Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 404D6C0001 for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 10:43:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17C3840246 for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 10:43:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 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, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=protonmail.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 X9vifcAMlSNR for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 10:43:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-40140.protonmail.ch (mail-40140.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.140]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91D1F40105 for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 10:43:01 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 10:42:49 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail; t=1621334578; bh=7sEUH1n1P32/xJYUeiEve71G81SDduwAmFZ6c0H4mlM=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=bMvisNqEeO0RuK7C/ArkKYd3wfNcvDzn+h3QTYBFHdc+bQJmFmhJMxPBsbEk1FSlf JEbFAjSWgk4k0IIZCjnxVg+iCUuqALdbfbefOxFVDXz53U7PiZ1QkKl9Dxc9o6XWrV AE6mTEdVILIREpYgd443bykMRfLHrTBEYLmrGbek= To: Zac Greenwood From: ZmnSCPxj Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <6do5xN2g5LPnFeM55iJ-4C4MyXOu_KeXxy68Xt4dJQMhi3LJ8ZrLICmEUlh8JGfDmsDG12m1JDAh0e0huwK_MlyKpdfn22ru3zsm7lYLfBo=@protonmail.com> <30li5MRxkBhzLxLmzRnHkCdn8n3Feqegi-FLZ5VDyIX2uRJfq4kVtrsLxw6dUtsM1atYV25IfIfDaQp4s2Dn2vc8LvYkhbAsn0v_Fwjerpw=@protonmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 10:43:03 -0000 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 di= fficulty adjustments similar to the as-is). As per the property of VDFs, mi= ners are able show proof of work. > > 2. Use current PoW mechanism with lower difficulty so finding a block tak= es 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