Author Topic: POS vs. DPOS  (Read 8062 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bytemaster

Regular POS:   Bad Share Holders can still mess with the system *some* of the time.
DPOS:  Bad Shareholders have very little influence over operation of the network assuming the majority are not deceived.

DPOS: Can be attacked by deception of majority, but easily fixed with a quick hard-fork to new delegates.
POS: Can be attacked by deception of majority (leased forging) or by one large actor. 

Assuming large actors are benevolent I guess the systems are equal... but DPOS provides an easier way to reach consensus on change where as large owners effectively control regular POS.   

POS: Controlled by large minority share holders
DPOS: Controlled by majority of shareholders, large minorities have influence but are not sufficient to control.

POS: effectively turns into DPOS in practice, DPOS just streamlines the system
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
Would you agree?

Normal POS:
Contra:
- With competitive tx fees: Gets centralized with those that have a big stake. More centralized than DPOS in the end (if pay back delegates do not flourish).
- [crossed out] If not delegation is not an option, which is assumed here in order to analyze the two different types of systems, a lot of stake (!) has to be online which is pretty insecure. Is that still correct or can you lease (with NXT) to yourself? <- based on this https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/nxt-pos-vs-bitshares-dpos/msg70367/#msg70367 I would cross out this disadvantage. Further verification would be good though.

DPOS:
Contra:
- Delegates do not have the same interest in the success of the system as when shareholders = forgers.
- An attacker could put up 52 delegates and let them gain the trust of shareholders over a long time and then perform one big attack after which he would be out. This would be cheaper than buying 51 % of the stake but maybe not possible at all.

Further pros and cons?

Higher tx volume and scales better is not an argument because the few forgers with non delegated POS could also have expensive, reliable forging servers and with transparent forging it is known in advance who produces the next block like with DPOS.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2014, 11:49:45 pm by delulo »