MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <6do5xN2g5LPnFeM55iJ-4C4MyXOu_KeXxy68Xt4dJQMhi3LJ8ZrLICmEUlh8JGfDmsDG12m1JDAh0e0huwK_MlyKpdfn22ru3zsm7lYLfBo=@protonmail.com>
 <CAJowKg+QM94g+JcC-E-NGD4J9-nXHWt5kBw14bXTAWaqZz=bYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALeFGL02d9NVp+yobrtc2g6k2nBjBj0Qb==3Ukkbi8C_zb5qMg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD5xwhi1G3Jj3FAAWQP3BXTK34ugDQY32hq-cQnt8Ny8JP4eGQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJowKgJ1x5YKWS1S-sgdU3Tn+hPT64iiUCwG8qh-JS0xqS7ieA@mail.gmail.com>
 <30li5MRxkBhzLxLmzRnHkCdn8n3Feqegi-FLZ5VDyIX2uRJfq4kVtrsLxw6dUtsM1atYV25IfIfDaQp4s2Dn2vc8LvYkhbAsn0v_Fwjerpw=@protonmail.com>
 <CAJ4-pEBYJNuNMUCt5J5DbKU4RC9JXcO7gZdKh2Vq6PHCmddaeg@mail.gmail.com>
 <hASF-iYeGlsq3EhNWY0EWhk5S8R1Wwn534cWsrwLInd8K7f7bUDCAP4GgTj8_ZNsKtgv8y09GJovcS6KXhYRHODC5N_88fvCAF1Z-r2TUFg=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <hASF-iYeGlsq3EhNWY0EWhk5S8R1Wwn534cWsrwLInd8K7f7bUDCAP4GgTj8_ZNsKtgv8y09GJovcS6KXhYRHODC5N_88fvCAF1Z-r2TUFg=@protonmail.com>
From: Zac Greenwood <zachgrw@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 16:02:18 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJ4-pECb9QSUDPax8SU+-KGwPgVju=YKax9eb-iRwAmZGcMcPg@mail.gmail.com>
To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001f623e05c29b29c1"
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
 SatoshiSingh <SatoshiSingh@protonmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Opinion on proof of stake in future
Precedence: list

--0000000000001f623e05c29b29c1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hi ZmnSCPxj,

Please note that I am not suggesting VDFs as a means to save energy, but
solely as a means to make the time between blocks more constant.

Zac


On Tue, 18 May 2021 at 12:42, ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> wrote:

> Good morning Zac,
>
> > VDFs might enable more constant block times, for instance by having a
> two-step PoW:
> >
> > 1. Use a VDF that takes say 9 minutes to resolve (VDF being subject to
> difficulty adjustments similar to the as-is). As per the property of VDFs,
> miners are able show proof of work.
> >
> > 2. Use current PoW mechanism with lower difficulty so finding a block
> takes 1 minute on average, again subject to as-is difficulty adjustments.
> >
> > As a result, variation in block times will be greatly reduced.
>
> As I understand it, another weakness of VDFs is that they are not
> inherently progress-free (their sequential nature prevents that; they are
> inherently progress-requiring).
>
> Thus, a miner which focuses on improving the amount of energy that it can
> pump into the VDF circuitry (by overclocking and freezing the circuitry),
> could potentially get into a winner-takes-all situation, possibly leading
> to even *worse* competition and even *more* energy consumption.
> After all, if you can start mining 0.1s faster than the competition, that
> is a 0.1s advantage where *only you* can mine *in the entire world*.
>
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
>

--0000000000001f623e05c29b29c1
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto">Hi=C2=A0<span style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0)">ZmnSCPxj,</span>=
</div><div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></span></div><=
div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0)">Please note that I am not=
 suggesting VDFs as a means to save energy, but solely as a means to make t=
he time between blocks more constant.</span></div><div dir=3D"auto"><span s=
tyle=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></span></div><div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D=
"color:rgb(0,0,0)">Zac</span></div><div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"color:r=
gb(0,0,0)"><br></span></div><div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D=
"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Tue, 18 May 2021 at 12:42, ZmnSCPxj &lt;<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com">ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com</a>&gt; wrote=
:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.=
8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-l=
eft-color:rgb(204,204,204)">Good morning Zac,<br>
<br>
&gt; VDFs might enable more constant block times, for instance by having a =
two-step PoW:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; 1. Use a VDF that takes say 9 minutes to resolve (VDF being subject to=
 difficulty adjustments similar to the as-is). As per the property of VDFs,=
 miners are able show proof of work.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; 2. Use current PoW mechanism with lower difficulty so finding a block =
takes 1 minute on average, again subject to as-is difficulty adjustments.<b=
r>
&gt;<br>
&gt; As a result, variation in block times will be greatly reduced.<br>
<br>
As I understand it, another weakness of VDFs is that they are not inherentl=
y progress-free (their sequential nature prevents that; they are inherently=
 progress-requiring).<br>
<br>
Thus, a miner which focuses on improving the amount of energy that it can p=
ump into the VDF circuitry (by overclocking and freezing the circuitry), co=
uld potentially get into a winner-takes-all situation, possibly leading to =
even *worse* competition and even *more* energy consumption.<br>
After all, if you can start mining 0.1s faster than the competition, that i=
s a 0.1s advantage where *only you* can mine *in the entire world*.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
ZmnSCPxj<br>
</blockquote></div></div>

--0000000000001f623e05c29b29c1--