Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FECAC0001 for ; Sun, 9 May 2021 11:31:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCA4D60829 for ; Sun, 9 May 2021 11:31:09 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.875 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.875 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, 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, URI_DOTEDU=1.273] autolearn=no 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 nlbGq0q1_ZIF for ; Sun, 9 May 2021 11:31:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-oo1-xc2f.google.com (mail-oo1-xc2f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c2f]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C00C2607D3 for ; Sun, 9 May 2021 11:31:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oo1-xc2f.google.com with SMTP id t17-20020a4a3e110000b02901fab2f46a48so2914156oot.6 for ; Sun, 09 May 2021 04:31:08 -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; bh=MRy06mjaS7UuSTdIobBDikv7fIkumz30waa8/kQtFZg=; b=QihV92HZhZbpGiSbwoJnT0vlcUxFISnPnVv572fLKxn/sAyDyW1M9JCM8Umy6zjrIM hNZ5zTLSS3z/Z5E8JqmnxJgwqOleFAgazjueL2mRX23FMTttre5Nll9XJBrt+oL1tOOj uJYgzL6AowCf8Osa/I8DOiREcuGG7Gu6+eUxsZVC+N2l+49Tb2/IrAs8qhw0SEYfzuOE amNsI+ycuGk5vwblpQh/bWvbCbluwfN7Jm/PDFq/wGc3xvQ60rcrptSS7uhsHw/qNSj2 i3RDlKCfJSqsg/VBu5Q82u/laNgAhUDOlnZXrqe5xKBf92kwOPayHhO7+B7HJ3jt1bxL +EcQ== 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; bh=MRy06mjaS7UuSTdIobBDikv7fIkumz30waa8/kQtFZg=; b=pMtU8F4eOE7RZXmR4phMxLdT9PiuM5Jd8K8wseKCNYcNhbQBhtgKMcx8I5cHxmgFED Ka8BYCn54liOon0m6IZHZHleAVFrv7waHG6lDrYu8j4I+a7EGjk7a2A9LVO6KuyAOOsh S0ovZ+5GuaT85WhGjv5HJ2nsal5RK6LvRDrUvhtOleLEguB0elpZBK5CXo8Vyt8sFmmc ID7atMIL2ANFqaMibOuqBVbTpxFIINaIeDMslqVysTzKYQ8WB+KcfbwQptz9OJMKPIqM 5JYnh9FYLaibE4oLskdURmcRzOOEO/DInghN56/rRLv623aeRO0PM/nNl75BNemikDJm vVDg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531qXPnkWffHnsefTvcdqhgEBperj+fk/9Yqb1duyOPO7xOknFfX LGhebCeYR3j0KZGBQJ+4SPK9YX1mlN64TqYdero= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyhv3WSNqE5p4TjZL1pF3nUIgrO9IuQ14EOxvHXgQ3VmW7k8XaceW8OTe8+Q8vWfbdLz3XYPnVg/H1EnTDEqXw= X-Received: by 2002:a4a:e934:: with SMTP id a20mr15207299ooe.27.1620559867649; Sun, 09 May 2021 04:31:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <6do5xN2g5LPnFeM55iJ-4C4MyXOu_KeXxy68Xt4dJQMhi3LJ8ZrLICmEUlh8JGfDmsDG12m1JDAh0e0huwK_MlyKpdfn22ru3zsm7lYLfBo=@protonmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: R E Broadley Date: Sun, 9 May 2021 12:30:53 +0100 Message-ID: To: Eric Martindale , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003fa74a05c1e3ff09" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 09 May 2021 19:53:08 +0000 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: Sun, 09 May 2021 11:31:10 -0000 --0000000000003fa74a05c1e3ff09 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable According to this paper: https://www.cs.umd.edu/projects/coinscope/coinscope.pdf PoW is also only resilient to 1/3rd of the network. On Sat, 8 May 2021 at 14:46, Eric Martindale via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > Mr. Singh, > > Proof of Stake is only resilient to =E2=85=93 of the network demonstratin= g a Byzantine Fault, whilst Proof of Work is resilient up to the =C2=BD thresho= ld. You can explore prior research here: https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf > > Independent of the security thresholds, Proof of Stake requires other trade-offs which are incompatible with Bitcoin's objective (to be a trustless digital cash) =E2=80=94 specifically the famous "security vs. liv= eness" guarantee. Digital cash is not useful if it must be globally halted to ensure its security, and Proof of Work squarely addresses this concern. > > Above and beyond any security consideration, Proof of Stake incentivizes the accumulation of wealth within a small set of actors, which is undesirable for the long-term health of any such network. If we are to free humanity from the tyranny of the State, we must do so by protecting the rights of every individual to hold and preserve their own value, without trusting any third party. Entrusting the health of the network to the "economic elite" is the paramount evil with respect to Bitcoin's objectives, nevermind that Proof of Work relies on energy expenditure to provide its security. > > Sincerely, > > Eric Martindale, relentless maker. > Founder & CEO, Fabric, Inc. > +1 (919) 374-2020 > > > On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 6:50 PM SatoshiSingh via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >> Hello