1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pagecr@gmail.com>) id 1YQn9m-0007iF-7J
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 26 Feb 2015 01:22:26 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.217.179 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.217.179; envelope-from=pagecr@gmail.com;
helo=mail-lb0-f179.google.com;
Received: from mail-lb0-f179.google.com ([209.85.217.179])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YQn9l-0000V4-4H
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 26 Feb 2015 01:22:26 +0000
Received: by lbvp9 with SMTP id p9so7803455lbv.0
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 25 Feb 2015 17:22:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.112.173.133 with SMTP id bk5mr5275446lbc.94.1424913738732;
Wed, 25 Feb 2015 17:22:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.42.79 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 17:21:58 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54EE459B.1090301@purdue.edu>
References: <54EE459B.1090301@purdue.edu>
From: Chris Page <pagecr@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 20:21:58 -0500
Message-ID: <CAEG8yznS0OHSEM0e9WVtCvdmRzemHRyd4XCgXwY+x5sNiHghrA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrew Lapp <lapp0@purdue.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c238163b9b46050ff395c7
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(pagecr[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1YQn9l-0000V4-4H
Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Request for comments on hybrid,
PoW/PoS enhancement for Bitcoin
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 01:22:26 -0000
--001a11c238163b9b46050ff395c7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I definitely need to have an deeper understanding of that paper before
proceeding. Thanks for the reference!
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Andrew Lapp <lapp0@purdue.edu> wrote:
> Having stakeholders "endorse" blocks has, according to you, the benefits
> of increasing the number of full nodes and making a 51% attack more
> expensive. It seems to me it would have the opposite effects and other
> negative side effects. Any stakeholder that has "won" could just be running
> an SPV client and be informed by a full node that they have won, then
> cooperate to collect the reward. You are mistaking proof of stake as a
> proof you are running a full node. At the same time, the network becomes
> cheaper to attack in proportion to the amount of the block reward that is
> paid to "endorsers". Another side effect is that miners would have a bigger
> economy of scale. The more stake a miner has, the more they can "endorse"
> their own blocks and not others blocks. I recommend reading this:
> https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf
>
> -Andrew Lapp
>
--001a11c238163b9b46050ff395c7
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">=C2=A0I definitely need to have an deeper understanding of=
that paper before proceeding. =C2=A0=C2=A0Thanks for the reference! =C2=A0=
</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb=
25, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Andrew Lapp <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:l=
app0@purdue.edu" target=3D"_blank">lapp0@purdue.edu</a>></span> wrote:<b=
r><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:=
1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Having stakeholders "endorse" bl=
ocks has, according to you, the benefits of increasing the number of full n=
odes and making a 51% attack more expensive. It seems to me it would have t=
he opposite effects and other negative side effects. Any stakeholder that h=
as "won" could just be running an SPV client and be informed by a=
full node that they have won, then cooperate to collect the reward. You ar=
e mistaking proof of stake as a proof you are running a full node. At the s=
ame time, the network becomes cheaper to attack in proportion to the amount=
of the block reward that is paid to "endorsers". Another side ef=
fect is that miners would have a bigger economy of scale. The more stake a =
miner has, the more they can "endorse" their own blocks and not o=
thers blocks. I recommend reading this: <a href=3D"https://download.wpsoftw=
are.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf" target=3D"_blank">https://download.wpsoftware.<u><=
/u>net/bitcoin/pos.pdf</a><span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><b=
r>
<br>
-Andrew Lapp<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
--001a11c238163b9b46050ff395c7--
|
