Another delegated proof of work vs DPoS comparison in reference to Byzantine fault tolerance and Sybil below.
|
|
\/
only POW provably solves the byzantine generals problem in the face of sybil attack
Delegated proof of work, which Bitcoin is, doesn't. It's not more fault tolerant than DPoS either. If 70% of the hash rate is in china owned by three pools, you have no way of knowing these pools aren't owned by the same person (sybil). The only way is to audit them yourself, which is the purpose of the voting mechanism in DPoS, to audit the block validators for sybil. The only difference is, the audit mechanism is built into the protocol of DPoS and excluded entirely from DPoW (delegated proof of work).
My argument here is basically:
<r0ach> you can't solve byzantine generals problem with a probabilistic model unless you've first solved sybil with a probabilistic model and Bitcoin doesn't do that
<r0ach> because there's no way of telling if all pools are owned by the same person, then it's not collusion or 51% attack, it's a sybil attack
<r0ach> since the essence of the byzantine generals problem is sybil attack, dealing with sybil comes first in the hierarchy before byzantine generals is discussed at all