MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAGpPWDbGTET27Hq8kKrQQoOavtOUEGzYkohVurSqZJ5r+o4gpQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <151161119-8858833d76ec6beed19cf87cc542dc62@pmq3v.m5r2.onet>
 <CAD5xwhhNgVp1wb3+CEAnGmCoYHFKQPPqRg-WvkCuaD+8WAAG_Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD5xwhhNgVp1wb3+CEAnGmCoYHFKQPPqRg-WvkCuaD+8WAAG_Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 12:15:15 -0600
Message-ID: <CAGpPWDaTb0+jbWzC46K9jnS6-DRb5opDXnmA83P5SeTzACBuaA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeremy <jlrubin@mit.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000038f58a05d5df41e7"
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Bitcoin Advent Calendar] Decentralized
 Coordination Free Mining Pools
Precedence: list

--00000000000038f58a05d5df41e7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

@vjudeu
>  If you introduce signing into mining, then you will have cases, where
someone is powerful enough to produce blocks, but cannot, because signing
is needed..  your consensus is no longer "the heaviest chain"

You've misunderstood my suggestion. This would not be possible with what I
suggested. Why do you think of the signature as some kind of barrier? What
I was suggesting was that, when a miner participating in this protocol
mines a valid bitcoin block, they then sign a superblock with a public key
that can be verified alongside the coinbase output (eg say with data in the
first tapleaf of the output address). The block is still connected to
something secured by PoW. You really made a lot of incorrect assumptions
about what I suggested.

On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 1:05 PM Jeremy <jlrubin@mit.edu> wrote:

> If you introduce signing into mining, then you will have cases, where
>> someone is powerful enough to produce blocks, but cannot, because signing
>> is needed. Then, your consensus is no longer "the heaviest chain", but "the
>> heaviest signed chain". That means, your computing power is no longer
>> enough by itself (as today), because to make a block, you also need some
>> kind of "permission to mine", because first you sign things (like in
>> signet) and then you mine them. That kind of being "reliably unreliable"
>> may be ok for testing, but not for the main network.
>
>
> this is a really great point worth underscoring. this is the 'key
> ingredient' for DCFMP, which is that there is no signing or other network
> system that is 'in the way' of normal bitcoin mining, just an opt-in set of
> rules for sharing the bounties of your block in exchange for future shares.
>

--00000000000038f58a05d5df41e7
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>@vjudeu<br></div>&gt;=C2=A0

If you introduce signing into mining, then you will have cases, where someo=
ne is powerful enough to produce blocks, but cannot, because signing is nee=
ded..=C2=A0

<span style=3D"color:rgb(80,0,80)">your consensus is no longer &quot;the he=
aviest chain&quot;</span><div><br></div><div>You&#39;ve misunderstood my su=
ggestion. This would not be possible with what I suggested. Why do you thin=
k of the signature as some kind of barrier? What I was suggesting was that,=
 when a miner participating=C2=A0in this protocol mines a valid bitcoin blo=
ck, they then sign a superblock with a public key that=C2=A0can be verified=
 alongside the coinbase output (eg say with data in the first tapleaf of th=
e output address). The block is still connected to something secured by PoW=
. You really made a lot of incorrect assumptions about what I suggested.=C2=
=A0</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gma=
il_attr">On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 1:05 PM Jeremy &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jlrub=
in@mit.edu">jlrubin@mit.edu</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gm=
ail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,=
204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"=
gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:sm=
all;color:rgb(0,0,0)"></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote cl=
ass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid=
 rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">If you introduce signing into mining, t=
hen you will have cases, where someone is powerful enough to produce blocks=
, but cannot, because signing is needed. Then, your consensus is no longer =
&quot;the heaviest chain&quot;, but &quot;the heaviest signed chain&quot;. =
That means, your computing power is no longer enough by itself (as today), =
because to make a block, you also need some kind of &quot;permission to min=
e&quot;, because first you sign things (like in signet) and then you mine t=
hem. That kind of being &quot;reliably unreliable&quot; may be ok for testi=
ng, but not for the main network.</blockquote><div><br></div><div class=3D"=
gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:sm=
all;color:rgb(0,0,0)">this is a really great point worth underscoring. this=
 is the &#39;key ingredient&#39; for DCFMP, which is that there is no signi=
ng or other network system that is &#39;in the way&#39; of normal bitcoin m=
ining, just an opt-in set of rules for sharing the bounties of your block i=
n exchange for future shares.</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div>

--00000000000038f58a05d5df41e7--