* [bitcoin-dev] Proof-of-Loss
@ 2017-02-04 12:39 Mirelo
2017-04-05 19:12 ` Mirelo
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Mirelo @ 2017-02-04 12:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bitcoin-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 277 bytes --]
An alternative consensus algorithm to both proof-of-work and proof-of-stake, proof-of-loss addresses all their deficiencies, including the lack of an organic block size limit, the risks of mining centralization, and the "nothing at stake" problem:
https://proof-of-loss.money/
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 770 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [bitcoin-dev] Proof-of-Loss
2017-02-04 12:39 [bitcoin-dev] Proof-of-Loss Mirelo
@ 2017-04-05 19:12 ` Mirelo
2017-04-06 2:43 ` Erik Aronesty
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Mirelo @ 2017-04-05 19:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bitcoin-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1584 bytes --]
With the feedback on Proof-of-Loss (always privately to my email), I realized the article was hard to understand for lacking:
* A more explicit definition of transaction rights.
* An overview of how the algorithm works.
As an abstract could not contain all that, I wrote an introduction with examples.
I also adopted a suggestion of including the current block height in the proof-of-loss data once I realized:
* Preventing the same proof-of-loss from chaining consecutive blocks was not the purpose of the proof-of-loss context, which did it statistically rather than logically.
* The presence of that height in the block header made serial chaining easier to enforce, by removing the need to include additional block height information.
While revising the algorithm, I made some corrections, mainly to:
* Transaction prioritization (which now uses fees instead of rights).
* Inactivity fees.
Finally, the new version more aptly derives the design and often has better wording.
The new text is available at:
https://proof-of-loss.money/
Mirelo
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Proof-of-Loss
Local Time: February 4, 2017 10:39 AM
UTC Time: February 4, 2017 12:39 PM
From: mirelo@deugh-ausgam-valis•com
To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
An alternative consensus algorithm to both proof-of-work and proof-of-stake, proof-of-loss addresses all their deficiencies, including the lack of an organic block size limit, the risks of mining centralization, and the "nothing at stake" problem:
https://proof-of-loss.money/
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2954 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proof-of-Loss
2017-04-05 19:12 ` Mirelo
@ 2017-04-06 2:43 ` Erik Aronesty
2017-04-06 5:47 ` Mirelo
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Erik Aronesty @ 2017-04-06 2:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mirelo, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2038 bytes --]
Is this the same as proof of burn?
On Apr 5, 2017 5:28 PM, "Mirelo via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> With the feedback on Proof-of-Loss (always privately to my email), I
> realized the article was hard to understand for lacking:
>
> * A more explicit definition of transaction rights.
> * An overview of how the algorithm works.
>
> As an abstract could not contain all that, I wrote an introduction with
> examples.
>
> I also adopted a suggestion of including the current block height in the
> proof-of-loss data once I realized:
>
> * Preventing the same proof-of-loss from chaining consecutive blocks was
> not the purpose of the proof-of-loss context, which did it statistically
> rather than logically.
> * The presence of that height in the block header made serial chaining
> easier to enforce, by removing the need to include additional block height
> information.
>
> While revising the algorithm, I made some corrections, mainly to:
>
> * Transaction prioritization (which now uses fees instead of rights).
> * Inactivity fees.
>
> Finally, the new version more aptly derives the design and often has
> better wording.
>
> The new text is available at:
>
> https://proof-of-loss.money/
>
> Mirelo
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Proof-of-Loss
> Local Time: February 4, 2017 10:39 AM
> UTC Time: February 4, 2017 12:39 PM
> From: mirelo@deugh-ausgam-valis•com
> To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org <bitcoin-dev@lists.
> linuxfoundation.org>
>
> An alternative consensus algorithm to both proof-of-work and
> proof-of-stake, *proof-of-loss* addresses all their deficiencies,
> including the lack of an organic block size limit, the risks of mining
> centralization, and the "nothing at stake" problem:
>
> *https://proof-of-loss.money/ <https://proof-of-loss.money/>*
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4368 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proof-of-Loss
2017-04-06 2:43 ` Erik Aronesty
@ 2017-04-06 5:47 ` Mirelo
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Mirelo @ 2017-04-06 5:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: erik; +Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2385 bytes --]
Erik,
No, it is not, but I would like to ask anyone with any feedback on proof-of-loss to please direct it only to my email, or else follow the discussion links on the Proof-of-Loss home page.
Thanks,
Mirelo
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proof-of-Loss
Local Time: April 5, 2017 11:43 PM
UTC Time: April 6, 2017 2:43 AM
From: earonesty@gmail•com
To: Mirelo <mirelo@deugh-ausgam-valis•com>, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Is this the same as proof of burn?
On Apr 5, 2017 5:28 PM, "Mirelo via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
With the feedback on Proof-of-Loss (always privately to my email), I realized the article was hard to understand for lacking:
* A more explicit definition of transaction rights.
* An overview of how the algorithm works.
As an abstract could not contain all that, I wrote an introduction with examples.
I also adopted a suggestion of including the current block height in the proof-of-loss data once I realized:
* Preventing the same proof-of-loss from chaining consecutive blocks was not the purpose of the proof-of-loss context, which did it statistically rather than logically.
* The presence of that height in the block header made serial chaining easier to enforce, by removing the need to include additional block height information.
While revising the algorithm, I made some corrections, mainly to:
* Transaction prioritization (which now uses fees instead of rights).
* Inactivity fees.
Finally, the new version more aptly derives the design and often has better wording.
The new text is available at:
https://proof-of-loss.money/
Mirelo
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Proof-of-Loss
Local Time: February 4, 2017 10:39 AM
UTC Time: February 4, 2017 12:39 PM
From: mirelo@deugh-ausgam-valis•com
To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
An alternative consensus algorithm to both proof-of-work and proof-of-stake, proof-of-loss addresses all their deficiencies, including the lack of an organic block size limit, the risks of mining centralization, and the "nothing at stake" problem:
https://proof-of-loss.money/
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5602 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [bitcoin-dev] Proof-of-Loss
@ 2018-01-04 10:54 Mirelo
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Mirelo @ 2018-01-04 10:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bitcoin-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 160 bytes --]
Hi,
The paper now includes the pseudocode for block validation:
https://proof-of-loss.money/
Again, please direct any feedback to my email.
Regards,
Mirelo
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 358 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-01-04 11:00 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-02-04 12:39 [bitcoin-dev] Proof-of-Loss Mirelo
2017-04-05 19:12 ` Mirelo
2017-04-06 2:43 ` Erik Aronesty
2017-04-06 5:47 ` Mirelo
2018-01-04 10:54 Mirelo
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox