<spirobel:kernal.eu> : i have a hard time wrapping my head around proof of work being permissionless being that it requires the permission of someone selling you a cpu and electricity. > <@gingeropolous> i have a hard time wrapping my head around proof of stake being permissionless being that it requires the permission of someone selling you monero.

<spirobel:kernal.eu> you could enshrine a pow faucet in the protocol to remove this limitation. It is besides the point tbh

<spirobel:kernal.eu> I agree with the general sentiment that proof of stake networks become quasi permissioned by setting stake requirements so high that it becomes prohibitive for the average person to run a node and participate in securing the network.

Why would there be a min stake req ?

<hbs:matrix.org> @spirobel:kernal.eu: The validator set size is a true concern if we want to maintain any censorship resistance

<antilt:we2.ee> tevador: I am aware of that. I look beyond 144. Qubic does not care too much about mining rewards ...

<antilt:we2.ee> incowgnito: because a large and changing number of validators is difficult to handle in practice

<spirobel:kernal.eu> incowgnito: incowgnito: a minimum stake is required for similar reasons to why we currently have to have restrictions around tor p2p nodes. the cost of having to have an ip address is large enough currently to make block list maintainable. (generating tor hidden service addresses would be too cheap)

Why would you need a block list for pos ?

Oh. I was assuming known stake amounts. Is this assumption false ?

Well, not quite. I am assuming that there is a fast function to tell that a stake is valid, and that its probability to be valid happens to be in relation to its amount.

But if there's a min stake, then such a (at least partial) view on amounts is already assumed.

<spirobel:kernal.eu> incowgnito: if the stake amount is very low, quasi nill. an attacker can spin up lots of nodes and let the misbehave.

As in... shitloads of stakes, all invalid, but you've got to test them ?

<spirobel:kernal.eu> its fair to assume known stake amounts. it adds too much complexity to hide this > <incowgnito> Oh. I was assuming known stake amounts. Is this assumption false ?

<antilt:we2.ee> for the "heaviest chain rule" (see CASPER FFG) > <incowgnito> Why would you need a block list for pos ?

<articmine> This concern about coin distribution is valid.

<articmine> As someone who was involved in the discussions regarding changing the emission curve back in 2014, I can say that the tail emission was paramount in the community decision to keep the existing emission curve.

<articmine> With POS one needs to have coins in order to get rewards so this becomes a serious concern.

<articmine> Then there is the current ability to privately obtain Monero by for example heating ones home in the winter. In a frigid totalitarian country this can be invaluable.

<elongated:matrix.org> @articmine: Is anyone proposing only pos ?

<syntheticbird> @elongated:matrix.org: some are objectively strongly arguing for it in #monero-lounge

#monero-research-lounge *