Skip to content
Blockchain LabBlockchain LabTHE VENTURE STUDIO

LibraryConsensus2016Design paperCorpus record

Cryptocurrencies without Proof of Work

Nothing at stake. Iddo Bentov, Ariel Gabizon and Alex Mizrahi.

The paper studies stake-based chain selection and the cost of signing every fork. It is one of the early formal attempts to replace work with a scarce key.

A reading of the public document. Not a copy of it, and not a claim about a later network that reused the name.

Any staking design that cannot name what happens when a key signs two tips is still in the problem this paper states.
Evidence
Primary paper
Re-measured
No
Assumptions
3
Records linked
3

Code

Source, repository, and what is actually hosted

  • arXiv:1406.5694https://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.5694
  • The source URL is not a GitHub repository. No code remote is invented.
  • Full text is not mirrored. Public availability is not a licence to copy the file onto this site.
  • Add to a reading list

01 Claim ledger

What the paper is allowed to say

Each row is a sentence already in the study. The status is the same on every row: a model claim, not a live measurement.

  1. Claim 01 · Paper model

    The defect

    Proof of work makes extending two forks expensive. Proof of stake, naively, lets a holder sign both.

  2. Claim 02 · Paper model

    The rule

    The paper studies stake-based chain selection and the cost of signing every fork. It is one of the early formal attempts to replace work with a scarce key.

  3. Claim 03 · Paper model

    How it is put together

    Signing a second fork is cheap if the key is not bonded. The protocol has to make equivocation detectable or unprofitable. Bootstrapping the randomness of the lottery is part of the problem.

  4. Claim 04 · Paper model

    Where the claim stops

    This is not Ouroboros and not Casper.

02 Three cuts

Observation, model, falsifier

A desk does not stop at the summary. Each claim is cut three ways, using only this study's own assumptions and checks. Nothing here is a new figure.

  1. 01 The defect

    Observation

    What the study says

    Proof of work makes extending two forks expensive. Proof of stake, naively, lets a holder sign both.

    Model

    What has to hold

    This is not Ouroboros and not Casper.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    Is that signature evidence, and is the stake still bonded?

  2. 02 The rule

    Observation

    What the study says

    The paper studies stake-based chain selection and the cost of signing every fork. It is one of the early formal attempts to replace work with a scarce key.

    Model

    What has to hold

    It does not settle the long-range attack by itself.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    Is that signature evidence, and is the stake still bonded?

  3. 03 How it is put together

    Observation

    What the study says

    Signing a second fork is cheap if the key is not bonded. The protocol has to make equivocation detectable or unprofitable. Bootstrapping the randomness of the lottery is part of the problem.

    Model

    What has to hold

    It is not a yield schedule.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    Is that signature evidence, and is the stake still bonded?

  4. 04 Where the claim stops

    Observation

    What the study says

    This is not Ouroboros and not Casper.

    Model

    What has to hold

    This is not Ouroboros and not Casper.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    Can one key sign two competing blocks?

03 Sequence

One action, as an operating tape

  1. 01Stake is the lottery ticket.
  2. 02A holder who signs two histories should be identifiable.
  3. 03The chain rule has to pick one history even when both are fully signed.
  4. 04Can one key sign two competing blocks?

04 Load-bearing

The argument, and where a pitch drops it

  1. Why it is still on the desk

    The cut

    Any staking design that cannot name what happens when a key signs two tips is still in the problem this paper states.

    Why it carries weight

    If this cut is skipped, the paper's name is being used without the mechanism that makes the name mean anything.

    Where it is dropped

    A later client, parameter or reward formula is a different object from this paragraph.

  2. After the text

    The cut

    Later protocols added slashable bonds and private leader election. Those are answers. This paper is the problem, written early.

    Why it carries weight

    If this cut is skipped, the paper's name is being used without the mechanism that makes the name mean anything.

    Where it is dropped

    A later client, parameter or reward formula is a different object from this paragraph.

05 Register

What has to be true

  • Model · Not re-measured

    This is not Ouroboros and not Casper.

  • Model · Not re-measured

    It does not settle the long-range attack by itself.

  • Model · Not re-measured

    It is not a yield schedule.

06 Divergence

What happened after the paper

Later protocols added slashable bonds and private leader election. Those are answers. This paper is the problem, written early.

A later client, parameter set, or reward formula is a different object. Cite this paper for the mechanism. Cite a primary release for the network. This desk has not re-run the proof.

07 Pre-mortem

What to check before you use the idea

  4. 0 of 3 marked on this browser. A mark is a reading note, not a pass, a rating, or a recommendation.

08 Anatomy

The paper, in the order a builder needs

The problem it names

Proof of work makes extending two forks expensive. Proof of stake, naively, lets a holder sign both.

What the design proposes

  • Signing a second fork is cheap if the key is not bonded.
  • The protocol has to make equivocation detectable or unprofitable.
  • Bootstrapping the randomness of the lottery is part of the problem.

How the mechanism is specified

  • Stake is the lottery ticket.
  • A holder who signs two histories should be identifiable.
  • The chain rule has to pick one history even when both are fully signed.

What this page does not treat as proven

  • This is not Ouroboros and not Casper.
  • It does not settle the long-range attack by itself.
  • It is not a yield schedule.

Why the desk still reads it

Any staking design that cannot name what happens when a key signs two tips is still in the problem this paper states.

09 Lexicon

Terms, opened into the record

Nothing at stake
The absence of a cost for extending every fork.
Equivocation
Two signatures from one key on conflicting histories.

10 Repository

Every linked record on this page

Underlined words open a page that already exists: a concept, a protocol profile, a failure record, or another paper. If a word is not underlined, this desk does not have a record for it.

Protocols

This is Blockchain Lab's reading of a public design paper. It is not the paper, not a copy of it, and not an offer of tokens, equity, custody or a partnership. Later network behaviour can diverge from the text. Nothing here is investment, legal or technical advice.

Research status: Design paper. Last reviewed: 1 October 2026. This is a reading of a public paper, not investment, legal or security advice.