path: root/39/e6b7482d13e98b23eab94c474fd80ac6b3065b

Return-Path: <fresheneesz@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AC17C000E
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Thu, 24 Jun 2021 00:14:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 785B2405CD
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Thu, 24 Jun 2021 00:14:56 +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: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 XUQYqoaOy1UZ
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Thu, 24 Jun 2021 00:14:54 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-ej1-x632.google.com (mail-ej1-x632.google.com
 [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::632])
 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 480C5404E4
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Thu, 24 Jun 2021 00:14:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ej1-x632.google.com with SMTP id nb6so6642234ejc.10
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Wed, 23 Jun 2021 17:14:54 -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=fL74bpDKp1y3eqcXcxXGWc82LUMQ9aLIi5Av6g/lf6s=;
 b=bhGRoRrJ16quDUx77FFwELPLFAxDjWpOwfwU6uRrnOt94OaK4j3M7TyApxOw+cPB+P
 OdEZ1qA4D6+HQo1i/gY3SGuI1pw0j1AG9UEfJZFndZqZkFtFiVCyaa6cpvMYrnRQo/8F
 x4xXf7ih9RvjWgchu4xcjs8M7IKy0gHQj80bIA3vaK3YHKifT3zD5s8RjPfD+3c0zJZn
 3nQW0XCak5j5kCG5WzqUG4gYV7RVfiNHJqLuFgODtabhG2fE9LMYYeleOQhlFMYjy5Xl
 5vuZk7E/lbTo8wF05YdGRvUVGOnnpw4F+FFUEnU4vgnBoajqDPt49FHl/tUJH0p3/0/4
 PhjQ==
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=fL74bpDKp1y3eqcXcxXGWc82LUMQ9aLIi5Av6g/lf6s=;
 b=CR/pYWNhBPZz1hZpEqJnkUbAzXWTkNWSaOUmL2hdsDQTOMT8vGCxgKp8ABLsw3FQ0B
 yD1Od7cyhFZukRfQkjK//ZSktK5Q5VLD0P7Jn8CRUSTa3vGKEWflwldCQH/ZchUB6KNf
 sl9Zxj0l9r20UGP0kG0wgIbLIJ/grgrg4E6LAkw962rbBnonr4NDFBT8o4pEYUudx99+
 kyrdXLq2BLyxtbYHTgoNhHAMHZXwRGDq+DIM8o8Bbh3/qat+pUVXEEN6f/hD0GuiKLJZ
 GQuHUrQ3QHh6bAdxZ3jd7C2zRaz9oW3UgXgKw1InzA9Gq3MhhGvzKk+zAWMcfMqaVU+G
 nqNw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532A4o+ShhNj7eGWKg5OKbT3zRQdX52Fb2lgn9E9nFmRvyKGZ3iq
 filhvm6ehS0dUVr6iV6iN/FJUTAFvhAQUxReJiw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzAiIlEzn5wn57uAapjoXnyF2wi1X7SCwTUFndgASJNftOsv9iRWDYzJ+BweN9XAz8hQxLnHt+BPor4IbYQerE=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:9622:: with SMTP id
 gb34mr2382502ejc.401.1624493692482; 
 Wed, 23 Jun 2021 17:14:52 -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>
 <CAKy8i-0efmC_AmAK6oLy1FooXd6WeSeOvRUOJ8Lb6BJoqduDTQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGpPWDaiGdgrECZzvM67O6t-kVieL4uR4ydEkHr+gwUB7Ahykg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5Bsr2WaOhSObNX-=61md6tF49auaH7wUB08qKv5baiFutxSw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH+Axy7mc9pRfnQwmPx5BE8z9R3gGA2FtJkBEcbprKSgW0M6zg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHeORg+b=2j9zTFeWEmxWBBQ584oSXpN6t0ujnvbAteWLSbJ3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGpPWDZjsiHgN2_nzgpwF-Pq8btdbPQm3=f06S8nNfpSp+_GHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALeFGL3GZZy8J3VKbuQjof_c7nbGTCd-eY3_h3mH=mZnKehLMw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALeFGL3GZZy8J3VKbuQjof_c7nbGTCd-eY3_h3mH=mZnKehLMw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 17:14:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGpPWDb2MwcFFXtvOhr6WC3aUK5yfYUyJKbxDeLYHqbzYU7i7w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Keagan McClelland <keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007af65c05c577e93c"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 08:12:09 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
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: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 00:14:56 -0000