list, >> >> I am a lurker here and like many of you I worry about the energy usage of bitcoin mining. I understand a lot mining happens with renewable resources but the impact is still high. >> >> I want to get your opinion on implementing proof of stake for bitcoin mining in future. For now, proof of stake is still untested and not battle tested like proof of work. Though someday it will be. >> >> In the following years we'll be seeing proof of stake being implemented. Smaller networks can test PoS which is a luxury bitcoin can't afford. Here's how I see this the possibilities: >> >> 1 - Proof of stake isn't a good enough security mechanism >> 2 - Proof of state is a good security mechanism and works as intended >> >> IF PoS turns out to be good after battle testing, would you consider implementing it for Bitcoin? I understand this would invoke a lot of controversies and a hard fork that no one likes. But its important enough to consider a hard fork. What are your opinions provided PoS does work? >> >> Love from India. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 --0000000000003fa74a05c1e3ff09 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
According to this paper: https://www.cs.umd.edu/projects/coinscop= e/coinscope.pdf

PoW is also only resilient to 1/3rd of the netwo= rk.

On Sat, 8 May 2021 at 14:46, Eric Martindale via bitcoin-dev <= ;bitcoin-dev@lists= .linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Mr. Singh,
>
&= gt; Proof of Stake is only resilient to =E2=85=93 of the network demonstrat= ing a Byzantine Fault, whilst Proof of Work is resilient up to the =C2=BD t= hreshold.=C2=A0 You can explore prior research here: https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitco= in/pos.pdf
>
> Independent of the security thresholds, Proo= f of Stake requires other trade-offs which are incompatible with Bitcoin= 9;s objective (to be a trustless digital cash) =E2=80=94 specifically the f= amous "security vs. liveness" guarantee.=C2=A0 Digital cash is no= t useful if it must be globally halted to ensure its security, and Proof of= Work squarely addresses this concern.
>
> Above and beyond any= security consideration, Proof of Stake incentivizes the accumulation of we= alth within a small set of actors, which is undesirable for the long-term h= ealth of any such network.=C2=A0 If we are to free humanity from the tyrann= y of the State, we must do so by protecting the rights of every individual = to hold and preserve their own value, without trusting any third party.=C2= =A0 Entrusting the health of the network to the "economic elite" = is the paramount evil with respect to Bitcoin's objectives, nevermind t= hat Proof of Work relies on energy expenditure to provide its security.
= >
> Sincerely,
>
> Eric Martindale, relentless maker.<= br>> Founder & CEO, Fabric, Inc.
> +1 (919) 374-2020
>>
> On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 6:50 PM SatoshiSingh via bitcoin-dev = <bitcoin-dev@li= sts.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hello list,<= br>>>
>> I am a lurker here and like many of you I worry abo= ut the energy usage of bitcoin mining. I understand a lot mining happens wi= th renewable resources but the impact is still high.
>>
>>= ; I want to get your opinion on implementing proof of stake for bitcoin min= ing in future. For now, proof of stake is still untested and not battle tes= ted like proof of work. Though someday it will be.
>>
>> = In the following years we'll be seeing proof of stake being implemented= . Smaller networks can test PoS which is a luxury bitcoin can't afford.= Here's how I see this the possibilities:
>>
>> 1 - P= roof of stake isn't a good enough security mechanism
>> 2 - Pr= oof of state is a good security mechanism and works as intended
>>=
>> IF PoS turns out to be good after battle testing, would you co= nsider implementing it for Bitcoin? I understand this would invoke a lot of= controversies and a hard fork that no one likes. But its important enough = to consider a hard fork. What are your opinions provided PoS does work?
= >>
>> Love from India.
>> _________________________= ______________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.lin= uxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/= listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
> __________________________________= _____________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<= /a>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev<= /a>
--0000000000003fa74a05c1e3ff09--