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
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <adam@cypherspace.org>) id 1YsJuJ-0008GA-4c
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 12 May 2015 23:48:15 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from mout.perfora.net ([74.208.4.194])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YsJuH-0003D6-B9
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 12 May 2015 23:48:15 +0000
Received: from mail-qk0-f180.google.com ([209.85.220.180]) by
mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id
0Lj3bk-1ZU9612cT0-00dHZH for
<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 13 May 2015 01:48:07 +0200
Received: by qku63 with SMTP id 63so17627149qku.3
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 12 May 2015 16:48:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.31.133 with SMTP id f5mr22978203qgf.23.1431474487048;
Tue, 12 May 2015 16:48:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.96.112.164 with HTTP; Tue, 12 May 2015 16:48:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPS+U98sh6BmuGHWOffrmTpaM3CNfhBUWdmgACb9++jU6M1fmQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5550D8BE.6070207@electrum.org>
<ce3d34c92efd1cf57326e4679550944e@national.shitposting.agency>
<CABsx9T1VgxEJWxrYTs+2hXGnGrSLGJ6mVcAexjXLvK7Vu+e3EA@mail.gmail.com>
<5551F376.4050008@electrum.org>
<CABsx9T1h7p3hDr7ty43uxsYs-oNRpndzg=dowST2tXtogxRm2g@mail.gmail.com>
<555210AF.3090705@electrum.org>
<CABsx9T3AxM3et7hgXx3+Rn3BvhQkF-Cn797sHcyztkMpD1UQmA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPS+U98sh6BmuGHWOffrmTpaM3CNfhBUWdmgACb9++jU6M1fmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 16:48:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CALqxMTGebNMARgps9mqxDSOw0cX9aeZZim82g8a4vE6sCPHq-g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
To: Pedro Worcel <pedro@worcel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:CEtQqTd6KFxEzcOJ3HvhEuccCcoMv1EE/fDJORNDAVkw+vHBSXo
XWhNB0oFP42ygSg9rxzFzJJkJMA/M1Xt65YifxZhuoysjTfPPST8BtWKtnbDUiZp49YmWTz
3qPv+7a/AeYxk1jSbqYkqFqb/4kXPaFIzdM/zbHSQkooU08+MtmbEjnszwAwm/mqJE1G5mi
vncNzZIgVkEUFQ4aC9sgQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
no trust [74.208.4.194 listed in list.dnswl.org]
-0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1YsJuH-0003D6-B9
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Long-term mining incentives
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: Tue, 12 May 2015 23:48:15 -0000
I think its fair to say no one knows how to make a consensus that
works in a decentralised fashion that doesnt weaken the bitcoin
security model without proof-of-work for now.
I am presuming Gavin is just saying in the context of not pre-judging
the future that maybe in the far future another innovation might be
found (or alternatively maybe its not mathematically possible).
Towards that it would be useful to try further to prove this one way
or another (prove that proof of stake cant work if that is generically
mathematically provable).
Adam
On 12 May 2015 at 14:24, Pedro Worcel <pedro@worcel.com> wrote:
> Disclaimer: I don't know anything about Bitcoin.
>
>> 2) Proof-of-idle supported (I wish Tadge Dryja would publish his
>> proof-of-idle idea....)
>> 3) Fees purely as transaction-spam-prevention measure, chain security vi=
a
>> alternative consensus algorithm (in this scenario there is very little
>> mining).
>
> I don't understand why you would casually mention moving away from Proof =
of
> Work, I thought that was the big breakthrough that made Bitcoin possible =
at
> all?
>
> Thanks,
> Pedro
>
> 2015-05-13 4:10 GMT+12:00 Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>:
>>
>> Added back the list, I didn't mean to reply privately:
>>
>> Fair enough, I'll try to find time in the next month or three to write u=
p
>> four plausible future scenarios for how mining incentives might work:
>>
>> 1) Fee-supported with very large blocks containing lots of tiny-fee
>> transactions
>> 2) Proof-of-idle supported (I wish Tadge Dryja would publish his
>> proof-of-idle idea....)
>> 3) Fees purely as transaction-spam-prevention measure, chain security vi=
a
>> alternative consensus algorithm (in this scenario there is very little
>> mining).
>> 4) Fee supported with small blocks containing high-fee transactions movi=
ng
>> coins to/from sidechains.
>>
>> Would that be helpful, or do you have some reason for thinking that we
>> should pick just one and focus all of our efforts on making that one
>> scenario happen?
>>
>> I always think it is better, when possible, not to "bet on one horse."
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Thomas Voegtlin <thomasv@electrum.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Le 12/05/2015 15:44, Gavin Andresen a =C3=A9crit :
>>> > Ok, here's my scenario:
>>> >
>>> > https://blog.bitcoinfoundation.org/a-scalability-roadmap/
>>> >
>>> > It might be wrong. I welcome other people to present their road maps.
>>> >
>>>
>>> [answering to you only because you answered to me and not to the list;
>>> feel free to repost this to the list though]
>>>
>>> Yes, that's exactly the kind of roadmap I am asking for. But your blog
>>> post does not say anything about long term mining incentives, it only
>>> talks about scalability. My point is that we need the same kind of thin=
g
>>> for miners incentives.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Gavin Andresen
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------=
------
>> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
>> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
>> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
>> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
>> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
|
