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
|
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE572A88
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 6 Apr 2017 03:23:43 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail148093.authsmtp.net (outmail148093.authsmtp.net
[62.13.148.93])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21ACEA5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 6 Apr 2017 03:23:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c247.authsmtp.com (mail-c247.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.247])
by punt20.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id v363NfUP039162;
Thu, 6 Apr 2017 04:23:41 +0100 (BST)
Received: from petertodd.org (ec2-52-5-185-120.compute-1.amazonaws.com
[52.5.185.120]) (authenticated bits=0)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id v363NcVF036480
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
Thu, 6 Apr 2017 04:23:39 +0100 (BST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by petertodd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E936F400FD;
Thu, 6 Apr 2017 03:23:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 4CCAF205F6; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 23:23:37 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 23:23:37 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: erik@q32.com
Message-ID: <20170406032337.GA1478@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <CAAS2fgR84898xD0nyq7ykJnB7qkdoCJYnFg6z5WZEUu0+-=mMA@mail.gmail.com>
<20170406023123.GA1071@savin.petertodd.org>
<CA+KqGkqSxeAUZFVFqM_QkEWcGFHgZXwGuOE==7HpXp1+D_Tj3Q@mail.gmail.com>
<20170406024910.GA1271@savin.petertodd.org>
<CAJowKgL_BfJyyp=z6PB3mj+KBy0y9ParspbbnhoOTA0Cfr6C6g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ew6BAiZeqk4r7MaW"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJowKgL_BfJyyp=z6PB3mj+KBy0y9ParspbbnhoOTA0Cfr6C6g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-Server-Quench: 6dbbf4d8-1a78-11e7-bcdf-0015176ca198
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aQdMdgQUGUUGAgsB AmEbW1BeUl57Wmo7 bghPaBtcak9QXgdq
T0pMXVMcUgZuAmJS YGgeUR92fwUIcHx2 bQhkCiIJCkAufVt8
E0lcCGwHMGB9OjNL Bl1YdwJRcQRMLU5E Y1gxNiYHcQ5VPz4z
GA41ejw8IwAXAgVt ChkXKkoVWk8PTHYd QRADFzQzHEsKDyx7
JBs4J0QAVE8NLkw5 MhMmXxoEMxJwQidf A0pKASkRH34+DyQ2 CwhGXEkYeAAA
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1038:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 52.5.185.120/25
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Inhibiting a covert attack on the
Bitcoin POW function
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 03:23:44 -0000
--ew6BAiZeqk4r7MaW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 11:11:53PM -0400, Erik Aronesty wrote:
> If the primary purpose of pow is to destroy value, then a masked proof of
> burn to an expanded address that assigns the private key holder the right
You're talking about proof-of-stake here.
At best it's very difficult for such a "proof-of-burn" to _actually_ be a
proof, as the burn only happens if the consensus mechanism ultimately inclu=
des
that burn. Contrast that to proof-of-work's incredibly simple proof: you _k=
now_
energy was destroyed to find a PoW solution, regardless of what consensus is
ultimately reached.
It's the difference between a computer secured from hackers with an anti-vi=
rus
scanner, and a computer secured by the fact that it's not connected to the
internet at all.
--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
--ew6BAiZeqk4r7MaW
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJY5bS0AAoJECSBQD2l8JH7YqMH/RJaFi3T3ld/80AwCBWLSaIA
B8q/kVahcgEJQJB4n1eCAIoHVvovEonnN0qzxAtm6h75v1CdoOsp2+TL1YKKqUiI
HsikJbIs0KZBRljK4xLq5fOG0HO9yaKvmNSvhaCeGNdYM1U+FcHPPeU1EiXKZ5l+
6zs4CAmD/vwf6OL33kSlpIDkqddSxo3kt0wg6LA0qC91Bwy+RN51td1hhPChPAA/
fals5rt30unaonwFfzUan+doi/00jfOpOLyjH63qZ/1GHfIRQBOXmZZBDyB8d02t
LKMQ0cePcGlJKJRTKNsTuyCmo9K1BiVOxfAchq0xTQCQ4FIQqbP98b3xP+ofBHY=
=wIaM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--ew6BAiZeqk4r7MaW--
|
