path: root/c3/6dfe54aebabaa2fd79719d8d6a15f372dbe9f2

Return-Path: <fresheneesz@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4929C000E
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat, 26 Jun 2021 16:26:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5B458309A
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat, 26 Jun 2021 16:26:34 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
 DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
 HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
 SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id jHnhhh2YZmbW
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat, 26 Jun 2021 16:26:33 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-ej1-x634.google.com (mail-ej1-x634.google.com
 [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::634])
 by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D91F83054
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat, 26 Jun 2021 16:26:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ej1-x634.google.com with SMTP id n2so9296503eju.11
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat, 26 Jun 2021 09:26:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
 h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
 :cc; bh=ViviMLEFLMgqQr4sOyoFPB2J+ROSZ7JA4GTUB3hNGc8=;
 b=GHRyX/7nrVIhBn+DmrcmpYCYbfRphPcYzRloejU1T9zRkVGWUfdO9dmgFBpzQF/7cB
 MkKuXpjuij9WQ0toRXn1EGqSTXEl8pkfg2iJfK9oOARlmeZf5BdLN28OUKV1iS2tJX/I
 YrIpLQ2jlwqv/lgx5c/yqMtSy7dm8ZRa9rTHzKv9PQJ/dVKUTD/ch+C/xhJ4SUiDq06h
 v+Rvgo4WE/RFTIl3meuyk72b8FrF+BigSTzLQvfU1i22Ij8O67bb6O2nJTNx8P38IclS
 BoBqosmkjmLkT2DfGkaOGxgfqAVio8uOgBverwEl+0iEvHGauDA3YGEg5paiUm6jhdHJ
 lJ7g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
 :message-id:subject:to:cc;
 bh=ViviMLEFLMgqQr4sOyoFPB2J+ROSZ7JA4GTUB3hNGc8=;
 b=ejErnazzkZ7uiWw5uuokCL5L5lemXpKl4NyhyuBl46WcVTfYzwFfmAyO5t8120edCs
 hIcdSoxPuxhSGq/Z3AfDz2MsTAjTlUUvSj84V963fc7Cc+ZePIq0BNsdXLBjpxBxpcVn
 MFqiXC3xWrVUvtUCW5JU4sOzdjhsR+cpR7y8Gik4HBgUoH8k2BqpjkkCa2z9VAN4480g
 BHlU2YcGH46IE5te5lYsAk85sunwZJxJSpiLzVNh5XSjwEN5k26X7nbdNxA44zcQrmHL
 s753s0Z/rp0KQUg33Eao8G8/dsNlWiKEEVeOTNOF74hmXMdW9219dKTb/FhEN/QBk22l
 dyQA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532qckZ0clnvye/stKMEOmqeDZqFLZfwe45t65SmMMUQKpZVfhsK
 yK0L0OFN68Tr4H4xlFWdWMdyBZA4N4gFuCO0YVA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyOlMG0tPyCpWer6jEeHQwQEJsXoVw30cFsVuFs/ZKC4kluoM6xsdeUyC8ZYV9a/M4A0YHwHT4N6a/NDYhGDuM=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:3e88:: with SMTP id
 hs8mr16447999ejc.96.1624724790673; 
 Sat, 26 Jun 2021 09:26:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAPv7TjZ5fCc6jErsuScTJE2Vi3PTp=UgM7w_0CHhpEMzYK5TPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <MN2PR10MB4030EBD14EF82E29CFEDD00FB1069@MN2PR10MB4030.namprd10.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR10MB4030EBD14EF82E29CFEDD00FB1069@MN2PR10MB4030.namprd10.prod.outlook.com>
From: Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 09:26:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGpPWDaPZP_Z4DwW9OPCF4C0LHbEFwk1o6jxtpF557tPij93Kg@mail.gmail.com>
To: greg m <greg_not_so@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000001851205c5adb8dd"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 16:31:18 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Opinion on proof of stake in future
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 16:26:34 -0000

--00000000000001851205c5adb8dd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

I've created a thread on reddit where we can continue the conversation:
https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinDiscussion/comments/o8dvlo/bitcoindev_opinion_on_proof_of_stake_in_future/

On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 9:59 AM greg m <greg_not_so@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Where do we go from here? reddit?
>
> Happy Friday everyone!
> gm
>
> On Jun 25, 2021 12:08, Ruben Somsen via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Thanks for the lively discussion. On behalf of the bitcoin-dev moderators
> and with the readers of this mailing list in mind, we'd like to suggest
> finishing up this discussion. Of course there should be some room for
> exploring fringe ideas, but it should not dominate the mailing list either.
> Fun as it may be, perhaps it's time to get back to focusing on the topics
> that are more directly relevant to Bitcoin.
>
> Cheers,
> Ruben
>
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 9:29 AM yanmaani--- via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> No, that's not how it works.
>
> PoS is constitutionally incapable of producing any further consensus
> from its starting point. If you start out by hardcoding the bitcoin
> ledger state at June 1, 2021, then your PoS system will be unable to
> reach a global consensus as to what the state was on June 2, 2021.
>
> To get global consensus in PoS, you have to know which block came first.
> To reach a consensus on which block was first, you need to solve the
> timestamp problem. And to solve the timestamp problem, you need a
> consensus system. You'll notice that at no point does PoS provide such a
> consensus system.
>
> Implementations of PoS sacrifice global consensus for 'weak
> subjectivity', meaning that each node has its own notion of when a
> certain block arrived. Astute observers will note that 'each node has
> its own notion of what happened' differs somewhat from 'all nodes agree
> on what happened', and that only one of these is a good description of
> what is commonly known as 'consensus'.
>
> Maybe a simpler way of looking at it is from the coder's perspective:
> how do you implement IBD? In PoW, the "longest chain" rule is used -
> "Nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the
> proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone.".
> Does PoS have this property?
>
> On 2021-06-24 21:50, Erik Aronesty wrote:
> >> PoS is not suitable for use as a consensus system, because
> > it is constitutionally incapable of producing a consensus.
> >
> > true - but only for a system that is starting from nothing.
> >
> > since bitcoin already exists, and we have a consensus, you can use
> > bitcoin's existing consensus to maintain that consensus using
> > references to prior state.  and yes, you simply have to limit reorgs
> > to not go back before PoW was abandoned in favor of PoS/PoB (assuming
> > all incentive problems are solved).
> >
> > ie: once you have uses PoW to bootstrap the system, you can "recycle"
> > that work.
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 4:41 PM yanmaani--- via bitcoin-dev
> > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> No, 51% of the *coin holders* can't do diddly squat. 51% of miners
> >> can,
> >> but in PoW, that's a different set to the coin holders.
> >>
> >> The basic problem with PoS, anyway, is that it's not actually a
> >> consensus system ("weak subjectivity"). Either you allow long reorgs,
> >> and then you open the door to long-range attacks, or you don't, and
> >> then
> >> you're not guaranteed that all nodes agree on the state of the chain,
> >> which was the purpose of the system to begin with.
> >>
> >> To put it more plainly: for PoS to work, you need a consensus on which
> >> block was seen first. But if you had that, you could presumably apply
> >> that method to determine which *transaction* was seen first, in which
> >> case you could do away with the blockchain entirely. (Real-world
> >> implementations of PoS, such that they are, do away with this
> >> requirement, scrapping the global consensus on ordering in favor of
> >> having each node decide for itself which block came first.)
> >>
> >> In other words, even if you solved all the incentive problems, the
> >> fact
> >> remains that PoS is not suitable for use as a consensus system,
> >> because
> >> it is constitutionally incapable of producing a consensus.
> >>
> >> On 2021-06-24 00:14, Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> >> >>  This is not true in a Proof of Work system and this difference
> >> > absolutely should not be trivialized.
> >> >
> >> > That is in fact true of Proof of Work as well. If a colluding
> >> > coalition of miners with more than 50% of the hashrate want to censor
> >> > transactions, they absolutely can do that by orphaning blocks that
> >> > contain transactions they want to censor. This is not different in
> >> > proof of stake.
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 11:14 AM Keagan McClelland
> >> > <keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>> Premise: There is a healthy exchange market for PoS Coin X with
> >> >> tens of thousands of participants bidding to buy and sell the coin
> >> >> for other currencies on the market.
