From: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian•com.au>
To: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32•com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Gradual transition to an alternate proof without a hard fork.
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2021 21:47:17 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210417114717.GA8079@erisian.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJowKgJNefXZTCJk_EK4JC7uPKsTrGv=yUROpjL_7GGbfNrrvA@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 04:48:35PM -0400, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> The transition *could* look like this:
> - validating nodes begin to require proof-of-burn, in addition to
> proof-of-work (soft fork)
> - the extra expense makes it more expensive for miners, so POW slowly drops
> - on a predefined schedule, POB required is increased to 100% of the
> "required work" to mine
> Given all of that, am I correct in thinking that a hard fork would not
> be necessary?
It depends what you mean by a "hard fork". By the definition that
"the old software will consider the chain followed by new versions of
the software as valid" it's a soft fork. But it doesn't maintain the
property "old software continues to follow the same chain as new software,
provided the economic majority has adopted the new software" -- because
after the PoW part has dropped its difficulty substantitally, people can
easily/cheaply make a new chain that doesn't include proof-of-burn, and
has weak proof-of-work that's nevertheless higher than the proof-of-burn
chain, so old nodes will switch to it, while new nodes will continue to
follow the proof-of-burn chain.
So I think that means it needs to be treated as a hard fork: everyone
needs to be running the new software by some date to ensure they follow
the same chain.
(The same argument applies to trying to switch to a different PoW
algorithm via a soft fork; I forget who explained this to me)
Jeremy wrote:
> I think you need to hard deprecate the PoW for this to work, otherwise
> all old miners are like "toxic waste".
>
> Imagine one miner turns on a S9 and then ramps up difficulty for
> everyone else.
If it's a soft-fork, you could only ramp up the PoW difficulty by mining
more than one block every ten minutes, but presumably the proof-of-burn
scheme would have its own way of preventing burners from mining blocks
too fast (it was assumption 2).
Cheers,
aj
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-17 11:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-16 20:48 Erik Aronesty
2021-04-16 21:24 ` Jeremy
2021-04-16 21:47 ` Erik Aronesty
2021-04-17 11:19 ` Devrandom
2021-04-17 11:47 ` Anthony Towns [this message]
2021-05-21 20:11 ` Billy Tetrud
2021-05-21 20:54 ` Erik Aronesty
2021-04-17 9:41 vjudeu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210417114717.GA8079@erisian.com.au \
--to=aj@erisian$(echo .)com.au \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=erik@q32$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox