Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC9C9C000E for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 00:37:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DDBC6079B for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 00:37:22 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j_WU_ybpL3DQ for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 00:37:21 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-wm1-x333.google.com (mail-wm1-x333.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::333]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1DEE6079D for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 00:37:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm1-x333.google.com with SMTP id l18-20020a1ced120000b029014c1adff1edso5071355wmh.4 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 17:37:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=S7cW8vzCvGyG51AFWsHGpigV+ntmvZE9wo/O50rjCYk=; b=ctkEDC3ydFCICBpYpJ1GgiUGSPkuDcfJPOOHzWT3dEK3ovrLXnCL1q3NWp1+LEFda3 hK9SdQdy/AGDewTwSsmnwB3TQXdNWFCwTQbex+AVUOvQEa+v9kzUQCgwM31ph9gxfkVc +IazaO2AwauXegXnne6xemakOf69PgF0jYSUjs7Bgt3XCKxImf529whBWOEkPyhvYBNm kGFgXDTcR2ycWVUqOyULkeqtTMLClbQaXOrxlal0qcL/EBTb/mJ07i6Eeo07BiSrJb91 7CFxA6gtGai57PkgIWmg6u3fLtNzXCpOGwBLfkl4PO91v2mEtFr5w/rZQ5MYoZJ7PPsO j6fA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=S7cW8vzCvGyG51AFWsHGpigV+ntmvZE9wo/O50rjCYk=; b=j0L4Y2tQe61ifjfKSjZplkUtBc4mq7NAHgfqFCzNy6gchFK1lzmw22xTbTx1s/i0Oc e+DbAWut7sENxnHBNIQi2X8940iMLfPW9SFzXZXR8dKgCHHjNohWQVwzEkKMgnTsw0dq dkXmvWSYgWlzstVYzASRMVoUDy1+xtC6hmroukrWFeNKvL/SWMX9aJEmEs2Tl9dBEkMZ 3s6b4phxCT041CyY/z6UABhVA8MTBxpPK9Scu+ZLge/JQwiYm6dI8r0c2f6lpU4h6jOd cylE+EFNAaXvzvusMITCzuhysZ8DdPZhteWnF7BK1MiHO32ZYQxmjKIA7iRagDKkjA7c NoHg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532ezWds+QFkBVnI+Y1HHo0KaL+Wpbykz7Ms49eP+O48BJTw30Rm FofQAaIF3OnOZxAqgCY3t67bl6QpJUK8pMujtFU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwTHyQtYz4W8gtBr3wE2AFkcVnU+B2wiuZgUwl5DXt5WzvJeCQJvKkNrtg9lXEXOeWJeV5lNI//CmqWfWfFV50= X-Received: by 2002:a7b:ca43:: with SMTP id m3mr872025wml.74.1624495039062; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 17:37:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <6do5xN2g5LPnFeM55iJ-4C4MyXOu_KeXxy68Xt4dJQMhi3LJ8ZrLICmEUlh8JGfDmsDG12m1JDAh0e0huwK_MlyKpdfn22ru3zsm7lYLfBo=@protonmail.com> <30li5MRxkBhzLxLmzRnHkCdn8n3Feqegi-FLZ5VDyIX2uRJfq4kVtrsLxw6dUtsM1atYV25IfIfDaQp4s2Dn2vc8LvYkhbAsn0v_Fwjerpw=@protonmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Keagan McClelland Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 18:37:07 -0600 Message-ID: To: Billy Tetrud Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000be271905c5783976" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 08:12:09 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Opinion on proof of stake in future X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 00:37:22 -0000 --000000000000be271905c5783976 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > That is in fact true of Proof of Work as well. If a colluding coalition of miners with more than 50% of the hashrate want to censor transactions, they absolutely can do that by orphaning blocks that contain transactions they want to censor. This is not different in proof of stake. This power does not translate into them being able to block your acquisition of hashpower itself, a property extremely different than in proof of stake. On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 6:14 PM Billy Tetrud wrote: > > This is not true in a Proof of Work system and this difference > absolutely should not be trivialized. > > That is in fact true of Proof of Work as well. If a colluding coalition of > miners with more than 50% of the hashrate want to censor transactions, they > absolutely can do that by orphaning blocks that contain transactions > they want to censor. This is not different in proof of stake. > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 11:14 AM Keagan McClelland < > keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Premise: There is a healthy exchange market for PoS Coin X with tens of >> thousands of participants bidding to buy and sell the coin for other >> currencies on the market. >> >> The difference here though is that Proof of Stake allows the quorum of >> coin holders to block the exchange of said coins if they are going to a >> particular destination. Nothing requires these staking nodes to include >> particular transactions into a block. With that in mind, it isn't just that >> you require the permission of the person who sold you the coins, which I >> can agree is a less dangerous form of permission, but you must also require >> the permission of at least 51% of the coin holders to even receive those >> coins in the first place. This is not true in a Proof of Work system and >> this difference absolutely should not be trivialized. >> >> Keagan >> >> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 2:30 AM Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >>> > Barrier to entry in