正在加载视频...
视频加载失败
Could Amazon be the only thing standing between Monero and a 51% attack? 👀 Flexa Co-Founder Tyler Spalding argues that PoW is “incredibly vulnerable” stating that if AWS allowed crypto mining, enough hash power could be rented to 51% attack Monero “within one click.” He goes even further, arguing... show more
63,809 次观看 • 25 天前 •via X (Twitter)
0 条评论
暂无评论
原始帖子的评论将显示在这里
!["I used to be a bitcoiner. The transition to a new store of value only happens once every 3,000 years. That's the main prize -- just focus on that. But [security] is the criteria that ultimately convinced me to flip from Bitcoin to ETH." "I have a higher degree of certainty that Ethereum will be around longer [than Bitcoin]. The reason for that is because Bitcoin relies on proof-of-work, which is less efficient than proof-of-stake and doesn't scale with the value of the network. And as the block subsidy of Bitcoin halves every four years, it is increasingly becoming more and more reliant on transaction fees to fund the security budget paid to miners." "If you look at [Bitcoin's] security budget right now, about 0.6% of revenue to miners is transaction fees... The problem with that is if Bitcoin becomes 'digital gold', flips gold, and becomes a $30 trillion asset, but it only costs $10-20 billion to attack it, that's too asymmetric." "You want the security budget to scale with the market cap, similar to how countries spend a % of their GDP on defense. The more valuable something is, the more you need to spend to protect it." "Ethereum, with the Merge, migrated to proof-of-stake, which is fundamentally more secure because it's less reliant on transaction fees and it scales with the value of the network. If 1/3rd of ETH is staked and then you need 1/3rd of those ETH to censor the network, you're looking at roughly 10% of the total market cap as the cost to attack the network." "So if Ethereum flips Bitcoin and gold and becomes a $30 trillion asset, it'll cost ~$3 trillion to attack the Ethereum network versus Bitcoin at like $10 billion." "The other aspect here is that as AI hyperscalers invest more and more in AI, proof-of-work becomes increasingly vulnerable because the cost to attack the Bitcoin network is starting to look close to the quarterly CapEx these hyperscalers are spending on their data centers." Full interview on Bankless with Vivek Raman discussing the new Etherealize "Productive Money" report below.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2046586653750243712/amplify_video_thumb/2046583093507596288/img/sLmiGfDhOzumzy-4.jpg)
![Vitalik Buterin explains why proof-of-stake is more secure than proof-of-work “I think proof of stake is very secure because to attack the system, you need to have basically as much stake as the rest of the network. Right now, for example, we have 5 million ETH staking, which means you have to come up with 5 million ETH and then join the network.” At the time of this writing, more than 37 million ETH are being staked, with 3 million ETH waiting to join via the validator queue. At today’s prices, that’s more than $80 billion of ETH someone would have to acquire to attack the network and revert finalized blocks, which is more than the cost of attacking even the Bitcoin network by some estimates. The other defense mechanism that proof-of-stake has that proof-of-work doesn’t is slashing, which makes Ethereum antifragile. Vitalik explains: “Recovering from attacks is much easier in proof-of-stake than proof-of-work. For many kinds of attacks you do against [the Ethereum] network, we have this concept of automatic slashing. In order to revert a finalized block, you basically have to have a big portion of your validators sign two conflicting messages. This is something where once these messages are on the network, you can go and prove ‘these people did it.’ So we have this feature in the protocol where you basically take all these people who provably misbehaved and you burn their coins.” Vitalik also acknowledges the possibility of censoring attacks, where if 1/3rd of validators refuse to attest, the chain can’t finalize. But, as he explains, Ethereum has a contingency plan for this as well: “Everyone who got censored would create a minority chain, and the community would have to do a soft fork. The would have to say, ‘this chain is clearly attacking us and this one is not attacking us, so we’re going to join this chain.’ Then what happens is, on that new chain, the attackers also lose a lot of coins. The difference between proof-of-stake and proof-of-work is that in a proof-of-stake system, you can identify specific participants — and this isn’t a human going in and saying ‘I don’t like you’. It’s all automated.” One last benefit of proof-of-stake is that security scales with the value of the network. As Vitalik put it five years ago, it is really relative security, and not absolute security, that matters: “The security needs of a thing have to be proportional to the size of that thing, because as a thing gets bigger, its enemies become bigger and more well-motivated. If BTC were 100x as big as it is today, the value from destroying it would be 100x higher, and the kinds of actors that would want to care about destroying it would be much bigger and scarier. This is also why countries of all sizes have roughly similarly sized militaries as a percentage of GDP. Hence, cost of attack divided by market cap really is the correct statistic to measure, and in the long run issuance-free PoW really does look not that good." Source: Lex Fridman (Jun 2021)](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2033256919708963120/amplify_video_thumb/2032853935665696768/img/axdHFCGiYcu2nux7.jpg)
