From: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32•com>
To: Zac Greenwood <zachgrw@gmail•com>
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: Tue, 18 May 2021 14:52:51 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJowKgJ3DOrtO+_XzoEnqQUQdge=zCopg2mvuy5F=RSeaVPJYQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJ4-pECb9QSUDPax8SU+-KGwPgVju=YKax9eb-iRwAmZGcMcPg@mail.gmail.com>
1. i never suggested vdf's to replace pow.
2. my suggestion was specifically *in the context of* a working
proof-of-burn protocol
- vdfs used only for timing (not block height)
- blind-burned coins of a specific age used to replace proof of work
- the required "work" per block would simply be a competition to
acquire rewards, and so miners would have to burn coins, well in
advance, and hope that their burned coins got rewarded in some far
future
- the point of burned coins is to mimic, in every meaningful way, the
value gained from proof of work... without some of the security
drawbacks
- the miner risks losing all of his burned coins (like all miners risk
losing their work in each block)
- new burns can't be used
- old burns age out (like ASICs do)
- other requirements on burns might be needed to properly mirror the
properties of PoW and the incentives Bitcoin uses to mine honestly.
3. i do believe it is *possible* that a "burned coin + vdf system"
might be more secure in the long run, and that if the entire space
agreed that such an endeavor was worthwhile, a test net could be spun
up, and a hard-fork could be initiated.
4. i would never suggest such a thing unless i believed it was
possible that consensus was possible. so no, this is not an "alt
coin"
On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 10:02 AM Zac Greenwood <zachgrw@gmail•com> wrote:
>
> Hi ZmnSCPxj,
>
> Please note that I am not suggesting VDFs as a means to save energy, but solely as a means to make the time between blocks more constant.
>
> Zac
>
>
> On Tue, 18 May 2021 at 12:42, ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail•com> wrote:
>>
>> Good morning Zac,
>>
>> > VDFs might enable more constant block times, for instance by having a two-step PoW:
>> >
>> > 1. Use a VDF that takes say 9 minutes to resolve (VDF being subject to difficulty adjustments similar to the as-is). As per the property of VDFs, miners are able show proof of work.
>> >
>> > 2. Use current PoW mechanism with lower difficulty so finding a block takes 1 minute on average, again subject to as-is difficulty adjustments.
>> >
>> > As a result, variation in block times will be greatly reduced.
>>
>> As I understand it, another weakness of VDFs is that they are not inherently progress-free (their sequential nature prevents that; they are inherently progress-requiring).
>>
>> Thus, a miner which focuses on improving the amount of energy that it can pump into the VDF circuitry (by overclocking and freezing the circuitry), could potentially get into a winner-takes-all situation, possibly leading to even *worse* competition and even *more* energy consumption.
>> After all, if you can start mining 0.1s faster than the competition, that is a 0.1s advantage where *only you* can mine *in the entire world*.
>>
>> Regards,
>> ZmnSCPxj
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-18 18:53 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
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 [this message]
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='CAJowKgJ3DOrtO+_XzoEnqQUQdge=zCopg2mvuy5F=RSeaVPJYQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=erik@q32$(echo .)com \
--cc=SatoshiSingh@protonmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=zachgrw@gmail$(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