RE: “due to the anchor-to-iceberg problem inherent in the design.”

xxxxxxxx <xxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

Perfect description of the protocol.

Thank you.

Ersin Taskin <xxxxx@gmail.com>

Jun 26, 2018, 9:38 AM

to xxxxxx

You are welcome.

From a previous post of mine

QUOTE

Pow, pos, dpos etc. all have the same problem when it comes to security. When you are in the ocean, you cannot anchor to something made of or convertible to water. If you anchor to an iceberg, the attackers just melt it. In a financial system, you cannot anchor to anything made of or convertible to money. Pos, pow, etc suffer because stake is made of money, electricity is convertible to money. So all the cryptocurrencies are vulnerable to a super-rational attack involving enough stake/power.

UNQUOTE

Anchoring to an iceberg is OK in most cases as long as you know your security boundary. You are defenseless against a powerful system who can and may want to melt the iceberg down. Claiming that you will disrupt that system and thus making it hostile does not sound rational. I understand some say so due to historical reasons. Instead, we should claim we will co-evolve with the current financial system. We don’t need to be hostile anymore. We are great on our own, and great is kind/open.

Regards