PoS is being given permission by the previous >>> owner of a token >>> >>> The idea that proof of stake is not permissionless is completely >>> invalid. It pains me to see such an argument here. Perhaps we can come to >>> an agreement by being more specific. I'd like to propose the following: >>> >>> Premise: There is a healthy exchange market for PoS Coin X with tens of >>> thousands of participants bidding to buy and sell the coin for other >>> currencies on the market. >>> >>> If the premise above is true, then there is no significant permission >>> needed to enter the market for minting blocks for PoS Coin X. If you make a >>> bid on someone's coins and they don't like you and refuse, you can move on >>> to any one of the other tens of thousands of people in that marketplace. >>> Would you agree, Cloud Strife, that this situation couldn't be considered >>> "permissioned"? >>> >>> If not, consider that participation in *any* decentralized system >>> requires the permission of at least one user in that system. If there are >>> thousands of bitcoin public nodes, you require the permission of at least >>> one of them to participate in bitcoin. No one considers bitcoin >>> "permissioned" because of this. Do you agree? >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 1:15 PM Cloud Strife via bitcoin-dev < >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Barrier to entry in PoW is matter for hardware and energy is >>>> permissionless and exist all over the universe, permissionless cost which >>>> exists for everyone no matter who because it's unforgeable. >>>> >>>> Barrier to entry in PoS is being given permission by the previous owner >>>> of a token for you to have it via transfer or sale, both choices they never >>>> have to make since there are no continuous costs with producing blocks >>>> forcing it. A permission is an infinitely high barrier to entry if the >>>> previous owner, like the premining party, refuses to give up the token they >>>> control. >>>> >>>> You're skipping the part where you depend on a permission of a central >>>> party in control of the authority token before you can produce blocks on >>>> your rasberry Pi. >>>> >>>> Proof of stake is not in any possible way relevant to permissionless >>>> protocols, and thus not possibly relevant to decentralized protocols where >>>> control must be distributed to independent (i.e. permissionless) parties. >>>> >>>> There's nothing of relevance to discuss and this has been figured out >>>> long long ago. >>>> >>>> >>>> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Proof-of-Stake-Fallacy >>>> >>>> >>>> https://medium.com/@factchecker9000/nothing-is-worse-than-proof-of-stake-e70b12b988ca >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 7:13 AM James MacWhyte via bitcoin-dev < >>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> @Lloyd wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Of course in reality no one wants to keep their coin holding keys >>>>>> online so in Alogorand you can authorize a set of "participation keys"[1] >>>>>> that will be used to create blocks on your coin holding key's behalf. >>>>>> Hopefully you've spotted the problem. >>>>>> You can send your participation keys to any malicious party with a >>>>>> nice website (see random example [2]) offering you a good return. >>>>>> Damn it's still Proof-of-SquareSpace! >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I believe we are talking about a comparison to PoW, correct? If you >>>>> want to mine PoW, you need to buy expensive hardware and configure it to >>>>> work, and wait a long time to get any return by solo mining. Or you can >>>>> join a mining pool, which might use your hashing power for nefarious >>>>> purposes. Or you might skip the hardware all together and fall for some >>>>> "cloud mining" scheme with a pretty website and a high rate of advertised >>>>> return. So as you can see, Proof-of-SquareSpace exists in PoW as well! >>>>> >>>>> The PoS equivalent of buying mining hardware is setting up your own >>>>> validator and not outsourcing that to anyone else. So both PoW and PoS have >>>>> the professional/expert way of participating, and the fraud-prone, amateur >>>>> way of participating. The only difference is, with PoS the >>>>> professional/expert way is accessible to anyone with a raspberry Pi and a >>>>> web connection, which is a much lower barrier to entry than PoW. >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list >>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list >>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> bitcoin-dev mailing list >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >>> >> --000000000000be271905c5783976 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> That is in fact true of Proof of Work as well. If a c= olluding coalition of miners with more than 50% of the hashrate want to cen= sor transactions, they absolutely can do that by orphaning blocks that cont= ain transactions they=C2=A0want to censor. This is not different in proof o= f stake.

This power does not translate into them being a= ble to block your acquisition of hashpower itself, a property extremely dif= ferent than in proof of stake.

On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 6:14 PM Billy T= etrud <billy.tetrud@gmail.com<= /a>> wrote:
<= div dir=3D"ltr">>=C2=A0 This is not true in a Proof of Work system and this difference absolutely s= hould not be trivialized.

That is in fact true of Proof = of Work as well. If a colluding coalition of miners with more than 50% of t= he hashrate want to censor transactions, they absolutely can do that by orp= haning blocks that contain transactions they=C2=A0want to censor. This is n= ot different in proof of stake.=C2=A0

On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 11:14 AM= Keagan McClelland <keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com> wrote:
> Premise:= There is a healthy exchange market for PoS Coin X with tens of thousands o= f participants bidding to buy and sell the coin for other currencies on the= market.=C2=A0

The difference here though is that P= roof of Stake allows the quorum of coin holders to block the exchange of sa= id coins if they are going to a particular destination. Nothing requires th= ese staking nodes to include particular transactions into a block. With tha= t in mind, it isn't just that you require the permission of the person = who sold you the coins, which I can agree is a less dangerous form of permi= ssion, but you must also require the permission of at least 51% of the coin= holders to even receive those coins in the first place. This is not true i= n a Proof of Work system and this difference absolutely should not be trivi= alized.

Keagan

On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 2:30 AM Bill= y Tetrud via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> = wrote:
>=C2=A0 Barrier to entry in PoS is being given permission by the previous owner of = a token

The idea that proof of stake is not permissionle= ss is completely invalid. It pains me to see such an argument here. Perhaps= we can come to an agreement by being more specific. I'd like to propos= e the following:

Premise: There is a healthy excha= nge market for PoS Coin X with tens of thousands of participants bidding to= buy and sell the coin for other currencies on the market.=C2=A0
=
If the premise above is true, then there is no significant p= ermission needed to enter the market for minting blocks for PoS Coin X. If = you make a bid on someone's coins and they don't like you and refus= e, you can move on to any one of the other tens of thousands of people in t= hat marketplace. Would you agree, Cloud Strife, that this situation couldn&= #39;t be considered "permissioned"?=C2=A0

If not, c= onsider that participation in *any* decentralized system requires the permi= ssion of at least one user in that system. If there are thousands of bitcoi= n public nodes, you require the permission of at least one of them to parti= cipate in bitcoin. No one considers bitcoin "permissioned" becaus= e of this. Do you agree?=C2=A0

On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 1:15 PM Cloud S= trife via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wro= te:
Barrier to entry in PoW is matter for hardware and en= ergy is permissionless and exist all over the universe, permissionless=C2= =A0cost which exists for everyone no matter who because it's unforgeabl= e.

Barrier to entry in PoS is being given permission by = the previous owner of a token for you to have it via transfer or sale, both= choices they never have to make since there are no continuous=C2=A0costs w= ith producing blocks forcing it. A permission is an infinitely high barrier= to entry if the previous owner, like the premining party, refuses to give = up the token they control.

You're skipping the= part where you depend on a permission of a central party in control of the= authority token before you can produce blocks on your rasberry=C2=A0Pi.

Proof of stake is not in any possible way relevant t= o permissionless protocols, and thus not possibly relevant to decentralized= protocols where control must be distributed to independent (i.e. permissio= nless) parties.

There's nothing=C2=A0of releva= nce to discuss and this has been figured out long long ago.

<= /div>


<= /div>



On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 7:13 AM James Ma= cWhyte via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wr= ote:

@Lloyd wrote:

Of course in reality no one wants to keep their coin holding ke= ys online so in Alogorand you can authorize a set of "participation ke= ys"[1] that will be used to create blocks on your coin holding key'= ;s behalf.
Hopefully you've spotted the problem.
You can send you= r participation keys to any malicious party with a nice website (see random= example [2]) offering you a good return.
Damn it's still Proof-of-S= quareSpace!

I believe we are talk= ing about a comparison to PoW, correct? If you want to mine PoW, you need t= o buy expensive hardware and configure it to work, and wait a long time to = get any return by solo mining. Or you can join a mining pool, which might u= se your hashing power for nefarious purposes. Or you might skip the hardwar= e all together and fall for some "cloud mining" scheme with a pre= tty website and a high rate of advertised return. So as you can see, Proof-= of-SquareSpace exists in PoW as well!

The PoS equi= valent of buying mining hardware is setting up your own validator and not o= utsourcing that to anyone else. So both PoW and PoS have the professional/e= xpert way of participating, and the fraud-prone, amateur way of participati= ng. The only difference is, with PoS the professional/expert way is accessi= ble to anyone with a raspberry Pi and a web connection, which is a much low= er barrier to entry than PoW.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--000000000000be271905c5783976--