Any computer system wants to be free from the possibility of hacker attacks, especially if the service is related to money.
So, the main problem is: proof of stake is safer than proof of work?
Experts are worried about it, and there are several skeptics in the community.
Using a Proof-of-Work system, bad actors are cut out thanks to technological and economic disincentives.
In fact, programming an attack to a PoW network is very expensive, and you would need more money than you can be able to steal.
Instead, the underlying PoS algorithm must be as bulletproof as possible because, without especially penalties, a proof of stake-based network could be cheaper to attack.
To solve this issue, Buterin created the Casper protocol, designing an algorithm that can use the set some circumstances under which a bad validator might lose their deposit.
He explained: “Economic finality is accomplished in Casper by requiring validators to submit deposits to participate, and taking away their deposits if the protocol determines that they acted in some way that violates some set of rules (‘slashing conditions’).”
Slashing conditions refer to the circumstances above or laws that a user is not supposed to break.
Topic: Is POW safer than POS ? (Read 117 times)
Jump to: