adoption: upgrades, scaling, and management. This series focuses on the consensus algorithm: the first part is about proof of work, the second part is about proof, and the third part is about combustion.
In the first article in the series, I studied Workflow (PoW), the OG consensus algorithm, and explained how it works for decentralization and why it is ineffective. In the second article, I looked at the production to find out that the cost of centralized networks is lower than the case that proves the work, and why it strengthens the Miner, raises complex and moral doubts. explosion conditions and prevention of “exchange attacks”.
In this article, I explain the third consensus algorithm, which was introduced about a year after its approval, but for reasons that need to be understood, it has never been implemented as a consensus algorithm in a general-purpose blockchain. Because not now.
Confirmation of work
As explained in the first article, theoretically, players compete to consolidate operations by merging them into blocks corresponding to the blocks of operations created by other players. Bitcoin (BTC) works by giving more weight to man-made blocks, perhaps they “prove” by “working”.
Because these people spend money to buy equipment and make blocks, it is easier to punish them because they are already punished. Proof works radically differently, which leads to the main theoretical conclusions of the game.
Instead of forcing block producers to transfer capital, they should sacrifice capital liquidity in order to receive compensation for the block, to receive compensation for the block, to receive compensation for the block. The problem is that network security is compromised, as an attacker has to take and share only 51% of the platform’s base currency to manage the network.
To prevent this, PoS systems need to implement sophisticated systems designed to “hack” gifts from user accounts that add computing benefits to the network, create legitimate ethical issues, and only work if the attacker can’t get 51%. marking. Implementing these explosive situations is not important, so many projects with proof of concept like Solana started with decentralized solutions and why other projects like Ethereum 2.0 (Eth2)? Implementing PoS takes a long time. A typical solution is to make a significant contribution to the fund, which can identify a bad actor and reduce his rewards.
This is especially problematic in a world of centralized exchanges involving stocks, which can handle more than 51% of any token delivery, minimizing the cost of an attack. In fact, it is one of the most widely used blockchains in the world in recent history, valued at about $ 2 billion:
The Holy Grail Consensus
As I said at the end of the previous article, in this article we will talk about how to ensure the hypothetical question of whether there is a “best solution in the world”, decentralization and job security. efficiency. Today we report that our white paper is on fire. In this white paper, we prove that combustion is the best solution for both worlds.
In 2012, a year after the proof, Ian Stewart proposed proof of combustion through a mental experiment to compare the difference between work and proof. In our opinion, he accidentally found the “sacred shell” of consensus algorithms, which disappeared in the sand of time, mainly due to historical coincidences. As Ian Stewart noted:
“I thought it would be interesting to come up with an example of the contradiction between two absolute, naked and identical views. Yes, there is: a burning currency!”