TheDinarian
News • Business • Investing & Finance
đŸ’„An Elegant Approach to ConsensusđŸ’„
Stefan Thomas @justmoon CEO and founder of Coil, co-creator of Interledger, and former CTO of Ripple
December 16, 2022
post photo preview

It’s the age-old debate between Proof of Work and Proof of Stake, brought back to the forefront of people’s minds by Ethereum's successful merge back in September.

The critiques of both are well documented. One side will point to the fact that Bitcoin consumes energy at a significant scale. Others will highlight Ethereum’s new realities when it comes to concentration of power. Post merge, Lido plus three of the largest exchanges control over 50% of staked ETH.

Neither solves for governance, evidenced by the fact that both Bitcoin and Ethereum manage governance off-chain.

In this piece, I’ll argue that there’s a more direct solution; one that holds advantages over Proof of Work and Proof of Stake in terms of energy use and governance controls.

What’s neat is that this solution is based on the already existing, informal process that underlies both Proof of Work and Proof of Stake—and any other consensus mechanism for that matter.

That’s because consensus is something that humans do naturally and intuitively all the time. We can formalize that process and automate some of the more tedious parts. This is how we get to a foundational form of consensus without a lot of extra steps.

Proof of Work: How we got here

Decentralized, anonymous ledgers all face the same challenge. In designing a system that allows anyone to participate, you need a way to decide between equally valid ledgers to ensure that everyone stays in agreement. The obvious answer is some kind of voting mechanism. But as with any fair and equitable voting mechanism, you need to prevent any single person or entity from having more votes than they should.

One way to frame this is that the problem we’re trying to solve is a form of digital democracy.

Proof of Work’s approach requires participants to contribute computing power or hashing to the system. We can think of miners "voting" with their computing power by choosing one of the valid blockchains and attempting to extend it. After all, you can’t fake computing power. And as the value of the system grows and competition for computing power intensifies, the cost of outvoting the rest of the system goes up along with it.

That’s how we achieve consensus anonymously—Proof of Work in a nutshell.

Of course, computational power is essentially a proxy for energy consumption, and the last thing the world needs at the moment is wasted energy. We can minimize waste by using stranded or surplus energy but there is no way around the fact that any computer doing proof-of-work could always be doing useful calculations instead.

The last point I’ll make here is on governance. In the early days of Bitcoin, some protocol changes were indeed voted on and decided by miners. But that approach came to a head during the debate around block size and scalability, what Coindesk, at the time, described as a “constitutional crisis.” In some contexts, miners’ incentives aren’t aligned with the rest of the network. In the context of block size for example, miners prefer smaller blocks to force users to pay them higher fees.

Naturally, the community didn’t take that lying down and turned to extra-protocol forms of governance as a response as well as hard forks. Eventually, this put enough pressure on miners such that a compromise was reached. The point is that Bitcoin isn't governed purely by proof-of-work. Important strategic decisions are made through a political process outside of the protocol and not simply by the majority of miners.

Given these limitations, there has always been interest in potential alternatives to Proof of Work.

Proof of Stake: The popular alternative

If we think about consensus mechanisms as forms of democracy, then Proof of Stake would be a plutocracy. You might call it Proof of Wealth.

Instead of computing power, votes in a Proof of Stake system are counted proportional to the number of tokens a person or entity stakes. Assuming tokens have been broadly distributed among many unaffiliated participants, decentralization is achieved without the energy needs of Proof of Work.

Just as you can’t fake computing power, you also can’t create tokens out of thin air. Sure, a well-capitalized organization could buy up tokens to increase their voting power but that’s by design. As a rule, Proof of Stake is a consensus mechanism typically dominated by aggregators of tokens such as exchanges or DeFi platforms.

When those staked tokens are also tied to governance of the ledger itself, it creates a feedback loop, which tends toward inequality and power concentration. The more tokens you have, the more votes you have. If you can turn that power into greater profits, you can turn those profits back into greater power. Keep doing this and you will eventually fully control the system.

This is less of an issue if the system is still in competition with other Layer 1s. We’re generally fine with corporations being governed by insiders such as shareholders or—in the case of co-ops—workers, as long as consumers still have a choice. If the company makes a bad product, you can buy a different one, and if they're an awful employer you can work someplace else. If an evil dictator takes over a corporation, it will lose customers and employees, a natural form of checks and balances.

