1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
|
Return-Path: <mike@powx.org>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 048CEC0001
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 19 May 2021 15:30:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E63CB405EE
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 19 May 2021 15:29:59 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=powx-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id hkrVRGeJVn0S
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 19 May 2021 15:29:58 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-yb1-xb2f.google.com (mail-yb1-xb2f.google.com
[IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2f])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1949C4055A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 19 May 2021 15:29:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb2f.google.com with SMTP id r8so18588488ybb.9
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 19 May 2021 08:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=powx-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=BeXs8vCtnfjWE6i1t2J+2u8T5OfXjL9avuSkqYzzQvQ=;
b=CXyzS4q/iSwUFJAJDLUdVDD7uUh1kp/q7F61v95F8LsaJ3jtkE0MQcQYhUNRInYvOH
VVVeXEb0HgLYpGo5RR+SwbGt7vOxbYSY+pOH97bcCbRGjXH5W1yWmKE/3GpFnb+vUIrG
FsA8gT2b7dAtv/IgEXeM7s0gQ6zlDKQyXg9RL/o6qzR9TfGi98otKxp7F1yvoyHtGTsU
vFHSZR1MlSX/7wPPoEuUUJB627UJYoqpvk9h6rCgTJ6q9BalYrAIAXNoAvEt5m3uSSW5
injiD1Wd/v80zzg4TpK1vyV9PFuacPXj07RsDeEADG3r3J3aLtqKPKn1ua/Y6AoP0Ktc
sJYA==
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=BeXs8vCtnfjWE6i1t2J+2u8T5OfXjL9avuSkqYzzQvQ=;
b=HkMbaC3UC0WoltKUIewrFT1ggmhoxtPagx4kin8IihJbEfmQ0gRQYI0SNlZ4o3UXOk
KXo5yVYLqftfu44ZwJQkT44YbiMvzoHmVgdgij5l/q3MaqDdKKmBqK7CtAPQa0nH0Fpp
Myr/nsLse7Udn9Az+ftE07J6OvmGRAYMJjwR6VUA5TjqgGJFBeQvBR1esVm1LR/CcAkC
et+DX3Kitw+4HQyRiVPMMDC1q225OghT+eQD8yBjAyPUfbrhUrW4lJx9U899n6bkKiry
+CxoiooS9anP0mPWWy3XAjOMqb9+fg84mcYIR0u27BBGOBZy1gUmlPZPnavd2ipnuCn4
4krg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531aVozyKFNT4w2JcdWnr5znzlsrqxPV/B6UgoIuYJdWKfmwLz+u
y+OtPVtwjpdaJsyBjQLqVD8OMShYmG3rR3ttksCgAA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwEYBjl38T+tZ8DsTBmvDpXXjpgtYkmcplKrpG9FDISwfuFDZXVKjO86h59iOrmHlKp9tLIgfJESL2qzGzxFNw=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:8e0e:: with SMTP id p14mr162382ybl.84.1621438196673;
Wed, 19 May 2021 08:29:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <6do5xN2g5LPnFeM55iJ-4C4MyXOu_KeXxy68Xt4dJQMhi3LJ8ZrLICmEUlh8JGfDmsDG12m1JDAh0e0huwK_MlyKpdfn22ru3zsm7lYLfBo=@protonmail.com>
<CAJowKg+QM94g+JcC-E-NGD4J9-nXHWt5kBw14bXTAWaqZz=bYw@mail.gmail.com>
<CALeFGL02d9NVp+yobrtc2g6k2nBjBj0Qb==3Ukkbi8C_zb5qMg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAD5xwhi1G3Jj3FAAWQP3BXTK34ugDQY32hq-cQnt8Ny8JP4eGQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJowKgJ1x5YKWS1S-sgdU3Tn+hPT64iiUCwG8qh-JS0xqS7ieA@mail.gmail.com>
<30li5MRxkBhzLxLmzRnHkCdn8n3Feqegi-FLZ5VDyIX2uRJfq4kVtrsLxw6dUtsM1atYV25IfIfDaQp4s2Dn2vc8LvYkhbAsn0v_Fwjerpw=@protonmail.com>
<CAJ4-pEBYJNuNMUCt5J5DbKU4RC9JXcO7gZdKh2Vq6PHCmddaeg@mail.gmail.com>
<hASF-iYeGlsq3EhNWY0EWhk5S8R1Wwn534cWsrwLInd8K7f7bUDCAP4GgTj8_ZNsKtgv8y09GJovcS6KXhYRHODC5N_88fvCAF1Z-r2TUFg=@protonmail.com>
<CAJ4-pECb9QSUDPax8SU+-KGwPgVju=YKax9eb-iRwAmZGcMcPg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJowKgJ3DOrtO+_XzoEnqQUQdge=zCopg2mvuy5F=RSeaVPJYQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAKy8i-17Snk7ZeTL_U8ULDm3S5fYRXf412p1NpS_6CTT4Fhm0A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKy8i-17Snk7ZeTL_U8ULDm3S5fYRXf412p1NpS_6CTT4Fhm0A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michael Dubrovsky <mike@powx.org>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 11:30:36 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKy8i-0efmC_AmAK6oLy1FooXd6WeSeOvRUOJ8Lb6BJoqduDTQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bd059105c2b07fd2"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 19 May 2021 15:31:58 +0000
Cc: SatoshiSingh <SatoshiSingh@protonmail.com>
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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 15:30:00 -0000
--000000000000bd059105c2b07fd2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Ah sorry, I didn't realize this was, in fact, a different thread! :)
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 10:07 AM Michael Dubrovsky <mike@powx.org> wrote:
> Folks, I suggest we keep the discussion to PoW, oPoW, and the BIP itself.
