From: Erik Aronesty <earonesty@gmail•com>
To: Mirelo <mirelo@deugh-ausgam-valis•com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proof-of-Loss
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 22:43:18 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJowKgJ8NBYedU_WAAk8wyNpZaHg479a-QukdbjAGaPwdhmGkw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <qdwYHL1dhGGY8vUrSAtLiPoTMnJCrpgCDO44lian2_Mi_AzAicOb2EAt_T_ajN8G9jfL8bAYCWEIxA-huazbUan40dxD4vQCwT60Us_o19I=@deugh-ausgam-valis.com>
[-- 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 --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-06 2:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-02-04 12:39 Mirelo
2017-04-05 19:12 ` Mirelo
2017-04-06 2:43 ` Erik Aronesty [this message]
2017-04-06 5:47 ` Mirelo
2018-01-04 10:54 Mirelo
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=CAJowKgJ8NBYedU_WAAk8wyNpZaHg479a-QukdbjAGaPwdhmGkw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=earonesty@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=erik@q32$(echo .)com \
--cc=mirelo@deugh-ausgam-valis$(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