Problems start when corporations become too entrenched and consumers lose that choice, which is when we typically see unchecked bad behavior. The same applies to a consensus system. While it still competes with other systems, those checks and balances continue to exist. But if it becomes universal, then unchecked concentration of power becomes everyone’s problem.

(It’s one reason why I’m so passionate about Interledger. With cross-blockchain interoperability, you get persistent competition between consensus systems, which serves as an additional layer of checks and balances. We’ll get into that more in a future post.)

Ethereum solves for this by taking governance off-chain, including, as they describe, both “social and technical processes.” But when power transitions from votes and well-defined rules within the system to more informal processes outside the system, it's difficult to guarantee transparency and fair representation. 

Just like Proof of Work, Proof of Stake defers the issue of governance.

Beyond questions around governance, a more common criticism highlights the circular logic inherent in any Proof of Stake system:

In order to know how many tokens each person has, you need to know the status of the current ledger.

In order to know the status of the current ledger, you need to know how the majority of the staked tokens has voted.

Any Proof of Stake system has this problem. Anyone who has access to the keys of previous validators could create an alternative ledger history that’s completely and equally valid. There are workarounds, such as creating regular ledger checkpoints, but this raises further questions—e.g. what is the next checkpoint, how are checkpoints determined, etc. An already nebulous off-chain governance system now must make even more arbitrary decisions.

Consequently, Proof of Stake requires myriad features that account for flaws and potential attack vectors that are inherent in its design. (Lyn Alden has a great writeup on this subject.)

There are potential regulatory hurdles as well. Hours after the Merge, SEC chief Gary Gensler told reporters that he thought Proof of Stake tokens looked like securities due to staking rewards.

All roads lead to Rome

So where does that leave us?

Proof of Work is simple, relatively reliable, and expends a ton of energy.

Proof of Stake is complex, logically awkward, and plutocratic.

Neither solves the question of governance.

Surely, there’s a better way.

In fact, there is—one that’s already working in the real world—but first, let’s take a step back and take a look at how we choose a consensus mechanism in the first place.

Think of it this way: Most people don’t consider the consensus mechanism itself when deciding who they want to be in consensus with. Maybe you heard about a cool gaming NFT project that you want to support. It happens to be on the Ethereum ledger, which is Proof of Stake.

Or maybe you’re looking for alternative assets as part of a diversified investment portfolio. You choose Bitcoin, which is Proof of Work. Or maybe you chose it because it’s the most popular and longest running.

In deciding what chain to participate in, you’ve made the decision based on your particular use case, needs, or target community.

In other words, the first choice you make isn’t about the consensus mechanism itself. Instead, it’s: Who do you want to be in consensus with?

Understanding consensus

Now that we’ve established this central choice that any participant needs to make, let’s take another step back.

What is consensus, anyway?

Here’s my definition: Consensus is a process of voluntary agreement.

In society, consensus establishes the ground rules for cooperation, enabling us to efficiently interact and transact with one another.

For example, I’m able to go to the grocery store to buy food and supplies because of consensus. There’s consensus on things like the monetary system, the legal system, languages, and certain social norms. If we can’t agree on how to make payment, how to settle disputes, or how to communicate, it’s going to be a tough time at the supermarket. Most likely, I won’t be able to buy my groceries and my grocer won’t be able to sell their products.

You and I might have different opinions on how our country should be run. We might be on the opposite sides of a political issue. But if my side loses the vote, I’ll still voluntarily agree to follow your rule so that we can collectively move forward. Despite our disagreements, we find a way to reach consensus such that progress can be made and peace maintained.

Part of it is because not coming to consensus comes with huge costs. Ideally, we’d like to avoid a revolution or civil war. Or in blockchain parlance, a fork.

The key point, again, is that consensus is voluntary. You can claim that you’re actually Napoleon—no one can stop you. But you won’t be in consensus with the rest of society, which will create friction and increase your social and economic interaction costs. Because of this, it’s rare in practice to run into someone who strays too far from the norms of social consensus. The benefits of consensus outweigh the cost of not being Napoleon for most people most of the time.

We want to agree on transactions that have occurred. We might disagree on the exact order of when those transactions came in—this could be simply due to being located at different distances on the globe from where a transaction originated. But we seek agreement anyway because any order—as long as it is universally accepted—allows us to transact.

Proof of Association: A more direct approach

Here’s what we’ve established so far:

First, Proof of Work, Proof of Stake, and so on are consensus systems designed to achieve voluntary agreement.

Second, before we even get to the "how" of consensus, we first need to choose who we want to be in consensus with, which, in turn, is based on who we want to interact and transact with.

Third, consensus is voluntary—people reach consensus because it serves as a foundation for transacting with each other.

Given that, what if I could just describe who I want to be in consensus with and have an algorithm that keeps me in sync with the people I’ve selected?

Spoiler alert: You can—which brings us to the concept behind Proof of Association.

Instinctively, if we knew who we want to be in consensus with, all we would need to do is look at their ledger and make sure that ours is the same. If it is, we’re in sync; we’re in consensus. It is a little bit more complicated in practice, but not much.

The first step is to write down a list of those people or entities you’d like to be in consensus with.

Once you write down that list, you hand it over to a software program that will scan the network and listen for people on your list. When enough of those people vote for a particular ledger—a quorum—consensus is achieved. (Honest nodes commit to never changing their vote.)

Since you’re writing your own list, you don’t need to worry about voting spam. If someone joins the ledger with 10,000 nodes that nobody cares about, they'll simply be ignored.

And because everyone participating—voluntarily, of course—is incentivized to maintain and improve consensus, the system will naturally evolve toward a more robust and decentralized structure. That could mean:

  • Adding more reliable people or entities to your list
  • Removing unreliable people or entities
  • Aligning your list to be similar to the lists of other participants
  • Changing your list toward having a more diverse set of validators across people, organizations, and geographical locations

As a result, such a system will naturally iterate to create ever more trustworthy states. Just like our real-life interactions, trust is developed and strengthened over time. Someone might have a lot of influence over the network because they are included in a lot of other people's lists, but if, for any reason, they break bad and lose the trust of other participants, they can be quickly dropped by the rest of the network in a way that isn't typically possible with Proof of Work or Proof of Stake.

Here, the age-old adage applies—it takes a lifetime to build a good reputation, but it can be lost in an instant. In that sense, the power of even the most important node is always limited. Just as a media outlet which consistently offers unreliable information might lose subscribers, so too will a bad validator. In a system based on voluntary association, there is always a choice.

What's more, if a validator has too much influence, others may proactively diversify their list even if that validator is perfectly honest and reliable. Over time, there is an incentive toward greater and greater decentralization. Or, more precisely, the level of decentralization that most participants think of as optimal.

It's important to note that we're only talking about a single consensus system so long as there is enough overlap between different lists. The overlap doesn't need to be perfect—in fact, the slight differences are what allows for improvements over time. Generally, participants don't want the network to split so everyone is incentivized to try to keep their lists relatively in sync through communication and discourse. If there are irreconcilable differences between groups, their overlap might decrease and they might eventually split into separate networks. This sounds bad, but is actually just a reflection of the preferences of the members of both groups choosing to separate from each other. Consensus is voluntary and can only be maintained as long as people want it to be.

In general, the network and community will ultimately determine for itself the best inclusions for their lists, which will continuously optimize over time—a form of fluid, iterative democracy. You have your chosen representatives in your list. If the times change, you can vote for new ones at any time. Others who transact with you may notice your choice and change their selection in turn.

Writing lists doesn’t use a lot of energy nor does it concentrate power.

And this isn’t just theory. A consensus system based on this process has been operating for the last 10 years—the XRP Ledger.

What’s cool is that over those 10 years, the network has evolved precisely in the ways I just described. Natural incentives mean that the XRP Ledger is consistently becoming more robust and decentralized.

Today, most participants follow 35 validators spanning geographies around the world, including individual participants, exchanges, universities, and companies building on the network, like my own company, Coil. No entity controls more than two validators, or 5.7% of the vote.

Unlike Bitcoin and Ethereum, the governance process is formal and voting happens in-protocol using the same consensus process that is used to confirm transactions.

Over the years, validators have successfully passed 45 amendments to improve the system, including new features such as multisign, escrow, and most recently, NFT support. New amendments are constantly being voted on.

But this is not just about XRP Ledger. If blockchains are to serve important functions in our society, advocates must have better answers to questions around energy usage and governance. Such were the weight of those questions when Ethereum made the bold step of actually switching their consensus system.

I hope that, ultimately, this will lead more people toward Proof of Association. It would not only solve the problems of energy consumption and concentration of power, but also serve as a simpler, more robust, and transparent method of governance for blockchains.

What started as a first principles observation of the consensus process becomes the mechanism itself. The beauty here is that in making the principles of consensus explicit, the consensus mechanism becomes obvious.

 

Link

community logo
Join the TheDinarian Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
0
What else you may like

Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Why the global financial system needs ISO 20022?

SWIFT: “Why the global financial system needs ISO 20022?â€đŸ˜¶â€đŸŒ«ïž

OFFICIAL ISO 20022 VIDEO CONFIRMS DIRECT INTERACTION BETWEEN ISO MESSAGES AND DISTRIBUTED LEDGER TECHNOLOGY (DLT)Watch closely.👇

Source: Smqkedqg

00:02:21
Are we at the top of the cycle?

👉@_dsencil: “This might be the blow-off top phase.”

👉@graminitha1: “You may be near the end in time, but the biggest price moves come last.”

Where do we go from here?

From Token Narratives ep. 66

https://x.com/BTCTN/status/1958952811888099584

00:01:18
đŸ‡ș🇾 Sen. Lummis breaks down the CLARITY Act

NEW: đŸ‡ș🇾 Sen. Lummis breaks down the CLARITY Act, and the path to being passed.

Lummis:đŸŽ™ïž"The Clarity act is the ultimate base bill."

00:01:11
👉 Coinbase just launched an AI agent for Crypto Trading

Custom AI assistants that print money in your sleep? 🔜

The future of Crypto x AI is about to go crazy.

👉 Here’s what you need to know:

💠 'Based Agent' enables creation of custom AI agents
💠 Users set up personalized agents in < 3 minutes
💠 Equipped w/ crypto wallet and on-chain functions
💠 Capable of completing trades, swaps, and staking
💠 Integrates with Coinbase’s SDK, OpenAI, & Replit

👉 What this means for the future of Crypto:

1. Open Access: Democratized access to advanced trading
2. Automated Txns: Complex trades + streamlined on-chain activity
3. AI Dominance: Est ~80% of crypto 👉txns done by AI agents by 2025

🚹 I personally wouldn't bet against Brian Armstrong and Jesse Pollak.

👉 Coinbase just launched an AI agent for Crypto Trading

🔼 Future Forecasting Group – September 2025 Predictions & Debrief 🌍✹

This month’s sessions were filled with powerful insights, uncanny synchronicities, and some truly “high strangeness.” From earthquakes and storms of the century to geopolitical tensions, military actions, and surprising space discoveries, our team dives deep into what may be unfolding in September 2025.

In this video, you’ll hear predictions and analysis from Dennis, Edward, Nyiam, Richard, and Daz as we cover:

🌊 Strange ocean anomalies & gravitational pulls from deep space

đŸŒȘ Hurricanes, hailstorms & seismic events shaking the globe

🚀 A possible wormhole breakthrough at CERN & plans for a new mega space station

🛾 A dramatic UFO sighting that could force official comment

⚔ Putin, peace talks
 or a major offensive? Geopolitics on edge

📉 Financial turbulence, Bitcoin trends & Elon Musk’s new ventures

📜 Hidden documents, leaks & controversies shaping politics

đŸ”„ Social unrest, riots & ...

Pyth Network & Chainlink Data That Is!😉

🚀 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE POSTS GDP DATA ON STELLAR BLOCKCHAIN 🚀

For the first time in U.S. history, the Department of Commerce has begun publishing official economic data, including quarterly GDP figures, on the Stellar blockchain. This milestone makes critical economic statistics immutable, publicly auditable, and globally accessible through a trusted decentralized ledger.

🔑 Key Highlights

  • Government Transparency: Posting GDP data on Stellar provides an immutable record, ensuring any attempts at data manipulation on traditional sources would be immediately evident against the blockchain record.

  • Multi-Chain Deployment: The Commerce Department is publishing GDP data not only on Stellar but also on Ethereum, Bitcoin, Solana, Avalanche, and other leading public blockchains—making the data widely accessible.

  • Enabling DeFi and Financial Innovation: Onchain GDP data creates new opportunities for decentralized finance, such as ...

🚀 BROADER MARKET TRENDS AND PRICE MOVEMENTS IN 2025 🚀

The overall cryptocurrency market has witnessed a strong rebound in 2025, marked by significant gains in total market capitalization, outperforming traditional financial benchmarks and showcasing growing institutional interest.

🔑 Market Highlights

  • Market Capitalization Growth: Total crypto market capitalization has risen by 9.9% year-to-date and surged 58% compared to the previous year, demonstrating robust recovery and investor confidence.

  • Ethereum (ETH) Outperformance: Ethereum has been a standout performer among major assets, with a 36% increase, driven by continued ecosystem development and increased real-world applications.

  • Bitcoin (BTC) Gains: Bitcoin has returned 18% year-to-date, holding strong as the market leader and safe-haven crypto asset, despite some short-term price dips below $108,000 USDT.

  • Institutional Inflows: Crypto ETFs have attracted more than $28 billion in net inflows during 2025, with ...

post photo preview
post photo preview
US Dept of Commerce to publish GDP data on blockchain

On Tuesday during a televised White House cabinet meeting, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick announced the intention to publish GDP statistics on blockchains. Today Chainlink and Pyth said they were selected as the decentralized oracles to distribute the data.

Lutnick said, “The Department of Commerce is going to start issuing its statistics on the blockchain because you are the crypto President. And we are going to put out GDP on the blockchain, so people can use the blockchain for data distribution. And then we’re going to make that available to the entire government. So, all of you can do it. We’re just ironing out all the details.”

The data includes Real GDP and the PCE Price Index, which reflects changes in the prices of domestic consumer goods and services. The statistics are released monthly and quarterly. The biggest initial use will likely be by on-chain prediction markets. But as more data comes online, such as broader inflation data or interest rates from the Federal Reserve, it could be used to automate various financial instruments. Apart from using the data in smart contracts, sources of tamperproof data 👉will become increasingly important for generative AI.

While it would be possible to procure the data from third parties, it is always ideal to get it from the source to ensure its accuracy. Getting data directly from government sources makes it tamperproof, provided the original data feed has not been manipulated before it reaches the oracle.

Source

🙏 Donations Accepted 🙏

If you find value in my content, consider showing your support via:

💳 PayPal: 
1) Simply scan the QR code below đŸ“Č
2) or visit https://www.paypal.me/thedinarian

🔗 Crypto
XRP: r9pid4yrQgs6XSFWhMZ8NkxW3gkydWNyQX
XLM: GDMJF2OCHN3NNNX4T4F6POPBTXK23GTNSNQWUMIVKESTHMQM7XDYAIZT
XDC: xdcc2C02203C4f91375889d7AfADB09E207Edf809A6

Read full Article
post photo preview
List Of Cardano Wallets

Well-known and actively maintained wallets supporting the Cardano Blockchain are Eternl, Typhon, Vespr, Yoroi, Lace, ADAlite, NuFi, Daedalus, Gero, LodeWallet, Coin Wallet, ADAWallet, Atomic, Gem Wallet, Trust and Exodus.

Note that in case of issues, usually only queries relating to official wallets can be answered in Cardano groups across telegram/forum. You may need to consult with specific wallet support teams for third party wallets.

Tips

  • Its is important to ensure that you're in sole control of your wallet keys, and that the keys used can be restored via alternate wallet providers if a particular one is non-functional. Hence, put extra attention to Non-Custodial and Compatibility fields.
  • The score column below is strictly a count of checks against each feature listed, the impact of specific feature (and thus, score) is up to reader's descretion.
  • The table represents current state on mainnet network, any future roadmap activities are out-of-scope.
  • Info on individual fields can be found towards the end of the page.
  • Any field that shows partial support (eg: open-source field) does not score the point for that field.

