From: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32•com>
To: Jeremy <jlrubin@mit•edu>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>,
SatoshiSingh <SatoshiSingh@protonmail•com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Opinion on proof of stake in future
Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 12:58:59 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJowKgJ1x5YKWS1S-sgdU3Tn+hPT64iiUCwG8qh-JS0xqS7ieA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAD5xwhi1G3Jj3FAAWQP3BXTK34ugDQY32hq-cQnt8Ny8JP4eGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Verifiable Delay Functions involve active participation of a single
verifier. Without this a VDF decays into a proof-of-work (multiple
verifiers === parallelism).
The verifier, in this case is "the bitcoin network" taken as a whole.
I think it is reasonable to consider that some difficult-to-game
property of the last N blocks (like the hash of the last 100
block-id's or whatever), could be the verification input.
The VDF gets calculated by *every* eligible proof-of-burn miner, and
then this is used to prevent a timing issue.
Seems reasonable to me, but I haven't looked too far into the
requirements of VDF's
nice summary for anyone who is interested:
https://medium.com/@djrtwo/vdfs-are-not-proof-of-work-91ba3bec2bf4
While VDF's almost always lead to a "cpu-speed monopoly", this would
only be helpful for block latency in a proof-of-burn chain. Block
height would be calculated by eligible-miner-burned-coins, so the
monopoly could be easily avoided.
There has been some decent earlier work on blind/uncensorable burns:
https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/1096.pdf
A miner could then reveal A) the VDF and B) proof-of-burn as a part of
a block. Nodes would simply select the block with A) a valid VDF and
B) the highest "qualified" POB.
With most burns running at a loss, and no way to predict the next
"winning burn", and the VDF providing timing, I'm not sure how this is
worse than Bitcoin's existing system.
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 5:51 PM Jeremy <jlrubin@mit•edu> wrote:
>
> re: 2, there's been some promising developments with Verifiable Delay Functions that make me think that the block regulation problems are solvable without requiring brute-force search proof of work. Are those inapplicable for some reason?
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-17 16:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 67+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-07 17:17 SatoshiSingh
2021-05-07 23:04 ` Eric Voskuil
2021-05-08 14:33 ` Karl
2021-05-09 10:21 ` R E Broadley
2021-05-09 10:59 ` Karl
2021-05-07 23:19 ` Jeremy
2021-05-08 2:40 ` honest69abe
2021-05-08 14:42 ` Karl
2021-05-09 19:07 ` Cloud Strife
2021-05-08 13:44 ` Eric Martindale
2021-05-09 11:30 ` R E Broadley
2021-05-10 14:08 ` Erik Aronesty
2021-05-10 15:01 ` Keagan McClelland
2021-05-10 21:22 ` LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH
2021-05-10 21:51 ` Jeremy
2021-05-17 16:58 ` Erik Aronesty [this message]
2021-05-18 7:06 ` ZmnSCPxj
2021-05-18 10:16 ` Zac Greenwood
2021-05-18 10:42 ` ZmnSCPxj
2021-05-18 14:02 ` Zac Greenwood
2021-05-18 18:52 ` Erik Aronesty
2021-05-19 14:07 ` Michael Dubrovsky
2021-05-19 15:30 ` Michael Dubrovsky
2021-05-21 0:04 ` Billy Tetrud
2021-05-21 9:42 ` vizeet srivastava
2021-05-21 20:57 ` Erik Aronesty
2021-05-21 21:45 ` Billy Tetrud
2021-05-23 3:41 ` Lloyd Fournier
2021-05-23 19:10 ` Billy Tetrud
2021-05-23 19:28 ` Billy Tetrud
2021-05-24 13:47 ` Erik Aronesty
2021-05-24 20:43 ` Billy Tetrud
2021-05-24 21:49 ` Erik Aronesty
2021-05-25 1:52 ` Billy Tetrud
2021-05-25 13:00 ` Erik Aronesty
2021-05-25 20:01 ` Billy Tetrud
2021-05-25 21:10 ` befreeandopen
2021-05-26 6:53 ` Billy Tetrud
2021-05-26 13:11 ` befreeandopen
2021-05-26 22:07 ` Erik Aronesty
2021-05-28 14:40 ` befreeandopen
2021-05-28 20:06 ` Erik Aronesty
2021-05-28 21:40 ` Billy Tetrud
2021-06-01 8:21 ` befreeandopen
2021-06-01 16:33 ` Erik Aronesty
2021-06-01 19:26 ` befreeandopen
2021-06-01 20:28 ` Erik Aronesty
2021-06-03 5:30 ` SatoshiSingh
2021-06-07 6:15 ` Billy Tetrud
2021-05-27 10:08 ` Billy Tetrud
2021-05-27 13:11 ` Erik Aronesty
2021-05-28 14:36 ` befreeandopen
2021-05-25 8:22 ` befreeandopen
2021-06-15 11:13 ` James MacWhyte
2021-06-17 1:48 ` Lloyd Fournier
2021-06-17 3:31 ` Cloud Strife
2021-06-22 17:45 ` Billy Tetrud
2021-06-23 18:14 ` Keagan McClelland
2021-06-24 0:14 ` Billy Tetrud
2021-06-24 0:37 ` Keagan McClelland
2021-06-24 17:34 ` yanmaani
2021-06-24 21:50 ` Erik Aronesty
2021-06-25 0:29 ` yanmaani
2021-06-25 16:08 ` Ruben Somsen
[not found] ` <MN2PR10MB4030EBD14EF82E29CFEDD00FB1069@MN2PR10MB4030.namprd10.prod.outlook.com>
2021-06-26 16:26 ` Billy Tetrud
2021-05-08 10:21 Prayank
[not found] <mailman.100801.1624522329.32591.bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
2021-06-24 8:59 ` Carlo Spiller
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=CAJowKgJ1x5YKWS1S-sgdU3Tn+hPT64iiUCwG8qh-JS0xqS7ieA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=erik@q32$(echo .)com \
--cc=SatoshiSingh@protonmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jlrubin@mit$(echo .)edu \
/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