pull down to refresh

Extract:
“Proof of Work removes some opportunities for gaining an edge in arbitraging a system, because it makes the next block source random. This randomness makes it hard to figure out who to stalk to get the next block. It could be coming from anywhere.
Centralized systems on the other hand have a lot of issues with mitigating MEV. They’re in one place and the rules about how they operate are well known. It’s interesting to see the randomness re-added back to a centralized system, but pushed onto being the burden of the clients rather than the server’s. Since you’re not randomizing the block source, the only way out is to randomize the source’s client connections. And it seems like the best way to do a random lottery is to involve proof of work.”
reply
Proof of Work removes some opportunities for gaining an edge in arbitraging a system, because it makes the next block source random. This randomness makes it hard to figure out who to stalk to get the next block. It could be coming from anywhere.
Disingenuous. The next block is random but e.g. owning exactly 1% of hashing power will over a year turn out to exactly 1% of blocks. I bet that's misleading on purpose.
reply
Did you misunderstand? That's niftynei's text and she's not criticizing PoW, the point is that MEV is harder to achieve in a standard bitcoin-style PoW based "election" of next block producer, compared with something centralized or simple round robin etc.
(Iirc this is a problem they try to address in some proof of stake algos - if anyone can see in advance which party will be the next block producer, it leads to undesirable outcomes.)
reply
reinventing the wheel ftw.
soon ethereum will also begin to claim its store of value and sound money and the whole smart contract thing is just supposed to happen off chain
reply
never, would be to big of an admission that pos was a mistake. devs would never go for it.
reply
Say it ain’t so
reply
Bitcoin or GTFO
reply
Doubt it
reply