<p>I'm the author of the paper.</p>

<p>PoW mining may be wasteful, but it's a great distribution mechanism.  Coins and other applications that use Tendermint might want to tack on a distribution mechanism that tapers off over time.  I'm also exploring alternative distribution algorithms that don't require PoW, but for now I'm busy implementing core Tendermint.</p>

<p>Dogecoin could adopt it with a hardfork.  Alternatively, one could take Dogecoin's transaction data and create a new coin using Tendermint's consensus protocol.  The biggest problem with this is that exchanges and wallet services may benefit unfairly.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-14T01:26:19.790Z
_PoW mining may be wasteful, but it's a great distribution mechanism. Coins and other applications that use Tendermint might want to tack on a distribution mechanism that tapers off over time_. Dogecoin already has this. Approximately 100 billion coins to be mined by end of 2014. Thereafter, 5.2 billion new coins per year. I am aware that at least one of Dogecoin's four main developers is thinking about implementing Tendermint http://www.reddit.com/r/dogecoindev/comments/26wtyu/idea_dump/chx184n. Are Dogecoin's parameters are relatively favorable ones in which to implement Tendermint?
user1205901 - Слава Україні
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-02T21:08:49.303Z
Kwon, Your system model is based on the point that if Bp(t) is the number of "bad" peers and Hp(t) is the number of honest peers, at any time t, Bp(t)/Hp(t) < 0.5. Have you any analysis that shows that Bp(t)/Hp(t) < 0.5, any time ? If you have one and your analysis is totally free from any senseless assumptions, then we don't need any more PoW!
efaysal
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-04T00:40:38.113Z
Like Bitcoin and traditional Byzantine agreement analysis, it *assumes* that the ratio is < 1/3.  (Bitcoin's paper claims < 1/2, but see Eyal & Sirer etc) (Also, this ratio could be higher in Tendermint, but there's a tradeoff on the guaranteed slashed stake in the event of a fork).  For both Bitcoin and Tendermint, when the tolerance threshold is exceeded, things tend to blow up.  In Tendermint, since validation is pseudonymous (not anonymous like mining power) users can regroup onto a new consensus chain after slashing stake.  So in that sense it's more accountable.  Can work with Dogecoin!
JaeKwon
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-13T20:12:15.387Z
2014-06-13T20:12:15.387Z
JaeKwon
<p>The writer describes it as a "solution to the blockchain consensus problem that does not require mining."</p>

<p>The white paper is viewable here:
<a href="http://tendermint.com/docs/tendermint_v04.pdf">http://tendermint.com/docs/tendermint_v04.pdf</a></p>

<p>I don't mean what are the pros and cons in relation to Bitcoin specifically, since I don't believe Bitcoin is likely to take it up. I am thinking more of the possibility of a popular altcoin like Dogecoin adopting it, or perhaps an smaller altcoin e.g. Reddcoin.</p>

<dogecoin><proof-of-stake>
What are pros and cons of Tendermint?
user1205901 - Слава Україні
# What are pros and cons of Tendermint?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-06-02)

The writer describes it as a "solution to the blockchain consensus problem that does not require mining."

The white paper is viewable here:
<http://tendermint.com/docs/tendermint_v04.pdf>

I don't mean what are the pros and cons in relation to Bitcoin specifically, since I don't believe Bitcoin is likely to take it up. I am thinking more of the possibility of a popular altcoin like Dogecoin adopting it, or perhaps an smaller altcoin e.g. Reddcoin.

**Tags:** dogecoin, proof-of-stake


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2014-06-13. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

I'm the author of the paper.

PoW mining may be wasteful, but it's a great distribution mechanism. Coins and other applications that use Tendermint might want to tack on a distribution mechanism that tapers off over time. I'm also exploring alternative distribution algorithms that don't require PoW, but for now I'm busy implementing core Tendermint.

Dogecoin could adopt it with a hardfork. Alternatively, one could take Dogecoin's transaction data and create a new coin using Tendermint's consensus protocol. The biggest problem with this is that exchanges and wallet services may benefit unfairly.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: _PoW mining may be wasteful, but it's a great distribution mechanism. Coins and other applications that use Tendermint might want to tack on a distribution mechanism that tapers off over time_. Dogecoin already has this. Approximately 100 billion coins to be mined by end of 2014. Thereafter, 5.2 billion new coins per year. I am aware that at least one of Dogecoin's four main developers is thinking about implementing Tendermint http://www.reddit.com/r/dogecoindev/comments/26wtyu/idea_dump/chx184n. Are Dogecoin's parameters are relatively favorable ones in which to implement Tendermint?  
> **username_2**: Kwon, Your system model is based on the point that if Bp(t) is the number of "bad" peers and Hp(t) is the number of honest peers, at any time t, Bp(t)/Hp(t) < 0.5. Have you any analysis that shows that Bp(t)/Hp(t) < 0.5, any time ? If you have one and your analysis is totally free from any senseless assumptions, then we don't need any more PoW!  
> **username_1**: Like Bitcoin and traditional Byzantine agreement analysis, it *assumes* that the ratio is < 1/3.  (Bitcoin's paper claims < 1/2, but see Eyal & Sirer etc) (Also, this ratio could be higher in Tendermint, but there's a tradeoff on the guaranteed slashed stake in the event of a fork).  For both Bitcoin and Tendermint, when the tolerance threshold is exceeded, things tend to blow up.  In Tendermint, since validation is pseudonymous (not anonymous like mining power) users can regroup onto a new consensus chain after slashing stake.  So in that sense it's more accountable.  Can work with Dogecoin!  

---