> >> >>
> >> >> The difference here though is that Proof of Stake allows the quorum
> >> >> of coin holders to block the exchange of said coins if they are
> >> >> going to a particular destination. Nothing requires these staking
> >> >> nodes to include particular transactions into a block. With that in
> >> >> mind, it isn't just that you require the permission of the person
> >> >> who sold you the coins, which I can agree is a less dangerous form
> >> >> of permission, but you must also require the permission of at least
> >> >> 51% of the coin holders to even receive those coins in the first
> >> >> place. This is not true in a Proof of Work system and this
> >> >> difference absolutely should not be trivialized.
> >> >>
> >> >> Keagan
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 2:30 AM Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev
> >> >> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Barrier to entry in PoS is being given permission by the previous
> >> >> owner of a token
> >> >>
> >> >> The idea that proof of stake is not permissionless is completely
> >> >> invalid. It pains me to see such an argument here. Perhaps we can
> >> >> come to an agreement by being more specific. I'd like to propose the
> >> >> following:
> >> >>
> >> >> Premise: There is a healthy exchange market for PoS Coin X with tens
> >> >> of thousands of participants bidding to buy and sell the coin for
> >> >> other currencies on the market.
> >> >>
> >> >> If the premise above is true, then there is no significant
> >> >> permission needed to enter the market for minting blocks for PoS
> >> >> Coin X. If you make a bid on someone's coins and they don't like you
> >> >> and refuse, you can move on to any one of the other tens of
> >> >> thousands of people in that marketplace. Would you agree, Cloud
> >> >> Strife, that this situation couldn't be considered "permissioned"?
> >> >>
> >> >> If not, consider that participation in *any* decentralized system
> >> >> requires the permission of at least one user in that system. If
> >> >> there are thousands of bitcoin public nodes, you require the
> >> >> permission of at least one of them to participate in bitcoin. No one
> >> >> considers bitcoin "permissioned" because of this. Do you agree?
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 1:15 PM Cloud Strife via bitcoin-dev
> >> >> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Barrier to entry in PoW is matter for hardware and energy is
> >> >> permissionless and exist all over the universe, permissionless cost
> >> >> which exists for everyone no matter who because it's unforgeable.
> >> >>
> >> >> Barrier to entry in PoS is being given permission by the previous
> >> >> owner of a token for you to have it via transfer or sale, both
> >> >> choices they never have to make since there are no continuous costs
> >> >> with producing blocks forcing it. A permission is an infinitely high
> >> >> barrier to entry if the previous owner, like the premining party,
> >> >> refuses to give up the token they control.
> >> >>
> >> >> You're skipping the part where you depend on a permission of a
> >> >> central party in control of the authority token before you can
> >> >> produce blocks on your rasberry Pi.
> >> >>
> >> >> Proof of stake is not in any possible way relevant to permissionless
> >> >> protocols, and thus not possibly relevant to decentralized protocols
> >> >> where control must be distributed to independent (i.e.
> >> >> permissionless) parties.
> >> >>
> >> >> There's nothing of relevance to discuss and this has been figured
> >> >> out long long ago.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Proof-of-Stake-Fallacy
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> https://medium.com/@factchecker9000/nothing-is-worse-than-proof-of-stake-e70b12b988ca
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 7:13 AM James MacWhyte via bitcoin-dev
> >> >> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> @Lloyd wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course in reality no one wants to keep their coin holding keys
> >> >> online so in Alogorand you can authorize a set of "participation
> >> >> keys"[1] that will be used to create blocks on your coin holding
> >> >> key's behalf.
> >> >> Hopefully you've spotted the problem.
> >> >> You can send your participation keys to any malicious party with a
> >> >> nice website (see random example [2]) offering you a good return.
> >> >> Damn it's still Proof-of-SquareSpace!
> >> >>
> >> >> I believe we are talking about a comparison to PoW, correct? If you
> >> >> want to mine PoW, you need to buy expensive hardware and configure
> >> >> it to work, and wait a long time to get any return by solo mining.
> >> >> Or you can join a mining pool, which might use your hashing power
> >> >> for nefarious purposes. Or you might skip the hardware all together
> >> >> and fall for some "cloud mining" scheme with a pretty website and a
> >> >> high rate of advertised return. So as you can see,
> >> >> Proof-of-SquareSpace exists in PoW as well!