Brief info on fields above

  • Non-Custodial: are wallets where payment as well as stake keys are not shared/reused by wallet provider, and funds can be transparently verified on explorer
  • Compatibility: If the wallet mnemonics/keys can easily (for non-technical user) be used outside of specific wallet provider in major other wallets
  • Stake Control: Freedom to elect stake pool for user to delegate to (in user-friendly way)
  • Transparent Support: Easy approachability of a public interactive - eg: discord/telegram - group (with non-anonymous users) who can help out with support. Twitter/Email supports do not count for a check
  • Voting: Ability to participate in Catalyst voting process
  • Hardware Wallet: Integration with atleast Ledger Nano device
  • Native Assets: Ability to view native assets that belong to wallet
  • dApp Integration: Ability to interact with dApps
  • Stability: represents whether there have been large number of users reporting missing tokens/balance due to wallet backend being out of sync
  • Testnets Support: Ability to easily (for end-user) open wallets in atleast one of the cardano testnet networks
  • Custom Backend Support: Ability to elect a custom backend URL for selecting alternate way to submit transactions transactions created on client machines
  • Single/Multi Address Mode: Ability to use/import Single as well as Multiple Address modes for a wallet
  • Mobile App: Availability on atleast one of the popular mobile platforms
  • Desktop (app,extension,web): Ways to open wallet app on desktop PCs
  • Open Source: Whether the complete wallet (all components) are open source and can be run independently.

Source

🙏 Donations Accepted 🙏

If you find value in my content, consider showing your support via:

💳 PayPal: 
1) Simply scan the QR code below đŸ“Č
2) or visit https://www.paypal.me/thedinarian

🔗 Crypto
XRP: r9pid4yrQgs6XSFWhMZ8NkxW3gkydWNyQX
XLM: GDMJF2OCHN3NNNX4T4F6POPBTXK23GTNSNQWUMIVKESTHMQM7XDYAIZT
XDC: xdcc2C02203C4f91375889d7AfADB09E207Edf809A6

 

Read full Article
post photo preview
Pyth Network (PYTH) To Rally Higher? This Emerging Fractal Setup Saying Yes!

The cryptocurrency market is undergoing a healthy cooldown as Ethereum (ETH) eases to $4,440 from its recent peak of $4,780. The pullback has weighed on most major altcoins — including Pyth Network (PYTH) — which is down about 5% over the past week.

But while the short-term dip might look discouraging, PYTH’s chart is showing something far more interesting: a price structure that mirrors the exact same bullish breakout pattern that sent Skale (SKL) soaring by triple digits earlier this month.

PYTH Mirrors SKL’s Breakout Structure

A glance at SKL’s daily chart reveals a textbook falling wedge formation — a well-known bullish reversal pattern. Once SKL broke above the wedge and printed a higher high followed by a higher low, it flipped both the 200-day and 100-day moving averages into firm support. That technical shift triggered a 148% rally in just days.

PYTH appears to be tracing the same path.

Like SKL, PYTH has already broken out from its falling wedge and formed a higher high and higher low. It is now consolidating just beneath a critical confluence of resistance, with the 100-day MA at $0.1235 and the 200-day MA at $0.1481 — a setup eerily similar to SKL’s pre-breakout structure.

What’s Next for PYTH?

For the bullish fractal to fully play out, PYTH will need to close decisively above the $0.1235–$0.1481 zone, ideally on rising volume. A confirmed breakout could open the door to the first upside target of $0.21, representing roughly 78% potential gains from current levels.

However, confirmation is key. Until PYTH clears these moving average hurdles, it remains vulnerable to extended consolidation or even a false breakout. Still, the fractal similarity to SKL is hard to overlook — and if history repeats, PYTH bulls could be on the verge of a major move.

Source

🙏 Donations Accepted 🙏

If you find value in my content, consider showing your support via:

💳 PayPal: 
1) Simply scan the QR code below đŸ“Č
2) or visit https://www.paypal.me/thedinarian

🔗 Crypto – Support via Coinbase Wallet to: [email protected]

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals