An ideal permissionless consensus protocol would, in addition to satisfying standard consistency and liveness guarantees, render consistency violations prohibitively expensive for the attacker without collateral damage to honest participants---for example, by programatically confiscating an attacker's resources without reducing the value of honest participants' resources, as is the intention for slashing in a proof-of-stake protocol. We make this idea precise with our notion of the EAAC (expensive to attack in the absence of collapse) property, and prove the following results:
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Budish et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: