<p>Frankly, I don't think your definitions are useful. But by your definitions, PoS makes a network permissioned by definition. In a proof-of-stake network, you can only participate in the validation of transactions if you possess the token, which you can only get from someone else who has the token and chooses to give it you. By your definitions, that makes the system permissioned.</p>

<p>Again, I don't think your definitions are useful.</p>

<p>To propose more helpful definitions:</p>

<p>A system is permissionless or public if it permits open participation in both the submission of transactions and the choice of transactions to make forward progress on. There must be no special permissions required to submit and execute transactions beyond the possession of some way to pay transaction fees, and this must (in actual practice) be widely and easily available to anyone who makes a reasonable effort to acquire it. The method in which the ledger makes forward progress must justify a reasonable expectation that hard censorship will not occur -- that is, anyone who submits validly signed transactions to the network should be able to reasonably expect them to execute without having to worry that some particular clique or group can decide to disallow their transactions specifically.</p>

<p>A system is permissioned or private if it does not permit open participation in either the submission of transactions or the choice of transactions to make forward progress on. That is, submitting a transaction requires some permission beyond mere possession of a widely-available, anti-spam asset or participants cannot reasonably expect the system to resist censorship, that is, not all participants have reasonable assurance that their transactions won't be discriminated against in a way that significantly affects their ability to use the system and get its benefits.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-28T20:39:27.827Z
Thank you, Here is all websites explaining the "permissioned blockchain" : https://bit.ly/2U9bGBf . If you could propose/provide/find a more precise definition for permissioned blockchain, it will definitely help this question as well as **many other questions involving permissioned blockchains**. It can also help the terminology for having a precise definition of permissioned blockchain. If it is necessary, kindly let me know to bring up another separate question about the definition of permissioned blockchain. Thanks
Questioner
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-28T21:36:31.957Z
@Questioner Updated. This causes the definitions to focus on what people actually care about rather than defining it in such a way that only PoW system (and maybe not even them!) are permissionless.
David Schwartz
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-02T12:31:44.603Z
I'd like to add a point to your answer: The necessity of having token to validate or to send transactions may not to lead to a permissioned network, but if an **authority** in the network determines how to **distribute** those tokens, then network will be permissioned. I'd like to know your point of view, if possible.
Questioner
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-02T15:47:53.490Z
@Questioner That makes every blockchain permissioned. Satoshi decided how to distribute bitcoins. The other problem with that is that it makes the native token's properties a key factor in deciding whether the chain is permissioned or permissionless which makes no sense in chains that aren't particularly focused on their token, for example chains for tracking the provenance of goods where the token is nearly worthless and just an anti-spam mechanism. IMO, that's more a suitability for specific applications issue than a permission issue. Permission is about who can execute txns and how.
David Schwartz
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-02T16:07:10.887Z
Thank you, Here is my point of view: Satoshi (as a person or a team) designed the protocol, and is not an **authority** in the network to distribute bitcoins (as a central entity). Satoshi has no more power than other participants in the network. So Bitcoin is permission-less. But, assume for example, Satoshi had decided to distribute tokens for validating transactions in the genesis block and it was him who decided whether add any token or not, or whether a new participant is permitted to validate transactions or not etc. (continue in next comment ...)
Questioner
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-02T16:07:44.497Z
(... continue of previous comment) In that case, yes, Bitcoin was a permissioned blockchain. However, actually, a participant needs no **permission**  to participate in validation process of transactions. It means Bitcoin is a P2P network such that Satoshi node has no more authority than other nodes. The mater is **How to distribute the tokens**, the matter is not **Who did decide that How to distribute the tokens**. The matter is **Which authority gives permission to use the network**. In Bitcoin no authority decides that who is **permitted or eligible** to use the network.
Questioner
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-02T16:22:39.827Z
@Questioner I agree. That's why my answer is all about what you need to execute transactions and what you can reasonably rely on in transaction execution.
David Schwartz
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-28T20:03:18.883Z
2019-02-28T21:35:55.707Z
2019-02-28T21:35:55.707Z
David Schwartz
<p>Since in <strong>proof-of-stake (PoS)</strong> there is no mining process, according to functionality of <strong>permissioned</strong> and <strong>permissionless</strong> blockchains, <strong>which type is PoS more adapted for?</strong> </p>

<p>In the other words, is a PoS-based <strong>public permissionless</strong> blockchain as secure a PoW-based <strong>public permissionless</strong> blockchain ? Or Do we need to <strong>restrict</strong> the <strong>permission</strong> for the transactions validation to a limited <strong>permitted</strong> and known validators (i.e. <strong>private permissioned</strong> blockchain) ?</p>

<ul>
<li><p>The term "permissioneless or public blockchain" is referred to as a blockchain platform in which a user does not have any permission for using (sending transaction) or participating in validating transactions process. For example, Bitcoin and Ethereum are public permissionless blockchain, such that they are open to everybody for both sending transaction and participating in validation of transactions (i.e. PoW process). </p></li>
<li><p>On the other hands, "permissioned blockchain" allows the network to appoint a group of participants in the network who are given the authority to provide the validation of blocks and transactions, meaning that there is an an access control layer to allow certain actions to be performed only by certain identifiable participants. Since access to this type of blockchains is not open to everybody, unlike Bitcoin or Ethereum, they are usually called also private blockchains. For example, Ripple and Hyperledger Fabric are permissioned blockchain.</p></li>
</ul>

