From: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32•com>
To: Jeremy <jlrubin@mit•edu>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Gradual transition to an alternate proof without a hard fork.
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 17:47:44 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJowKgLNubeU0nVHqx+c8Jz+qMtOgmqwrCRdzCmaLvU67Jo6zw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAD5xwhjWHsEZjTKJA3e+mwKZxuXf043jKvqDG4_hYRhd1jR07g@mail.gmail.com>
> I think you need to hard deprecate the PoW for this to work, otherwise all old miners are like "toxic waste".
what would be the incentive? a POB would be required on every block
(and would be lost if not used). so any miner doing this would just
be doing "extra work" and strictly losing money over a miner that
doesn't. a 99% reduction would be more than enough tho.
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 5:24 PM Jeremy <jlrubin@mit•edu> wrote:
>
> 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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-16 21:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-16 20:48 Erik Aronesty
2021-04-16 21:24 ` Jeremy
2021-04-16 21:47 ` Erik Aronesty [this message]
2021-04-17 11:19 ` Devrandom
2021-04-17 11:47 ` Anthony Towns
2021-05-21 20:11 ` Billy Tetrud
2021-05-21 20:54 ` Erik Aronesty
2021-04-17 9:41 vjudeu
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=CAJowKgLNubeU0nVHqx+c8Jz+qMtOgmqwrCRdzCmaLvU67Jo6zw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=erik@q32$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(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