From: Gareth Williams <gacrux@gmail•com>
To: bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proof-of-Stake branch?
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 09:44:13 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bf916afe-6617-43c9-9738-486316ce308f@email.android.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <535C1980.7000505@monetize.io>
What about using fraud proofs? Your coinbase only matures if nobody publishes proof that you signed a competing block.
Then something is at least at stake. When it's your chance to sign a block, attempting to sign and publish more than one at the same height reliably punishes you (you effectively waste your chance and receive no reward.)
I can't remember who I saw discussing this idea. Might have been Vitalik Buterin?
On 27 April 2014 6:39:28 AM AEST, Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize•io> wrote:
>There's no need to be confrontational. I don't think anyone here
>objects
>to the basic concept of proof-of-stake. Some people, myself included,
>have proposed protocols which involve some sort of proof of stake
>mechanism, and the idea itself originated as a mechanism for
>eliminating
>checkpoints, something which is very much on topic and of concern to
>many here.
>
>The problems come when one tries to *replace* proof-of-work mining with
>proof-of-stake "mining." You encounter problems related to the fact
>that
>with proof-of-stake nothing is actually at stake. You are free to sign
>as many different forks as you wish, and worse have incentive to do so,
>because whatever fork does win, you want it to be yours. In the worst
>case this results in double-spends at will, and in the best case with
>any of the various proposed protections deployed, it merely reduces to
>proof-of-work as miners grind blocks until they find one that names
>them
>or one of their sock puppets as the signer of the next block.
>
>I sincerely doubt you will find a solution to this, as it appears to be
>a fundamental issue with proof-of-stake, in that it must leverage an
>existing mechanism for enforced scarcity (e.g. proof-of-work) in order
>to work in a consensus algorithm. Is there some solution that you have
>in mind for this?
>
>Mark
>
>On 04/25/2014 12:33 AM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
>> Do it. Someone will scream harm. The loudest voices screaming how it
>would
>> be harmful are doing the most harm.
>>
>> The only way to know is build it, and test it. If the network breaks,
>then
>> it is better we find out sooner rather than later.
>>
>> My only suggestion is call it 'bitstake' or something to clearly
>differentiate
>> it from Bitcoin. This also might be an interesting application of the
>side
>> chains concept Peter Todd has discussed.
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 04:32:15PM -0700, Stephen Reed wrote:
>>> Hello all.
>>>
>>> I understand that Proof-of-Stake as a replacement for Proof-of-Work
>is a prohibited yet disputed change to Bitcoin Core. I would like to
>create a Bitcoin branch that provides a sandboxed testbed for
>researching the best PoS implementations. In the years to come, perhaps
>circumstances might arise, such as shifting of user opinion as to
>whether PoS should be moved from the prohibited list to the hard-fork
>list.
>>> -----
>>>
>>> A poll I conducted today on bitcointalk,
>https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=581635.0 with an
>attention-grabbing title suggests some minority support for Bitcoin
>Proof-of-Stake. I invite any of you to critically comment on that
>thread.
>>>
>>> "Annual 10% bitcoin dividends can be ours if Proof-of-Stake full
>nodes outnumber existing Proof-of-Work full nodes by three-to-one. What
>is your choice?"
>>>
>>> "I do not care or do not know enough." - 5 (16.1%)
>>> "I would download and run the existing Proof-of-Work program to
>fight the change." - 14 (45.2%)
>>> "I would download and run the new Proof-of-Stake program to favor
>the change. " - 12 (38.7%)
>>> Total Voters: 31
>>> -----
>>>
>>> Before I branch the source code and learn the proper way of doing
>things in this community, I ask you simply if creating the branch is
>harmful? My goal is to develop, test and document PoS, while exploring
>its vulnerabilities and fixing them in a transparent fashion.
>>>
>>> Thanks for taking a bit of your time to read this message.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Start Your Social Network Today - Download eXo Platform
>Build your Enterprise Intranet with eXo Platform Software
>Java Based Open Source Intranet - Social, Extensible, Cloud Ready
>Get Started Now And Turn Your Intranet Into A Collaboration Platform
>http://p.sf.net/sfu/ExoPlatform
>_______________________________________________
>Bitcoin-development mailing list
>Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-04-26 23:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-24 23:32 Stephen Reed
2014-04-25 7:33 ` Troy Benjegerdes
[not found] ` <D95AE4AB-DC67-4136-901A-D8F712EB7357@acidhou.se>
2014-04-25 10:35 ` Stephen Reed
2014-04-26 18:18 ` Mike Hearn
2014-04-26 20:39 ` Mark Friedenbach
2014-04-26 23:44 ` Gareth Williams [this message]
2014-04-27 1:22 ` Mark Friedenbach
2014-04-27 2:01 ` Gareth Williams
2014-04-28 12:03 ` Alex Mizrahi
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=bf916afe-6617-43c9-9738-486316ce308f@email.android.com \
--to=gacrux@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
/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