Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41315C0001 for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 18:53:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F2CB60B8B for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 18:53:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.3 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, 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: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=q32-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fZhXCpqz3bZe for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 18:53:04 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-pj1-x102d.google.com (mail-pj1-x102d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102d]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C33B608AB for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 18:53:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pj1-x102d.google.com with SMTP id lx17-20020a17090b4b11b029015f3b32b8dbso309979pjb.0 for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 11:53:04 -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 :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=WNMJKTiVWPbM2C6K6WP48IqL1wFFNYyEgS0jiV3hwMQ=; b=mjfuz65QOKe7ggsqUd3UfjqO6uJDKhM4Dsrl5K4Opybxc4h6fmLjhw6lGC3TAvdMNp z1EN2/joQY8V76dRyXQ/3FwGRG0igBKflKco3V4sTgM5DN/vnmau4mhPquXugQltIoik iZf61adq2VlerHBVATeK5Ax9PJMSiv8tOhgQcNp6S+gKovF9HHpokjybLgTTaS1+emtG 85PugDHxyw+VhvDjUKJYfJPNdYGT/9zBywz7Nxm6wkaYxKkKnibxMwdmLJyWxYqloaLk nE+JCGzinXs8KP5NQRKHyQrN7qnaSIXEVDXHnmObDNrcoa0owZVVhqbxvgqJ9t0gnKVb 6hOQ== 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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=WNMJKTiVWPbM2C6K6WP48IqL1wFFNYyEgS0jiV3hwMQ=; b=Mda6jsOPXrXa+VXk4rVE6zsEHLGQTuw+cIffhqjmHuz2hOpnTUWHkVwRZqqWsZ3whA HiniZY1Hm8+EWwX4nz5Ru+itgJ76IgegRmabfASZe/qQs0NTo6fEKiVA/ImWfhuyCmtA /RuIRvLYnIL7MHQdnujhIuRxy0sxc6HXyt3ummEa0fFRfgNt/Swyg2pnsA3sZu0YVzte Oz7US/GVP4bbv4FJuznq4mFhz+3yEE84OVr3yuOlOdg1ERO8hu5uy1IZWdn0nfA4G3pb et0dqJdp1BykTA9JRCQL+h37z/smOtuxR4TkABWcoCi6TQlqYb82Sk/p8DSRF8SChSDU Kfeg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532eumkK2221VtaLBiRHjEeFK0u6DsZtJnBhatBElFeTH7DRh0Yp SXgKuxvZ1myDTOUyYFRQ6H0OrfX5l9e14R7yjApHYZE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzXJ585pBo0f1KgHw6F5s3e34wxYjVUzC9p7SWex/VpXD7T8dzI04uFqQUaRpUkiQD+HH55BmJOoE4FUpwhYns= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:6345:: with SMTP id v5mr6756665pjs.139.1621363983811; Tue, 18 May 2021 11:53:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <6do5xN2g5LPnFeM55iJ-4C4MyXOu_KeXxy68Xt4dJQMhi3LJ8ZrLICmEUlh8JGfDmsDG12m1JDAh0e0huwK_MlyKpdfn22ru3zsm7lYLfBo=@protonmail.com> <30li5MRxkBhzLxLmzRnHkCdn8n3Feqegi-FLZ5VDyIX2uRJfq4kVtrsLxw6dUtsM1atYV25IfIfDaQp4s2Dn2vc8LvYkhbAsn0v_Fwjerpw=@protonmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Erik Aronesty Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 14:52:51 -0400 Message-ID: To: Zac Greenwood Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 18 May 2021 20:55:08 +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 18:53:05 -0000 1. i never suggested vdf's to replace pow. 2. my suggestion was specifically *in the context of* a working proof-of-burn protocol - vdfs used only for timing (not block height) - blind-burned coins of a specific age used to replace proof of work - the required "work" per block would simply be a competition to acquire rewards, and so miners would have to burn coins, well in advance, and hope that their burned coins got rewarded in some far future - the point of burned coins is to mimic, in every meaningful way, the value gained from proof of work... without some of the security drawbacks - the miner risks losing all of his burned coins (like all miners risk losing their work in each block) - new burns can't be used - old burns age out (like ASICs do) - other requirements on burns might be needed to properly mirror the properties of PoW and the incentives Bitcoin uses to mine honestly. 3. i do believe it is *possible* that a "burned coin + vdf system" might be more secure in the long run, and that if the entire space agreed that such an endeavor was worthwhile, a test net could be spun up, and a hard-fork could be initiated. 4. i would never suggest such a thing unless i believed it was possible that consensus was possible. so no, this is not an "alt coin" On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 10:02 AM Zac Greenwood wrote: > > 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 inhere= ntly progress-free (their sequential nature prevents that; they are inheren= tly progress-requiring). >> >> Thus, a miner which focuses on improving the amount of energy that it ca= n 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, tha= t is a 0.1s advantage where *only you* can mine *in the entire world*. >> >> Regards, >> ZmnSCPxj