MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <6do5xN2g5LPnFeM55iJ-4C4MyXOu_KeXxy68Xt4dJQMhi3LJ8ZrLICmEUlh8JGfDmsDG12m1JDAh0e0huwK_MlyKpdfn22ru3zsm7lYLfBo=@protonmail.com>
 <L1IhpSfDNx5OPXYnHfcFDiOzJa8jihbR8YE4MBRaYjuQt2GQsrNd0UnJaJg_mCgHNOcG6QE1Wrwp6zZ-YxOgDNu_aBE67HJkbemHz5Nz9c4=@protonmail.com>
 <CAJowKgKgGynQ9NYe_7xEai0tcBW4b=tQnNpv9vndx1hLCowfWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <J3_n3ygIuQf54KXVl8jlbyahX5WJIzffVeDD3yt0RkRbPRyD56OPj3DT05wGJoEfI6XfLOq2DiaN-vdnXSdi7Q23NWrZ-Tg9jzM9jtx8-hg=@protonmail.com>
 <CAJowKgJTEHLeHpKUOavAY9hHZ_3hChkJnMX13K-pSUhch7JwdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <EdKK1tb2px2G--ianlCQpRjsn7vdXkSr60sV18NpVw-uVuKSA-ag9xXch_rYDkhtaJTH36zDMuVGZyYrKagMNNw_0OrLF8QsPiuo-YIxTaE=@protonmail.com>
 <CAJowKgK+i6WDXQcXnEEt+Y7Bq3vr64cTkSvPjraYiYhNRkBP1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <RgxuE0JLcjQQOuVPxCGdSy-GU4oZx3kmuErGtUCM27rhHKLc47kO7A4M0VQBxc8fj3Y026J7PC4wU0onWlm4tgKycTZTFAN_8PQX3-Tl0j4=@protonmail.com>
 <CAJowKgK7nCkog7+b4-b6mGrNzPye0ch2Y+o_mph2zeVN2MaxSQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ezYMjgraP-QaPOjNm8r6nF7J1J-XIaDbVClPA0lvqMTQrjyHukVKY7473OfrQfHxyVDLqjingyEhA6yEeTF5FabNyY3NwhDPlRK5PRyLJCU=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ezYMjgraP-QaPOjNm8r6nF7J1J-XIaDbVClPA0lvqMTQrjyHukVKY7473OfrQfHxyVDLqjingyEhA6yEeTF5FabNyY3NwhDPlRK5PRyLJCU=@protonmail.com>
From: Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2021 23:15:23 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGpPWDYS6WDZPG0XBmGe=mnnaVjgS-re4D5JAN89gJNNVkW-WA@mail.gmail.com>
To: SatoshiSingh <SatoshiSingh@protonmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000075d1cb05c426f8d8"
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Opinion on proof of stake in future
Precedence: list

--00000000000075d1cb05c426f8d8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

@SatoshiSingh PoLW sounds like a hybrid of PoW and proof of burn. I agree
with befreeandopen that proof of burn is basically a form of proof of
stake. My conclusion from this exploration
<https://github.com/fresheneesz/proofOfTimeOwnership> is that hybrid
protocols are a dead end because hybrid protocols have one weaker link
that's easier to attack.

In this case, miners are burning coinbase rewards. The proof of stake is
the burn itself. However, a miner would only burn coins if doing so lead to
greater rewards in the future. So the burned coins are in fact actually
earned, and still have value. Therefore I would think that miners would
still do an amount of work totaling up to the full value of the block
reward, regardless of whether they burn it, because any burnt coins should
be expected to lead to more coins in the future than were burned. What am I
missing?

On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 10:30 PM SatoshiSingh <SatoshiSingh@protonmail.com>
wrote:

> Great conversation everyone. I'm happy we're still engaged with this
> discussion. To add food for thought I'm bringing back something that was
> introduced in this mailing list sometime ago, which is Proof of Less Work.
>
> PoLW may or may not be it but we can certainly get more ideas from it to
> keep the discussion going.
>
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/alephium/research/master/polw.pdf
>
>
> Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
>
>

--00000000000075d1cb05c426f8d8
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">@SatoshiSingh PoLW sounds like a hybrid of PoW and proof o=
f burn. I agree with befreeandopen that proof of burn is basically a form o=
f proof of stake. My conclusion from <a href=3D"https://github.com/freshene=
esz/proofOfTimeOwnership">this exploration</a>=C2=A0is that hybrid protocol=
s are a dead end because hybrid protocols have one weaker link that&#39;s e=
asier to attack.=C2=A0<div><br></div><div>In this case, miners are burning =
coinbase rewards. The proof of stake is the burn itself. However, a miner w=
ould only burn coins if doing so lead to greater rewards in the future. So =
the burned coins are in fact actually earned, and still have value. Therefo=
re I would think that miners would still do an amount of work totaling up t=
o the full value of the block reward, regardless of whether they burn it, b=
ecause any burnt coins should be expected to lead to more coins in the futu=
re than were burned. What am I missing?=C2=A0</div></div><br><div class=3D"=
gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 1=
0:30 PM SatoshiSingh &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:SatoshiSingh@protonmail.com">Sat=
oshiSingh@protonmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail=
_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204=
,204);padding-left:1ex">Great conversation everyone. I&#39;m happy we&#39;r=
e still engaged with this discussion. To add food for thought I&#39;m bring=
ing back something that was introduced in this mailing list sometime ago, w=
hich is Proof of Less Work.<br>
<br>
PoLW may or may not be it but we can certainly get more ideas from it to ke=
ep the discussion going.<br>
<br>
<a href=3D"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/alephium/research/master/polw.=
pdf" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://raw.githubusercontent.com=
/alephium/research/master/polw.pdf</a><br>
<br>
<br>
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>

--00000000000075d1cb05c426f8d8--