Row 15799

Row ID: 15799 | Dataset Entry | Axioma AXP Content Repository

Content Data

This page contains data entry 15799 from the Axioma AXP content repository. The structured data below represents the complete record for this entry.

>Full nodes != partial nodes

For clarification, *passive* nodes are full nodes. The differential is whether a node merely runs the consensus rules against blocks it receives (passive) versus creating blocks. The issue with having very few active block creators is that it's a small group, that small group can be coerced or infiltrated. Passive nodes in PoW literally don't have the means to become block creators, at least not in a short timescale. This means PoW has a high risk of central capture, and the very thing you don't want to happen as a user namely

>no one person or groups of people can make more gold appear

is the exact scenario that will happen, with just a dozen parties in control of practically all block production.

PoS on the other hand is easier for anyone to participate in, and therefore remains far more decentralised and robust.

The problem with these discussions is PoW advocates talk theory about imaginary concerns with PoS, whereas when you actually look at facts, like the number of entities it actually takes to make a protocol change, PoS systems are actually well ahead.

FieldValue
text >Full nodes != partial nodes For clarification, *passive* nodes are full nodes. The differential is whether a node merely runs the consensus rules against blocks it receives (passive) versus creating blocks. The issue with having very few active block creators is that it's a small group, that small group can be coerced or infiltrated. Passive nodes in PoW literally don't have the means to become block creators, at least not in a short timescale. This means PoW has a high risk of central cap…
label r/cryptocurrency
dataType comment
communityName r/CryptoCurrency
datetime 2024-05-20
username_encoded Z0FBQUFBQm5Lakw4bkYxNnM4bHFocmRzcW52R2t5T2lRallpdFZOZWFFZkxMdXBxWE1HNi1nWEFvV0ZWZm96UDlfb0ozbUYyMDltZnNBdFVkcG5ocGxFV2xMdGdkejN2QlE9PQ==
url_encoded Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak9MakVjRnk3bkN5NldkM3NFUXNPd3J6ekVNRS1DM3gxZ2E0MXl6Y2RWRFZSZWgtNG11YjJERXE1dEJLSGNZb0pLaDlrMXluNUszMXVzWFJhMzB5MzR0M25vbEdjN0N6Vy1HNmdPZmhFbjhxM3hLbElKcXR0WmhPN2k3ZTUzb0wxYWRzMTJ0SnlELW92WUNibFVRX29CaE9sTU9SMlVyMUVDSWVDdmpwb1pvc1hQWW1FVGNSakZGeEVYSHMwN0R5MDZaMVdIQVV3RGtHV1J3Q2hKeDFFbWF0THlPWjhLb3VMbTNOM29mNVpJVEJsaz0=

Raw Record

{
  "text": ">Full nodes != partial nodes\n\nFor clarification, *passive* nodes are full nodes.  The differential is whether a node merely runs the consensus rules against blocks it receives (passive) versus creating blocks.  The issue with having very few active block creators is that it's a small group, that small group can be coerced or infiltrated.  Passive nodes in PoW literally don't have the means to become block creators, at least not in a short timescale.  This means PoW has a high risk of central capture, and the very thing you don't want to happen as a user namely\n\n>no one person or groups of people can make more gold appear\n\nis the exact scenario that will happen, with just a dozen parties in control of practically all block production.\n\nPoS on the other hand is easier for anyone to participate in, and therefore remains far more decentralised and robust.\n\nThe problem with these discussions is PoW advocates talk theory about imaginary concerns with PoS, whereas when you actually look at facts, like the number of entities it actually takes to make a protocol change, PoS systems are actually well ahead.",
  "label": "r/cryptocurrency",
  "dataType": "comment",
  "communityName": "r/CryptoCurrency",
  "datetime": "2024-05-20",
  "username_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5Lakw4bkYxNnM4bHFocmRzcW52R2t5T2lRallpdFZOZWFFZkxMdXBxWE1HNi1nWEFvV0ZWZm96UDlfb0ozbUYyMDltZnNBdFVkcG5ocGxFV2xMdGdkejN2QlE9PQ==",
  "url_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak9MakVjRnk3bkN5NldkM3NFUXNPd3J6ekVNRS1DM3gxZ2E0MXl6Y2RWRFZSZWgtNG11YjJERXE1dEJLSGNZb0pLaDlrMXluNUszMXVzWFJhMzB5MzR0M25vbEdjN0N6Vy1HNmdPZmhFbjhxM3hLbElKcXR0WmhPN2k3ZTUzb0wxYWRzMTJ0SnlELW92WUNibFVRX29CaE9sTU9SMlVyMUVDSWVDdmpwb1pvc1hQWW1FVGNSakZGeEVYSHMwN0R5MDZaMVdIQVV3RGtHV1J3Q2hKeDFFbWF0THlPWjhLb3VMbTNOM29mNVpJVEJsaz0="
}
Explore Dataset Explore Row

Entry Information