<p><em>If you need additional explanation for more clarification, kindly let me know to extend the question.</em> </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-28T16:44:56.847Z
Can you provide definitions of "permissionless" and "permissioned" as you are using them? They don't have precise, accepted definitions.
David Schwartz
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-28T17:19:19.557Z
I’ll add their definitions along with examples.
Questioner
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-28T18:02:23.327Z
Thanks. They don't have to be academically precise, but just enough to understand  what you're asking.
David Schwartz
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-28T18:32:10.887Z
@David Schwartz , It's done.
Questioner
<security><proof-of-work><proof-of-stake><private-blockchains><safety>
Permissioned or Permissionless blockchain? Which one is PoS more adapted for?
Questioner
# Permissioned or Permissionless blockchain? Which one is PoS more adapted for?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-02-28)

Since in **proof-of-stake (PoS)** there is no mining process, according to functionality of **permissioned** and **permissionless** blockchains, **which type is PoS more adapted for?**

In the other words, is a PoS-based **public permissionless** blockchain as secure a PoW-based **public permissionless** blockchain ? Or Do we need to **restrict** the **permission** for the transactions validation to a limited **permitted** and known validators (i.e. **private permissioned** blockchain) ?

* The term "permissioneless or public blockchain" is referred to as a blockchain platform in which a user does not have any permission for using (sending transaction) or participating in validating transactions process. For example, Bitcoin and Ethereum are public permissionless blockchain, such that they are open to everybody for both sending transaction and participating in validation of transactions (i.e. PoW process).
* On the other hands, "permissioned blockchain" allows the network to appoint a group of participants in the network who are given the authority to provide the validation of blocks and transactions, meaning that there is an an access control layer to allow certain actions to be performed only by certain identifiable participants. Since access to this type of blockchains is not open to everybody, unlike Bitcoin or Ethereum, they are usually called also private blockchains. For example, Ripple and Hyperledger Fabric are permissioned blockchain.

*If you need additional explanation for more clarification, kindly let me know to extend the question.*

**Tags:** security, proof-of-work, proof-of-stake, private-blockchains, safety

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Can you provide definitions of "permissionless" and "permissioned" as you are using them? They don't have precise, accepted definitions.  
> **username_0**: I’ll add their definitions along with examples.  
> **username_1**: Thanks. They don't have to be academically precise, but just enough to understand  what you're asking.  
> **username_0**: @username_1 , It's done.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2019-02-28. Score: 2

Frankly, I don't think your definitions are useful. But by your definitions, PoS makes a network permissioned by definition. In a proof-of-stake network, you can only participate in the validation of transactions if you possess the token, which you can only get from someone else who has the token and chooses to give it you. By your definitions, that makes the system permissioned.

Again, I don't think your definitions are useful.

To propose more helpful definitions:

A system is permissionless or public if it permits open participation in both the submission of transactions and the choice of transactions to make forward progress on. There must be no special permissions required to submit and execute transactions beyond the possession of some way to pay transaction fees, and this must (in actual practice) be widely and easily available to anyone who makes a reasonable effort to acquire it. The method in which the ledger makes forward progress must justify a reasonable expectation that hard censorship will not occur -- that is, anyone who submits validly signed transactions to the network should be able to reasonably expect them to execute without having to worry that some particular clique or group can decide to disallow their transactions specifically.

A system is permissioned or private if it does not permit open participation in either the submission of transactions or the choice of transactions to make forward progress on. That is, submitting a transaction requires some permission beyond mere possession of a widely-available, anti-spam asset or participants cannot reasonably expect the system to resist censorship, that is, not all participants have reasonable assurance that their transactions won't be discriminated against in a way that significantly affects their ability to use the system and get its benefits.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thank you, Here is all websites explaining the "permissioned blockchain" : https://bit.ly/2U9bGBf . If you could propose/provide/find a more precise definition for permissioned blockchain, it will definitely help this question as well as **many other questions involving permissioned blockchains**. It can also help the terminology for having a precise definition of permissioned blockchain. If it is necessary, kindly let me know to bring up another separate question about the definition of permissioned blockchain. Thanks  
> **username_1**: @username_0 Updated. This causes the definitions to focus on what people actually care about rather than defining it in such a way that only PoW system (and maybe not even them!) are permissionless.  
> **username_0**: I'd like to add a point to your answer: The necessity of having token to validate or to send transactions may not to lead to a permissioned network, but if an **authority** in the network determines how to **distribute** those tokens, then network will be permissioned. I'd like to know your point of view, if possible.  
> **username_1**: @username_0 That makes every blockchain permissioned. Satoshi decided how to distribute bitcoins. The other problem with that is that it makes the native token's properties a key factor in deciding whether the chain is permissioned or permissionless which makes no sense in chains that aren't particularly focused on their token, for example chains for tracking the provenance of goods where the token is nearly worthless and just an anti-spam mechanism. IMO, that's more a suitability for specific applications issue than a permission issue. Permission is about who can execute txns and how.  
> **username_0**: Thank you, Here is my point of view: Satoshi (as a person or a team) designed the protocol, and is not an **authority** in the network to distribute bitcoins (as a central entity). Satoshi has no more power than other participants in the network. So Bitcoin is permission-less. But, assume for example, Satoshi had decided to distribute tokens for validating transactions in the genesis block and it was him who decided whether add any token or not, or whether a new participant is permitted to validate transactions or not etc. (continue in next comment ...)  
> **username_0**: (... continue of previous comment) In that case, yes, Bitcoin was a permissioned blockchain. However, actually, a participant needs no **permission**  to participate in validation process of transactions. It means Bitcoin is a P2P network such that Satoshi node has no more authority than other nodes. The mater is **How to distribute the tokens**, the matter is not **Who did decide that How to distribute the tokens**. The matter is **Which authority gives permission to use the network**. In Bitcoin no authority decides that who is **permitted or eligible** to use the network.  
> **username_1**: @username_0 I agree. That's why my answer is all about what you need to execute transactions and what you can reasonably rely on in transaction execution.  

---

