Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of yahoo.com
	designates 216.109.114.203 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=216.109.114.203; envelope-from=stephenreed@yahoo.com;
	helo=nm46-vm10.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com; 
References: <1398382335.20219.YahooMailNeo@web160503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
	<20140425073334.GV3180@nl.grid.coop>
	<D95AE4AB-DC67-4136-901A-D8F712EB7357@acidhou.se>
Message-ID: <1398422100.68438.YahooMailNeo@web160505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 03:35:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stephen Reed <stephenreed@yahoo.com>
To: Jeffrey Paul <sneak@acidhou.se>, Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@hozed.org>
In-Reply-To: <D95AE4AB-DC67-4136-901A-D8F712EB7357@acidhou.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
	<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proof-of-Stake branch?
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Stephen Reed <stephenreed@yahoo.com>

My understanding is that sidechains require merged mining support and that =
sidechains create no coinbase transactions themselves. When Bitcoin Core su=
pports the two-way peg then I would update my source code branch to incorpo=
rate that or any other change that is released. Ideally, when sidechains ca=
n work with PoW Bitcoin, then those same sidechains should work without any=
 changes with PoS Bitcoin running in my testnet.=0A=0AI will be examining P=
PC, NXT and whitepapers for ideas that I can implement in such a way as the=
 result can be called Bitcoin. The only difference would be the absence of =
wasteful Proof-of-Work, and the presence of mining rewards distributed to f=
ull nodes in proportion to the amount of bitcoin each is willing to expose =
to the network. Coin age is a good starting point. A reference peer-to-peer=
 pool developed by me would be responsible for fairly distributing the mini=
ng rewards as daily dividend payments to PoS full node pool members.=0A=0AI=
n a few days, I plan to establish a Proof-of-Stake Bitcoin project thread i=
n the Project Development sub-forum of Bitcointalk. We can continue the tec=
hnical discussion there, starting with a list of principles.=0A=0A=0AStephe=
n L. Reed =0AAustin, Texas, USA =0A512.791.7860=0A=0AOn Friday, April 25, 2=
014 4:42 AM, Jeffrey Paul <sneak@acidhou.se> wrote:=0A=0AAre proof of stake=
 blockchains compatible with the sidechain/two-way peg system invented by G=
reg (and maybe others - reports unclear)?=0A>=0A>http://letstalkbitcoin.com=
/blockchain-2-0-let-a-thousand-chains-blossom/=0A>=0A>It's my limited under=
standing that any sidechains in such a model are somewhat cryptographically=
 tied to the PoW system that bitcoin's chain uses. I am seriously curious i=
f alternate decentralized consensus algorithms (proof of execution, proof o=
f stake, et c) are compatible with the sidechain universe as envisioned. =
=0A>=0A>Perhaps someone with a deeper technical understanding could explain=
 how, if so, or if my incomplete hunch (that alternate consensus algorithms=
 cannot retain compatibility with Bitcoin in a two way peg model) is correc=
t.=0A>=0A>These sorts of "alternate universe" altcoin experiments with diff=
erent proof models take on a different cost/benefit ratio if they can't eve=
r interoperate as sidechains, which is why I'm curious. =0A>=0A>Best,=0A>-j=
p=0A>=0A>-- =0A>Jeffrey Paul=A0=A0=A0+1 (312) 361-0355=0A>5539 AD00 DE4C 42=
F3 AFE1 1575 0524 43F4 DF2A 55C2=0A>=0A>=0A>> On 25.04.2014, at 00:33, Troy=
 Benjegerdes <hozer@hozed.org> wrote:=0A>> =0A>> This also might be an inte=
resting application of the side=0A>> chains concept Peter Todd has discusse=
d.=0A>=0A>=A0