> >> >>
> >> >> The PoS equivalent of buying mining hardware is setting up your own
> >> >> validator and not outsourcing that to anyone else. So both PoW and
> >> >> PoS have the professional/expert way of participating, and the
> >> >> fraud-prone, amateur way of participating. The only difference is,
> >> >> with PoS the professional/expert way is accessible to anyone with a
> >> >> raspberry Pi and a web connection, which is a much lower barrier to
> >> >> entry than PoW. _______________________________________________
> >> >> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> >> >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> >> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >> >  _______________________________________________
> >> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> >> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> >> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >> >  _______________________________________________
> >> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> >> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> >> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> >> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> >> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
>

--00000000000001851205c5adb8dd
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">I&#39;ve created a thread on reddit where we can continue =
the conversation:=C2=A0<a href=3D"https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinDiscussio=
n/comments/o8dvlo/bitcoindev_opinion_on_proof_of_stake_in_future/">https://=
www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinDiscussion/comments/o8dvlo/bitcoindev_opinion_on_pr=
oof_of_stake_in_future/</a></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D=
"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 9:59 AM greg m &lt;<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:greg_not_so@hotmail.com">greg_not_so@hotmail.com</a>&gt; wrote=
:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.=
8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"au=
to">Where do we go from here? reddit?<div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=
=3D"auto">Happy Friday everyone!</div><div dir=3D"auto">gm</div></div><div =
class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Jun 25, 2021 12:08,=
 Ruben Somsen via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linux=
foundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>=
&gt; wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px=
 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D=
"ltr">Hi all,<br>=C2=A0<br>Thanks for the lively discussion. On behalf of t=
he bitcoin-dev moderators and with the readers of this mailing list in mind=
, we&#39;d like to suggest finishing up this discussion. Of course there sh=
ould be some room for exploring fringe ideas, but it should not dominate th=
e mailing list either. Fun as it may be, perhaps it&#39;s time to get back =
to focusing on the topics that are more directly relevant to Bitcoin.<br>=
=C2=A0<br>Cheers,<br>Ruben</div><br><div><div dir=3D"ltr">On Fri, Jun 25, 2=
021 at 9:29 AM yanmaani--- via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-de=
v@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfound=
ation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0=
.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">No, that&#39;=
s not how it works.<br>
<br>
PoS is constitutionally incapable of producing any further consensus <br>
from its starting point. If you start out by hardcoding the bitcoin <br>
ledger state at June 1, 2021, then your PoS system will be unable to <br>
reach a global consensus as to what the state was on June 2, 2021.<br>
<br>
To get global consensus in PoS, you have to know which block came first. <b=
r>
To reach a consensus on which block was first, you need to solve the <br>
timestamp problem. And to solve the timestamp problem, you need a <br>
consensus system. You&#39;ll notice that at no point does PoS provide such =
a <br>
consensus system.<br>
<br>
Implementations of PoS sacrifice global consensus for &#39;weak <br>
subjectivity&#39;, meaning that each node has its own notion of when a <br>
certain block arrived. Astute observers will note that &#39;each node has <=
br>
its own notion of what happened&#39; differs somewhat from &#39;all nodes a=
gree <br>
on what happened&#39;, and that only one of these is a good description of =
<br>
what is commonly known as &#39;consensus&#39;.<br>
<br>
Maybe a simpler way of looking at it is from the coder&#39;s perspective: <=
br>
how do you implement IBD? In PoW, the &quot;longest chain&quot; rule is use=
d - <br>
&quot;Nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the <br>
proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone.&quot;. =
<br>
Does PoS have this property?<br>
<br>
On 2021-06-24 21:50, Erik Aronesty wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt; PoS is not suitable for use as a consensus system, because<br>
&gt; it is constitutionally incapable of producing a consensus.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; true - but only for a system that is starting from nothing.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; since bitcoin already exists, and we have a consensus, you can use<br>
&gt; bitcoin&#39;s existing consensus to maintain that consensus using<br>
&gt; references to prior state.=C2=A0 and yes, you simply have to limit reo=
rgs<br>
&gt; to not go back before PoW was abandoned in favor of PoS/PoB (assuming<=
br>
&gt; all incentive problems are solved).<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; ie: once you have uses PoW to bootstrap the system, you can &quot;recy=
cle&quot; <br>
&gt; that work.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 4:41 PM yanmaani--- via bitcoin-dev<br>
&gt; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D=
"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; No, 51% of the *coin holders* can&#39;t do diddly squat. 51% of mi=
ners <br>
&gt;&gt; can,<br>
&gt;&gt; but in PoW, that&#39;s a different set to the coin holders.<br>
&gt;&gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; The basic problem with PoS, anyway, is that it&#39;s not actually =
a<br>
&gt;&gt; consensus system (&quot;weak subjectivity&quot;). Either you allow=
 long reorgs,<br>
&gt;&gt; and then you open the door to long-range attacks, or you don&#39;t=
, and <br>
&gt;&gt; then<br>
&gt;&gt; you&#39;re not guaranteed that all nodes agree on the state of the=
 chain,<br>
&gt;&gt; which was the purpose of the system to begin with.<br>
&gt;&gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; To put it more plainly: for PoS to work, you need a consensus on w=
hich<br>
&gt;&gt; block was seen first. But if you had that, you could presumably ap=
ply<br>
&gt;&gt; that method to determine which *transaction* was seen first, in wh=
ich<br>
&gt;&gt; case you could do away with the blockchain entirely. (Real-world<b=
r>
&gt;&gt; implementations of PoS, such that they are, do away with this<br>
&gt;&gt; requirement, scrapping the global consensus on ordering in favor o=
f<br>
&gt;&gt; having each node decide for itself which block came first.)<br>
&gt;&gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; In other words, even if you solved all the incentive problems, the=
 <br>
&gt;&gt; fact<br>
&gt;&gt; remains that PoS is not suitable for use as a consensus system, <b=
r>
&gt;&gt; because<br>
&gt;&gt; it is constitutionally incapable of producing a consensus.<br>
&gt;&gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; On 2021-06-24 00:14, Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;=C2=A0 This is not true in a Proof of Work system and this=
 difference<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; absolutely should not be trivialized.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; That is in fact true of Proof of Work as well. If a colluding=
<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; coalition of miners with more than 50% of the hashrate want t=
o censor<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; transactions, they absolutely can do that by orphaning blocks=
 that<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; contain transactions they want to censor. This is not differe=
nt in<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; proof of stake.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 11:14 AM Keagan McClelland<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com" target=3D"=
_blank">keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; Premise: There is a healthy exchange market for PoS C=
oin X with<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; tens of thousands of participants bidding to buy and sell=
 the coin<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; for other currencies on the market.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; The difference here though is that Proof of Stake allows =
the quorum<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; of coin holders to block the exchange of said coins if th=
ey are<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; going to a particular destination. Nothing requires these=
 staking<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; nodes to include particular transactions into a block. Wi=
th that in<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; mind, it isn&#39;t just that you require the permission o=
f the person<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; who sold you the coins, which I can agree is a less dange=
rous form<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; of permission, but you must also require the permission o=
f at least<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; 51% of the coin holders to even receive those coins in th=
e first<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; place. This is not true in a Proof of Work system and thi=
s<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; difference absolutely should not be trivialized.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; Keagan<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 2:30 AM Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-=
dev<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.o=
rg" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<=
br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; Barrier to entry in PoS is being given permission by =
the previous<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; owner of a token<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; The idea that proof of stake is not permissionless is com=
pletely<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; invalid. It pains me to see such an argument here. Perhap=
s we can<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; come to an agreement by being more specific. I&#39;d like=
 to propose the<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; following:<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; Premise: There is a healthy exchange market for PoS Coin =
X with tens<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; of thousands of participants bidding to buy and sell the =
coin for<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; other currencies on the market.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; If the premise above is true, then there is no significan=
t<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; permission needed to enter the market for minting blocks =
for PoS<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; Coin X. If you make a bid on someone&#39;s coins and they=
 don&#39;t like you<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; and refuse, you can move on to any one of the other tens =
of<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; thousands of people in that marketplace. Would you agree,=
 Cloud<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; Strife, that this situation couldn&#39;t be considered &q=
uot;permissioned&quot;?<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; If not, consider that participation in *any* decentralize=
d system<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; requires the permission of at least one user in that syst=
em. If<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; there are thousands of bitcoin public nodes, you require =
the<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; permission of at least one of them to participate in bitc=
oin. No one<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; considers bitcoin &quot;permissioned&quot; because of thi=
s. Do you agree?<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 1:15 PM Cloud Strife via bitcoin-=
dev<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.o=
rg" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<=
br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; Barrier to entry in PoW is matter for hardware and energy=
 is<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; permissionless and exist all over the universe, permissio=
nless cost<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; which exists for everyone no matter who because it&#39;s =
unforgeable.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; Barrier to entry in PoS is being given permission by the =
previous<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; owner of a token for you to have it via transfer or sale,=
 both<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; choices they never have to make since there are no contin=
uous costs<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; with producing blocks forcing it. A permission is an infi=
nitely high<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; barrier to entry if the previous owner, like the preminin=
g party,<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; refuses to give up the token they control.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; You&#39;re skipping the part where you depend on a permis=
sion of a<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; central party in control of the authority token before yo=
u can<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; produce blocks on your rasberry Pi.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; Proof of stake is not in any possible way relevant to per=
missionless<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; protocols, and thus not possibly relevant to decentralize=
d protocols<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; where control must be distributed to independent (i.e.<br=
>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; permissionless) parties.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; There&#39;s nothing of relevance to discuss and this has =
been figured<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; out long long ago.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; <a href=3D"https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wi=
ki/Proof-of-Stake-Fallacy" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/libbitcoin/=
libbitcoin-system/wiki/Proof-of-Stake-Fallacy</a><br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; <a href=3D"https://medium.com/@factchecker9000/nothing-is-wor=
se-than-proof-of-stake-e70b12b988ca" target=3D"_blank">https://medium.com/@=
factchecker9000/nothing-is-worse-than-proof-of-stake-e70b12b988ca</a><br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 7:13 AM James MacWhyte via bitcoi=
n-dev<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.o=
rg" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<=
br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; @Lloyd wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; Of course in reality no one wants to keep their coin hold=
ing keys<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; online so in Alogorand you can authorize a set of &quot;p=
articipation<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; keys&quot;[1] that will be used to create blocks on your =
coin holding<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; key&#39;s behalf.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; Hopefully you&#39;ve spotted the problem.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; You can send your participation keys to any malicious par=
ty with a<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; nice website (see random example [2]) offering you a good=
 return.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; Damn it&#39;s still Proof-of-SquareSpace!<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; I believe we are talking about a comparison to PoW, corre=
ct? If you<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; want to mine PoW, you need to buy expensive hardware and =
configure<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; it to work, and wait a long time to get any return by sol=
o mining.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; Or you can join a mining pool, which might use your hashi=
ng power<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; for nefarious purposes. Or you might skip the hardware al=
l together<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; and fall for some &quot;cloud mining&quot; scheme with a =
pretty website and a<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; high rate of advertised return. So as you can see,<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; Proof-of-SquareSpace exists in PoW as well!<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; The PoS equivalent of buying mining hardware is setting u=
p your own<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; validator and not outsourcing that to anyone else. So bot=
h PoW and<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; PoS have the professional/expert way of participating, an=
d the<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; fraud-prone, amateur way of participating. The only diffe=
rence is,<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; with PoS the professional/expert way is accessible to any=
one with a<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; raspberry Pi and a web connection, which is a much lower =
barrier to<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; entry than PoW. _________________________________________=
______<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" =
target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/list=
info/bitcoin-dev" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailm=
an/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;=C2=A0 _______________________________________________<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" targ=
et=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo=
/bitcoin-dev" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/l=
istinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;=C2=A0 _______________________________________________<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" targ=
et=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo=
/bitcoin-dev" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/l=
istinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; _______________________________________________<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" targ=
et=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo=
/bitcoin-dev" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/l=
istinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
&gt;&gt; _______________________________________________<br>
&gt;&gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D=
"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc=
oin-dev" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listin=
fo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoi=
n-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></blockquote></div>

--00000000000001851205c5adb8dd--