From: Mirelo <mirelo@deugh-ausgam-valis•com>
To: "bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org"
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Proof-of-Loss
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 15:12:20 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <qdwYHL1dhGGY8vUrSAtLiPoTMnJCrpgCDO44lian2_Mi_AzAicOb2EAt_T_ajN8G9jfL8bAYCWEIxA-huazbUan40dxD4vQCwT60Us_o19I=@deugh-ausgam-valis.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xDk8CtqtLEE1SOMmY3ztYPDFREGNIm4OvJESS_TlQpGerVbz4MNI0uOmE3ERXSsHSYEZE7gG1rfRAyXg9x-ziA0BrMkW1RdhNIQwO1MqYao=@deugh-ausgam-valis.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1584 bytes --]
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/
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2954 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-05 19:12 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 [this message]
2017-04-06 2:43 ` Erik Aronesty
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='qdwYHL1dhGGY8vUrSAtLiPoTMnJCrpgCDO44lian2_Mi_AzAicOb2EAt_T_ajN8G9jfL8bAYCWEIxA-huazbUan40dxD4vQCwT60Us_o19I=@deugh-ausgam-valis.com' \
--to=mirelo@deugh-ausgam-valis$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
/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