Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5BC5C0001 for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 14:02:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0CDD403CA for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 14:02:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FSZdCQUOmOrC for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 14:02:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-io1-xd35.google.com (mail-io1-xd35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d35]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 076E640140 for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 14:02:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io1-xd35.google.com with SMTP id z24so9478688ioj.7 for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 07:02:29 -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=FgEeRADxzJ6V7SW3y7QCpdb8XNJt0GEZqF/GiwFr9iY=; b=kCcnKp4zxLbUog2Mg7vhCbYG42u6IHZYTnw0uc5P3jExpLqTPaFLA1a+wj9IYXnyOE +WA7I2ltgqI6DSY76mCWV+qCpreUJPuUc7hXgQXDw9hJ6azkZsd/AX9AgVjdUF0YdjjD /8cghoOdvaDDVgT8nF1g5Y+59zdLJ8hSR6uMhaTqHeOk7BAhReNlc3rweKdUTVlmr+po kHUcbD9r993PiqxVWLyBnizkrdmKtBwupx/+nDUxTprMa5dxvie84r6X/9hcDFpCmiBV KmS137DyxJ/dNMIDKfPGFmS/y87Xt6cle68xegjh6je+PTM+sbNrbnQbLmOabmPF7kEa PUgg== 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=FgEeRADxzJ6V7SW3y7QCpdb8XNJt0GEZqF/GiwFr9iY=; b=PGWCNBElLzMnozYPwa/be3ag89Fj4P9VkYJJWTrDcbCPiZL2kvIikxfjKBqO/oouzA 5TzEq6VCiVnH/AaqLxpXQeLRxdsdALd1UvKSRjrpeUmdTdrKPavZSM3C1CbYCq9xaz9D I04EzRU0tTwA50tS35fiktXjJD6Yp/OFcKBO0UIRwYA5D7enlQhh2a4q2hvGFG4FzTtt lCPcjHys8J/aKG/dX4nh/6UVMbFtVYCQsaTeKGgIDmlsCtCBFORQ2G7TBrEyIF2AWAOV 9zDVnjLFnxV3jEO47A/BYgiWt5weL7V8G+3B59BFiPVAVsjgL1lrx6x3LYEFPYcMxZjC QJ7w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532XF/nfOJOA6Zne1dCy0uLs9v0218ToqYVKj0TWmj3ez7kcb6xp nd1LxVwj0ubgcNKhO3ykqkWfB1vqUr+Sh007yDc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyh4Z6T1YJT3b6nT2w10WgTn47oq3E+oKPoioJByY2xwf46BgAY0i7DFAje1VlpfnNQc6S+mqiUXuQ5sI/jcfI= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:14c8:: with SMTP id b8mr956183iow.209.1621346549193; Tue, 18 May 2021 07:02:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <6do5xN2g5LPnFeM55iJ-4C4MyXOu_KeXxy68Xt4dJQMhi3LJ8ZrLICmEUlh8JGfDmsDG12m1JDAh0e0huwK_MlyKpdfn22ru3zsm7lYLfBo=@protonmail.com> <30li5MRxkBhzLxLmzRnHkCdn8n3Feqegi-FLZ5VDyIX2uRJfq4kVtrsLxw6dUtsM1atYV25IfIfDaQp4s2Dn2vc8LvYkhbAsn0v_Fwjerpw=@protonmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Zac Greenwood Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 16:02:18 +0200 Message-ID: To: ZmnSCPxj Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001f623e05c29b29c1" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 18 May 2021 14:24:16 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , SatoshiSingh 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 14:02:30 -0000 --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 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
Hi=C2=A0ZmnSCPxj,=

<= div dir=3D"auto">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.

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 inherentl= y 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 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.
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*.

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
--0000000000001f623e05c29b29c1--