PoW and PoS Observation


#1

PoW works nicely in p2p settings, from small clusters to Internet scale. However, at Internet scale over a long period of time not clear sustainable model.

PoS not suited for small p2p settings below some monetary threshold t. At Internet scale threshold t becomes easily surpassed, just need to ensure a relatively “fair” distribution.

Peercoin does PoS consensus with PoW distribution.

2nd layer solution could be PoW consensus (PrimeCoin 1 minute blocks) with periodic PoS blocks as anchors for proof of ordering.

Comments?


#2

If your short-range consensus is PoW, then over a long period of time the unsustainability will generate the possibility for double spends and network manipulation. For example, a political movement that has >50% miners collude against certain holders of the coin.

If your long-range consensus is PoS, then you run the risk of someone forging a similar chain in private (for example, getting control of the stake modifier) and causing a deep reorg.

Having PoS as the main consensus mechanism with PoW injecting entropy as Peercoin already is is a fairly well-balanced approach.


#3

What about atomic swap between Primecoin and Peercoin, similar to Bitcoin and Litecoin? Technically what makes Litecoin superior to Primecoin? Litecoin just has better marketing and more active developers.