Solana’s proof-of-history is more riskier than 51% attack on Proof-of-work?

ICP founder noted an issue with Solana protocol, which may be a big issue if that is true. 

Solana is the 7th ranked Crypto asset of this industry and this crypto blockchain is known for its high scalability-based transactions, which is impossible for every other blockchain network at present. However, the Solana protocol is legendary in terms of adoption for microtransactions but still, some questions exist about the decentralization of the network. 

On 3 February Dominic Williams, Founder & Chief Scientist at DFINITY Foundation, shared his point of view on the Solana protocol and indirectly claimed that Solana is trying to facilitate huge numbers of live transactions with a total minimum contribution of 33% of node support. 

Through the tweet, Dominic claimed that if all of his analysis about the Solana protocol is right then Solana is an insecure and centralized network. 

      -----Cryptonews AD----->>>  

Sign up for a Bybit account and claim exclusive rewards from the Bybit referral program! Plus, claim up to 6,045 USDT bonus at . https://www.bybit.com/invite?ref=PAR8BE

  <<<-----Cryptonews AD-----    

 

Solana security hole needs fixing asap?

Seems their consensus proceeds with only 33% of the nodes

Hard math proofs show you need 66%+ for safety. No ifs no buts

Possibilities: 1) is insecure, 2) is centralized, or 3) they've broken Computer Science (unlikely) pic.twitter.com/yqfW3QnfeK

— dom.icp ∞ (@dominic_w) February 3, 2022

Another person responded to this tweet of Dominic and reminded the past statement by one of the VCs of Solana, who said that speed of transactions is much more important than security.

In response, Dominic explained all about the Proof-of-history system and said that under such situations 33% validators may support head A and another 67% to head Bout of the fork A & B, and in that situation, it may go through the reverse consensus.

“Unless “PoH” Proof-of-History allows the first 33% to prove that they “reached consensus first” by providing an incorruptible decentralized hashing clock. But…

1. PoH is pseudoscience

2. What if the other 67% reached “consensus” on B simultaneously madness.”

Can we find 1 serious cryptographer, or distributed computing scientist, who will stake their name behind Proof-of-History?

Unsafe pseudo science, or breakthrough…?

For the sake of blockchain, would be great to get this sorted out.https://t.co/5hn9tF5fm7

— dom.icp ∞ (@dominic_w) February 3, 2022

Through the tweet thread, DFINITY Founder confirmed that the statement of one of the VCs, that the team is inclined to facilitate faster transactions not to care about security, was true and we can’t consider his statements as a personal opinion.

Read also: Nike files lawsuit against StockX’ NFTs efforts

Solana’s proof-of-history is more riskier than 51% attack on Proof-of-work?

 

https://bitcoinik.com/solanas-proof-of-history-is-more-riskier-than-51-attack-on-proof-of-work/feed/

https://bitcoinik.com/solanas-proof-of-history-is-more-riskier-than-51-attack-on-proof-of-work/feed/

Don’t miss a thing, sign up for our newsletter