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
183
184
185
186
187
188
|
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 <pagecr@gmail.com>) id 1YQcFs-0003EY-Ca
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 25 Feb 2015 13:44:00 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.217.176 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.217.176; envelope-from=pagecr@gmail.com;
helo=mail-lb0-f176.google.com;
Received: from mail-lb0-f176.google.com ([209.85.217.176])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YQcFr-00039e-2l
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 25 Feb 2015 13:44:00 +0000
Received: by lbiz11 with SMTP id z11so3876749lbi.8
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 25 Feb 2015 05:43:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.112.173.133 with SMTP id bk5mr2835358lbc.94.1424871832578;
Wed, 25 Feb 2015 05:43:52 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.42.79 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 05:43:32 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP11Ru2E8TgKZsPzWwSqK+ffUbWr2XtVptW+NRR6GAYKqg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEG8yzmS61H7uqWQuqx09T1NjiHrpK=3MYT+63AXb=_xkz831g@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP11Ru2E8TgKZsPzWwSqK+ffUbWr2XtVptW+NRR6GAYKqg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Chris Page <pagecr@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 08:43:32 -0500
Message-ID: <CAEG8yzmVa6xHLHL43G3YCCEXYZhm9S9HaxWJceHZPkyb=H2T5w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c238166e7295050fe9d300
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: 1YQcFr-00039e-2l
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <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: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 13:44:00 -0000
--001a11c238166e7295050fe9d300
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the feedback and letting me know that my earlier emails fell
victim to spam.
My scheme might be better because it would add further incentives for
running full nodes. A full node can be run on even a cheap laptop. In my
experience, once a person new to bitcoin accepts it as at worthy of
attention, the next area of interest is how to mine. They'll learn about
mining pools, search, and if they are technical enough, they'll join the
pool and likely be disappointed with their results. They'll then consider
a graphics card, or ASICs, or just stop mining altogether. And I wouldn't
be surprised if, when making that selection of a mining pool, a person
might, based on limited information, decide that the best mining pool to
join is the largest.
I've made a number of assumptions in that progression to further my point,
but I don't think that journey is too far off mark. I do so to illustrate
that for a person to enjoy some financial reward for running a full node,
in practice, it isn't as simple as running a full node . My proposal makes
it easier for a full node to enjoy rewards, and to do so on modest
hardware. In that sense, it is better than what we have now.
Many people new to bitcoin express an interest in mining. I suspect that
the primary motive that they want a way to earn bitcoin using the computer
** that they have **. If you too believe this, then I hope you'd agree
that my proposal offers a solution that meets the desires of that person
new to bitcoin. It makes bitcoin more accommodating, which makes it
better, but this time on a "social" rather than technological scale. This
would help ** keep ** people interested in bitcoin and result in ecosystem
growth.
With a larger ecosystem running full nodes, the blockchain becomes more
secure. That's better.
Then there are the merits of "enodorsement" itself which is at the heart of
my new scheme which one might argue could raise the bar from 51% to 101% to
pull off such an attack.
I don't know that my scheme helps on the sybil front, but since it requires
and builds on top of the current system, I don't know that is makes it any
worse.
I tried to be more crisp, but that's one of the areas I need to improve.
Thanks
-Chris
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> Just FYI you may not have received much feedback on this because Gmail put
> it into the spam folder for some reason. So I'm guessing a lot of people
> didn't see it.
>
> My main feedback is - I do not really see how this is different from
> actual mining. Mining also incentives the running of full nodes, miners are
> rewarded via coinbases, etc. I'm missing a crisp description of why your
> scheme is better than this, in particular, taking into account the
> difficulty of distinguishing full node sybils of each other.
>
--001a11c238166e7295050fe9d300
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Hi Mike,=C2=A0<div><br></div><div>Thanks for the feedback =
and letting me know that my earlier emails fell victim to spam.</div><div><=
br></div><div>My scheme might be better because it would add further incent=
ives for running full nodes.=C2=A0 A full node can be run on even a cheap l=
aptop.=C2=A0 In my experience, once a person new to bitcoin accepts it as a=
t worthy of attention, the next area of interest is how to mine.=C2=A0 They=
'll learn about mining pools, search, and if they are technical enough,=
they'll join the pool and likely be disappointed with their results.=
=C2=A0 They'll then consider a graphics card, or ASICs, or just stop mi=
ning altogether.=C2=A0 And I wouldn't be surprised if, when making that=
selection of a mining pool, a person might, based on limited information, =
decide that the best mining pool to join is the largest. =C2=A0</div><div><=
br></div><div>I've made a number of assumptions in that progression to =
further my point, but I don't think that journey is too far off mark.=
=C2=A0 I do so to illustrate that for a person to enjoy some financial rewa=
rd for running a full node, in practice, it isn't as simple as running =
a full node .=C2=A0 My proposal makes it easier for a full node to enjoy re=
wards, and to do so on modest hardware.=C2=A0 In that sense, it is better t=
han what we have now.</div><div><br></div><div>Many people new to bitcoin e=
xpress an interest in mining.=C2=A0 I suspect that the primary motive that =
they want a way to earn bitcoin using the computer ** that they have **.=C2=
=A0 If you too believe this, then I hope you'd agree that my proposal o=
ffers a solution that meets the desires of that person new to bitcoin.=C2=
=A0 It makes bitcoin more accommodating, which makes it better, but this ti=
me on a "social" rather than technological scale.=C2=A0 This woul=
d help ** keep ** people interested in bitcoin and result in ecosystem grow=
th.</div><div><br></div><div>With a larger ecosystem running full nodes, th=
e blockchain becomes more secure.=C2=A0 That's better.</div><div><br></=
div><div>Then there are the merits of "enodorsement" itself which=
is at the heart of my new scheme which one might argue could raise the bar=
from 51% to 101% to pull off such an attack.</div><div><br></div><div>I do=
n't know that my scheme helps on the sybil front, but since it requires=
and builds on top of the current system, I don't know that is makes it=
any worse.</div><div><br></div><div>I tried to be more crisp, but that'=
;s one of the areas I need to improve.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks</div=
><div>-Chris</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div c=
lass=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at=
7:30 AM, Mike Hearn <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:mike@plan99.ne=
t" target=3D"_blank">mike@plan99.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote c=
lass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;=
padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">Hi Chris,<div><br></div><div>Just FYI yo=
u may not have received much feedback on this because Gmail put it into the=
spam folder for some reason. So I'm guessing a lot of people didn'=
t see it.</div><div><br></div><div>My main feedback is - I do not really se=
e how this is different from actual mining. Mining also incentives the runn=
ing of full nodes, miners are rewarded via coinbases, etc. I'm missing =
a crisp description of why your scheme is better than this, in particular, =
taking into account the difficulty of distinguishing full node sybils of ea=
ch other.</div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
--001a11c238166e7295050fe9d300--
|