> PoS, VDFs, and so on are interesting but I guess there are other threads
> going on these topics already where they would be relevant.
>
> Also, it's important to distinguish between oPoW and these other
> "alternatives" to Hashcash. oPoW is a true Proof of Work that doesn't alter
> the core game theory or security assumptions of Hashcash and actually
> contains SHA (can be SHA3, SHA256, etc hash is interchangeable).
>
> Cheers,
> Mike
>
> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 4:55 PM Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> 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 <zachgrw@gmail.com> 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 <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
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>
>
> --
> Michael Dubrovsky
> Founder; PoWx
> www.PoWx.org <http://www.powx.org/>
>
--
Michael Dubrovsky
Founder; PoWx
www.PoWx.org <http://www.powx.org/>
--000000000000bd059105c2b07fd2
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Ah sorry, I didn't realize this was, in fact, a differ=
ent thread! :)</div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=
=3D"gmail_attr">On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 10:07 AM Michael Dubrovsky <<a h=
ref=3D"mailto:mike@powx.org">mike@powx.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockqu=
ote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px=
solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">Folks, I suggest=
we keep the discussion to PoW, oPoW, and the BIP itself. PoS, VDFs, and so=
on are interesting but I guess there are other threads going on these topi=
cs already where they would be relevant.=C2=A0<div><br></div><div>Also, it&=
#39;s important=C2=A0to distinguish between oPoW and these other "alte=
rnatives" to Hashcash. oPoW is a true Proof of Work that doesn't a=
lter the core game theory or security assumptions of Hashcash and actually =
contains SHA (can be SHA3, SHA256, etc hash is interchangeable).</div><div>=
<br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Mike=C2=A0</div></div><br><div class=3D"gm=
ail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 4:=
55 PM Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists=
.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.o=
rg</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex=
">1. i never suggested vdf's to replace pow.<br>
<br>
2. my suggestion was specifically *in the context of* a working<br>
proof-of-burn protocol<br>
<br>
- vdfs used only for timing (not block height)<br>
- blind-burned coins of a specific age used to replace proof of work<br>
- the required "work" per block would simply be a competition to<=
br>
acquire rewards, and so miners would have to burn coins, well in<br>
advance, and hope that their burned coins got rewarded in some far<br>
future<br>
- the point of burned coins is to mimic, in every meaningful way, the<br>
value gained from proof of work... without some of the security<br>
drawbacks<br>
- the miner risks losing all of his burned coins (like all miners risk<br>
losing their work in each block)<br>
- new burns can't be used<br>
- old burns age out (like ASICs do)<br>
- other requirements on burns might be needed to properly mirror the<br>
properties of PoW and the incentives Bitcoin uses to mine honestly.<br>
<br>
3. i do believe it is *possible* that a "burned coin + vdf system"=
;<br>
might be more secure in the long run, and that if the entire space<br>
agreed that such an endeavor was worthwhile, a test net could be spun<br>
up, and a hard-fork could be initiated.<br>
<br>
4. i would never suggest such a thing unless i believed it was<br>
possible that consensus was possible.=C2=A0 so no, this is not an "alt=
<br>
coin"<br>
<br>
On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 10:02 AM Zac Greenwood <<a href=3D"mailto:zachgr=
w@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">zachgrw@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hi ZmnSCPxj,<br>
><br>
> Please note that I am not suggesting VDFs as a means to save energy, b=
ut solely as a means to make the time between blocks more constant.<br>
><br>
> Zac<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Tue, 18 May 2021 at 12:42, ZmnSCPxj <<a href=3D"mailto:ZmnSCPxj@=
protonmail.com" target=3D"_blank">ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com</a>> wrote:<br=
>
>><br>
>> Good morning Zac,<br>
>><br>
>> > VDFs might enable more constant block times, for instance by =
having a two-step PoW:<br>
>> ><br>
>> > 1. Use a VDF that takes say 9 minutes to resolve (VDF being s=
ubject to difficulty adjustments similar to the as-is). As per the property=
of VDFs, miners are able show proof of work.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > 2. Use current PoW mechanism with lower difficulty so finding=
a block takes 1 minute on average, again subject to as-is difficulty adjus=
tments.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > As a result, variation in block times will be greatly reduced=
.<br>
>><br>
>> As I understand it, another weakness of VDFs is that they are not =
inherently progress-free (their sequential nature prevents that; they are i=
nherently progress-requiring).<br>
>><br>
>> Thus, a miner which focuses on improving the amount of energy that=
it can pump into the VDF circuitry (by overclocking and freezing the circu=
itry), could potentially get into a winner-takes-all situation, possibly le=
ading to even *worse* competition and even *more* energy consumption.<br>
>> After all, if you can start mining 0.1s faster than the competitio=
n, that is a 0.1s advantage where *only you* can mine *in the entire world*=
.<br>
>><br>
>> Regards,<br>
>> ZmnSCPxj<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir=3D"ltr"=
><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div style=3D"font-size:small">Mich=
ael Dubrovsky<br></div><div style=3D"font-size:small">Founder; PoWx</div><d=
iv style=3D"font-size:small"><a href=3D"http://www.powx.org/" style=3D"colo=
r:rgb(17,85,204)" target=3D"_blank">www.PoWx.org</a></div></div></div></div=
></div>
</blockquote></div><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir=3D"ltr"=
class=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div styl=
e=3D"font-size:small">Michael Dubrovsky<br></div><div style=3D"font-size:sm=
all">Founder; PoWx</div><div style=3D"font-size:small"><a href=3D"http://ww=
w.powx.org/" style=3D"color:rgb(17,85,204)" target=3D"_blank">www.PoWx.org<=
/a></div></div></div></div></div>
--000000000000bd059105c2b07fd2--
|