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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <alex.mizrahi@gmail.com>) id 1WekHz-0007RT-6z
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:04:03 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.216.53 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.216.53; envelope-from=alex.mizrahi@gmail.com;
helo=mail-qa0-f53.google.com;
Received: from mail-qa0-f53.google.com ([209.85.216.53])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WekHv-0007Js-Q2
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:04:03 +0000
Received: by mail-qa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id w8so6210105qac.12
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 28 Apr 2014 05:03:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.95.248 with SMTP id i111mr31020660qge.6.1398686634337;
Mon, 28 Apr 2014 05:03:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.96.77.38 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 05:03:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <bf916afe-6617-43c9-9738-486316ce308f@email.android.com>
References: <1398382335.20219.YahooMailNeo@web160503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
<20140425073334.GV3180@nl.grid.coop> <535C1980.7000505@monetize.io>
<bf916afe-6617-43c9-9738-486316ce308f@email.android.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 15:03:54 +0300
Message-ID: <CAE28kUQ8C=fCrR5DG08xmJAqEuMwgeT98sM-rrv8RiQdGkp7Mg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alex Mizrahi <alex.mizrahi@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1709cfe03f104f8191b14
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
(alex.mizrahi[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: 1WekHv-0007Js-Q2
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proof-of-Stake branch?
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: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:04:03 -0000
--001a11c1709cfe03f104f8191b14
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> I can't remember who I saw discussing this idea. Might have been Vitalik
> Buterin?
>
Yes, he described it in an article a couple of months ago:
http://blog.ethereum.org/2014/01/15/slasher-a-punitive-proof-of-stake-algorithm/
but it is an old idea.
For example, I've mentioned punishment of this kind in discussion about
PPCoin when it was released in 2012, and, I think, it was described in
Etlase2's Decrit design.
Also, I and Iddo did some research on pure proof-of-stake, and it seems to
be feasible, in the sense that there are no obvious problems like "nothing
is actually at stake". (Unfortunately I can't refer to it now as it isn't
published yet.)
--001a11c1709cfe03f104f8191b14
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left=
-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;paddi=
ng-left:1ex">
I can't remember who I saw discussing this idea. Might have been Vitali=
k Buterin?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, he described it in an a=
rticle a couple of months ago:</div><div><br></div><div><a href=3D"http://b=
log.ethereum.org/2014/01/15/slasher-a-punitive-proof-of-stake-algorithm/">h=
ttp://blog.ethereum.org/2014/01/15/slasher-a-punitive-proof-of-stake-algori=
thm/</a><br>
</div><div><br></div><div>but it is an old idea.</div><div>For example, I&#=
39;ve mentioned punishment of this kind in discussion about PPCoin when it =
was released in 2012, and, I think, it was described in Etlase2's Decri=
t design.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Also, I and Iddo did some research on pure proof-of-sta=
ke, and it seems to be feasible, in the sense that there are no obvious pro=
blems like "<span style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8=
00000190734863px">nothing is actually at stake". (Unfortunately I can&=
#39;t refer to it now as it isn't published yet.)</span></div>
</div></div></div>
--001a11c1709cfe03f104f8191b14--
|
