Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.216.173 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.216.173; envelope-from=tier.nolan@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-qc0-f173.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <55531E19.3090503@electrum.org>
References: <5550D8BE.6070207@electrum.org>
	<ce3d34c92efd1cf57326e4679550944e@national.shitposting.agency>
	<CABsx9T1VgxEJWxrYTs+2hXGnGrSLGJ6mVcAexjXLvK7Vu+e3EA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5551F376.4050008@electrum.org>
	<CABsx9T1h7p3hDr7ty43uxsYs-oNRpndzg=dowST2tXtogxRm2g@mail.gmail.com>
	<555210AF.3090705@electrum.org>
	<CABsx9T3AxM3et7hgXx3+Rn3BvhQkF-Cn797sHcyztkMpD1UQmA@mail.gmail.com>
	<55531E19.3090503@electrum.org>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 11:14:06 +0100
Message-ID: <CAE-z3OXa8vk6Q1EBChoRYDOLKw--CXNXz4AokXCbVam_8LFFDg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1147efce0b8a960515f3df2e
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Long-term mining incentives
Precedence: list

--001a1147efce0b8a960515f3df2e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Thomas Voegtlin <thomasv@electrum.org>
wrote:

>
> The reason I am asking that is, there seems to be no consensus among
> core developers on how Bitcoin can work without miner subsidy. How it
> *will* work is another question.
>

The position seems to be that it will continue to work for the time being,
so there is still time for more research.

Proof of stake has problems with handling long term reversals.  The main
proposal is to slightly weaken the security requirements.

With POW, a new node only needs to know the genesis block (and network
rules) to fully determine which of two chains is the strongest.

Penalties for abusing POS inherently create a time horizon.  A suggested
POS security model would assume that a full node is a node that resyncs
with the network regularly (every N blocks).    N would be depend on the
network rules of the coin.

The alternative is that 51% of the holders of coins at the genesis block
can rewrite the entire chain.  The genesis block might not be the first
block, a POS coin might still use POW for minting.

https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/11/25/proof-stake-learned-love-weak-subjectivity/

--001a1147efce0b8a960515f3df2e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On W=
ed, May 13, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Thomas Voegtlin <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:thomasv@electrum.org" target=3D"_blank">thomasv@electrum.org</a>=
&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px=
 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br=
>
The reason I am asking that is, there seems to be no consensus among<br>
core developers on how Bitcoin can work without miner subsidy. How it<br>
*will* work is another question.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The po=
sition seems to be that it will continue to work for the time being, so the=
re is still time for more research.<br><br></div><div>Proof of stake has pr=
oblems with handling long term reversals.=C2=A0 The main proposal is to sli=
ghtly weaken the security requirements.<br><br></div><div>With POW, a new n=
ode only needs to know the genesis block (and network rules) to fully deter=
mine which of two chains is the strongest.<br><br></div><div>Penalties for =
abusing POS inherently create a time horizon.=C2=A0 A suggested POS securit=
y model would assume that a full node is a node that resyncs with the netwo=
rk regularly (every N blocks).=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 N would be depend on the n=
etwork rules of the coin.<br><br></div><div>The alternative is that 51% of =
the holders of coins at the genesis block can rewrite the entire chain.=C2=
=A0 The genesis block might not be the first block, a POS coin might still =
use POW for minting.<br></div><div><br><a href=3D"https://blog.ethereum.org=
/2014/11/25/proof-stake-learned-love-weak-subjectivity/">https://blog.ether=
eum.org/2014/11/25/proof-stake-learned-love-weak-subjectivity/</a> <br></di=
v></div></div></div>

--001a1147efce0b8a960515f3df2e--