4:40 In fact it can withstand 51% attacks. So it can withstand attacks even higher than 51%. Without liveness, but it won’t lead to safety failures at that level.
0 votes
(0 unique)
· 0 satoshis
04:19 You and I don’t have to agree on who’s on the system, yeah of course we have to agree to, to some level, but we don’t have to precisely agree.
0 votes
(0 unique)
· 0 satoshis
04:04 There is no mining, you and I or anybody else could come in and they could become the Jihan Wu of, of this new system that we’re building.
Probably more of a request: the ability to _reply_ with a _poll_. After all, the poll will still be visible for everyone, but the poll then gets a historical reference.
I heard that too. I believe what Emin meant by no mining is no conventional mining i.e. "brute-force solve a difficult puzzle", it needs far less energy to "interview 5 nodes".
Apparently PoW should still be in there. Something was "missing in translation" here...
I had another offer before that I accepted only after 3 hours have passed. So probably it was not about expiry, and was something else that happened somewhere along the way. 😁
Emin Gün Sirer talks about the 3 different types of consensus protocols, including an exciting new one released by an anonymous group last year called Avalanche
Watch here:
---
---
Maybe you can convey a follow-up question to Emin? If Avalanche needs low hashing power, what is stopping me from posing as 100,000 individuals, effectively carrying out a 51% attack?
Now that you mentioned it, I think it is just as susceptible to 51% attacks, and such attack may become easier to deploy because participation no longer requires expensive power.
If that's the case, hopefully that is only a minor setback that can be ironed out quickly.