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.

On Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 2:08 PM Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Not sure of the best place to workshop ideas, so please take this with
a grain of salt.

Starting with 3 assumptions:

- assume that there exists a proof-of-burn that, for Bitcoin's
purposes, accurately-enough models the investment in and development
of ASICs to maintain miner incentive.
- assume the resulting timing problem "how much burn is enough to keep
blocks 10 minutes apart and what does that even mean"  is also...
perfectly solvable
- assume "everyone unanimously loves this idea"

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?

IE: We could transition to another "required proof" - such as a
quantum POW or a POB (above) or something else ....  in a back-compat
way (existing nodes not aware of the rules would continue to
validate).
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev