Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

he wrote

> The Rube Goldberg of PoW isn't just for show, it's a protection from Sybil attack

he cherry picked PoW

no, Nakamoto-style consensus is not the same thing as PoW, or even PoW+LCR, not even the same thing as Bitcoin consensus.

Nakamoto-style consensus simply means that we're doing a leader election, and the leader does the transaction validation (aka mining a block in Bitcoin-speak).

The novelty of Nakamoto-style consensus is how we're doing this leader election, i.e. using PoW, PoW+LCR, PoS, PoET, PoA, Proof-of-X, etc.



> Nakamoto-style consensus is not the same thing as PoW, or even PoW+LCR

It is PoW + LCR. I refer you to Roughgarden, Foundations of Blockchains, Lectures #9: Permissionless Consensus and Proof-of-Work, item 5:

https://timroughgarden.github.io/fob21/l/l9.pdf


> 5. Nakamoto consensus refers to the pairing of longest-chain consensus with proof-of-work sybil-resistance.

> 6. Lecture 8 shows that the only ingredient missing from a permissionless version of longest-chain consensus with provable consistency and liveness guarantees is a permissionless node selection subroutine that selects honest nodes more frequently than Byzantine ones.

Fair enough, this is just one definition. There are others. Some even piling the entire bitcoin protocol under Nakamoto Consensus umbrella (including 21M BTC cap).

I was talking about Nakamoto-style Consensus not specific to Bitcoin, more like in (6).




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: