Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0330FC0001 for ; Mon, 10 May 2021 14:08:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE69683F01 for ; Mon, 10 May 2021 14:08:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.299 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=q32-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 WXxyDvoyzMxe for ; Mon, 10 May 2021 14:08:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-pg1-x52e.google.com (mail-pg1-x52e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52e]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB86183E6C for ; Mon, 10 May 2021 14:08:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg1-x52e.google.com with SMTP id j12so7306885pgh.7 for ; Mon, 10 May 2021 07:08:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=q32-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=QP2fn5+MecopAhnIUBcnFnxRv3qypEOcSiVDnJvpXsY=; b=a+MuU9tZk3tvRDUE88TaDfYILo4BvDy/9anUo4UOyvh2G8ywSjc4OJC108ZtNmamod oZ8N/Tc3i6lerjEQ15eIZF9N+fsyoWWpZFbVPacg/bzKUmUhTURAMgfg2CA7UUXm/P1G HyhQTXfX+4opyBDXep242Huwr/7DPywLV/oEVzFrncuen37AqI7bJqTRUO768/2uWh4i HUIvAw1R3O3Ug64jaamlpd8mkMx73S7ET1dmUdlKezZIk4Q2iYG/vw47KDx4O5nwguor i8xfeTpMewt2j2SbueJhbM8+vJpq6FZ/R1OeL7g14o4ZiBa++ZuWE1pZaq/X3Rdmc+xg E3MA== 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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QP2fn5+MecopAhnIUBcnFnxRv3qypEOcSiVDnJvpXsY=; b=szQRR58yCuE6djnl8ZK8Md52KuuSZNzGafYeBf0Vchl6k9H/ZwmFxMDXjbEaIs2vyV UiukS2tPS3UsBuhZHKZsu3iJQ5ANWb2kMt6P2n1P8C+FvFfVUDf41lcz+PFDju64R9/x CXgatFnLh7OJVkEvCKGeE0pV/mD2t0THIWmZaWAuP+T3k6/eNwRLxezz9MmQavDS+x32 x06qpASJ1ftaEoyfOwXfcRP71c7ZuR4/tqr0cX1ZfJNTD7S7sgiN4pcU6L1HjIaIlTPQ CjPUoeIHHRdJmD4dE5NoScHIpZbS7jFRAzwibGWsZXZPNQHktvVaOzCz9Zqx73b8ZiWT 8Tgw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530uxRuIsSUfE273ApliSEJDbsDTFoCVfmt1XuaknUeABcmHL1Mc C8AoN1vdqDBzydg5joMGcj20ft6TpVRk3Wb41NvTnBY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwUTe3Bj8TpT2JJ32EmQJEYF0f/iSPIsYpymGlueN0ack6BUibYL6xxFkUhuu93vku42SPBim4FgJmb1BEUwvY= X-Received: by 2002:aa7:86d3:0:b029:291:cb2d:f91d with SMTP id h19-20020aa786d30000b0290291cb2df91dmr24975212pfo.57.1620655706333; Mon, 10 May 2021 07:08:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <6do5xN2g5LPnFeM55iJ-4C4MyXOu_KeXxy68Xt4dJQMhi3LJ8ZrLICmEUlh8JGfDmsDG12m1JDAh0e0huwK_MlyKpdfn22ru3zsm7lYLfBo=@protonmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6do5xN2g5LPnFeM55iJ-4C4MyXOu_KeXxy68Xt4dJQMhi3LJ8ZrLICmEUlh8JGfDmsDG12m1JDAh0e0huwK_MlyKpdfn22ru3zsm7lYLfBo=@protonmail.com> From: Erik Aronesty Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 10:08:14 -0400 Message-ID: To: SatoshiSingh , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 10 May 2021 14:43:35 +0000 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: Mon, 10 May 2021 14:08:30 -0000 personally, not speaking for anyone else, i think that proof-of-burn has a much higher likelihood of being a) good enough security and b) solving the nothing-at-stake problem the only issue i see with a quality PoB implementation is a robust solution to the block-timing problem. https://grisha.org/blog/2018/01/23/explaining-proof-of-work/ i do think there *could* be other low-energy solutions to verifiable timing, just haven't seen one On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 6:50 PM SatoshiSingh via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > Hello list, > > I am a lurker here and like many of you I worry about the energy usage of= bitcoin mining. I understand a lot mining happens with renewable resources= but the impact is still high. > > I want to get your opinion on implementing proof of stake for bitcoin min= ing in future. For now, proof of stake is still untested and not battle tes= ted like proof of work. Though someday it will be. > > In the following years we'll be seeing proof of stake being implemented. = Smaller networks can test PoS which is a luxury bitcoin can't afford. Here'= s how I see this the possibilities: > > 1 - Proof of stake isn't a good enough security mechanism > 2 - Proof of state is a good security mechanism and works as intended > > IF PoS turns out to be good after battle testing, would you consider impl= ementing it for Bitcoin? I understand this would invoke a lot of controvers= ies and a hard fork that no one likes. But its important enough to consider= a hard fork. What are your opinions provided PoS does work? > > Love from India. > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev