summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/1c/b20f2a6d1a2a5be895e1722ccb34b97ef6c96b
blob: 9a03c945c8aa14a816315cfcfb6ef7f037c78920 (plain)
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
Return-Path: <zachgrw@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5BC5C0001
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 18 May 2021 14:02:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0CDD403CA
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 18 May 2021 14:02:30 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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,
 HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 FSZdCQUOmOrC
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 18 May 2021 14:02:30 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-io1-xd35.google.com (mail-io1-xd35.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d35])
 by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 076E640140
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 18 May 2021 14:02:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-io1-xd35.google.com with SMTP id z24so9478688ioj.7
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 18 May 2021 07:02:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
 h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
 :cc; bh=FgEeRADxzJ6V7SW3y7QCpdb8XNJt0GEZqF/GiwFr9iY=;
 b=kCcnKp4zxLbUog2Mg7vhCbYG42u6IHZYTnw0uc5P3jExpLqTPaFLA1a+wj9IYXnyOE
 +WA7I2ltgqI6DSY76mCWV+qCpreUJPuUc7hXgQXDw9hJ6azkZsd/AX9AgVjdUF0YdjjD
 /8cghoOdvaDDVgT8nF1g5Y+59zdLJ8hSR6uMhaTqHeOk7BAhReNlc3rweKdUTVlmr+po
 kHUcbD9r993PiqxVWLyBnizkrdmKtBwupx/+nDUxTprMa5dxvie84r6X/9hcDFpCmiBV
 KmS137DyxJ/dNMIDKfPGFmS/y87Xt6cle68xegjh6je+PTM+sbNrbnQbLmOabmPF7kEa
 PUgg==
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=FgEeRADxzJ6V7SW3y7QCpdb8XNJt0GEZqF/GiwFr9iY=;
 b=PGWCNBElLzMnozYPwa/be3ag89Fj4P9VkYJJWTrDcbCPiZL2kvIikxfjKBqO/oouzA
 5TzEq6VCiVnH/AaqLxpXQeLRxdsdALd1UvKSRjrpeUmdTdrKPavZSM3C1CbYCq9xaz9D
 I04EzRU0tTwA50tS35fiktXjJD6Yp/OFcKBO0UIRwYA5D7enlQhh2a4q2hvGFG4FzTtt
 lCPcjHys8J/aKG/dX4nh/6UVMbFtVYCQsaTeKGgIDmlsCtCBFORQ2G7TBrEyIF2AWAOV
 9zDVnjLFnxV3jEO47A/BYgiWt5weL7V8G+3B59BFiPVAVsjgL1lrx6x3LYEFPYcMxZjC
 QJ7w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532XF/nfOJOA6Zne1dCy0uLs9v0218ToqYVKj0TWmj3ez7kcb6xp
 nd1LxVwj0ubgcNKhO3ykqkWfB1vqUr+Sh007yDc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyh4Z6T1YJT3b6nT2w10WgTn47oq3E+oKPoioJByY2xwf46BgAY0i7DFAje1VlpfnNQc6S+mqiUXuQ5sI/jcfI=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:14c8:: with SMTP id
 b8mr956183iow.209.1621346549193; 
 Tue, 18 May 2021 07:02:29 -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>
In-Reply-To: <hASF-iYeGlsq3EhNWY0EWhk5S8R1Wwn534cWsrwLInd8K7f7bUDCAP4GgTj8_ZNsKtgv8y09GJovcS6KXhYRHODC5N_88fvCAF1Z-r2TUFg=@protonmail.com>
From: Zac Greenwood <zachgrw@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 16:02:18 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJ4-pECb9QSUDPax8SU+-KGwPgVju=YKax9eb-iRwAmZGcMcPg@mail.gmail.com>
To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001f623e05c29b29c1"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 18 May 2021 14:24:16 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
 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: Tue, 18 May 2021 14:02:30 -0000

--0000000000001f623e05c29b29c1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

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
>

--0000000000001f623e05c29b29c1
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto">Hi=C2=A0<span style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0)">ZmnSCPxj,</span>=
</div><div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></span></div><=
div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0)">Please note that I am not=
 suggesting VDFs as a means to save energy, but solely as a means to make t=
he time between blocks more constant.</span></div><div dir=3D"auto"><span s=
tyle=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></span></div><div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D=
"color:rgb(0,0,0)">Zac</span></div><div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"color:r=
gb(0,0,0)"><br></span></div><div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D=
"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Tue, 18 May 2021 at 12:42, ZmnSCPxj &lt;<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com">ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com</a>&gt; wrote=
:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.=
8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-l=
eft-color:rgb(204,204,204)">Good morning Zac,<br>
<br>
&gt; VDFs might enable more constant block times, for instance by having a =
two-step PoW:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; 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.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; 2. Use current PoW mechanism with lower difficulty so finding a block =
takes 1 minute on average, again subject to as-is difficulty adjustments.<b=
r>
&gt;<br>
&gt; 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 inherentl=
y progress-free (their sequential nature prevents that; they are inherently=
 progress-requiring).<br>
<br>
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.<br>
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*.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
ZmnSCPxj<br>
</blockquote></div></div>

--0000000000001f623e05c29b29c1--