--0000000000007af65c05c577e93c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

>  This is not true in a Proof of Work system and this difference
absolutely should not be trivialized.

That is in fact true of Proof of Work as well. If a colluding coalition of
miners with more than 50% of the hashrate want to censor transactions, they
absolutely can do that by orphaning blocks that contain transactions
they want to censor. This is not different in proof of stake.

On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 11:14 AM Keagan McClelland <
keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Premise: There is a healthy exchange market for PoS Coin X with tens of
> thousands of participants bidding to buy and sell the coin for other
> currencies on the market.
>
> The difference here though is that Proof of Stake allows the quorum of
> coin holders to block the exchange of said coins if they are going to a
> particular destination. Nothing requires these staking nodes to include
> particular transactions into a block. With that in mind, it isn't just that
> you require the permission of the person who sold you the coins, which I
> can agree is a less dangerous form of permission, but you must also require
> the permission of at least 51% of the coin holders to even receive those
> coins in the first place. This is not true in a Proof of Work system and
> this difference absolutely should not be trivialized.
>
> Keagan
>
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 2:30 AM Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> >  Barrier to entry in PoS is being given permission by the previous
>> owner of a token
>>
>> The idea that proof of stake is not permissionless is completely invalid.
>> It pains me to see such an argument here. Perhaps we can come to an
>> agreement by being more specific. I'd like to propose the following:
>>
>> Premise: There is a healthy exchange market for PoS Coin X with tens of
>> thousands of participants bidding to buy and sell the coin for other
>> currencies on the market.
>>
>> If the premise above is true, then there is no significant permission
>> needed to enter the market for minting blocks for PoS Coin X. If you make a
>> bid on someone's coins and they don't like you and refuse, you can move on
>> to any one of the other tens of thousands of people in that marketplace.
>> Would you agree, Cloud Strife, that this situation couldn't be considered
>> "permissioned"?
>>
>> If not, consider that participation in *any* decentralized system
>> requires the permission of at least one user in that system. If there are
>> thousands of bitcoin public nodes, you require the permission of at least
>> one of them to participate in bitcoin. No one considers bitcoin
>> "permissioned" because of this. Do you agree?
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 1:15 PM Cloud Strife via bitcoin-dev <
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Barrier to entry in PoW is matter for hardware and energy is
>>> permissionless and exist all over the universe, permissionless cost which
>>> exists for everyone no matter who because it's unforgeable.
>>>
>>> Barrier to entry in PoS is being given permission by the previous owner
>>> of a token for you to have it via transfer or sale, both choices they never
>>> have to make since there are no continuous costs with producing blocks
>>> forcing it. A permission is an infinitely high barrier to entry if the
>>> previous owner, like the premining party, refuses to give up the token they
>>> control.
>>>
>>> You're skipping the part where you depend on a permission of a central
>>> party in control of the authority token before you can produce blocks on
>>> your rasberry Pi.
>>>
>>> Proof of stake is not in any possible way relevant to permissionless
>>> protocols, and thus not possibly relevant to decentralized protocols where
>>> control must be distributed to independent (i.e. permissionless) parties.
>>>
>>> There's nothing of relevance to discuss and this has been figured out
>>> long long ago.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Proof-of-Stake-Fallacy
>>>
>>>
>>> https://medium.com/@factchecker9000/nothing-is-worse-than-proof-of-stake-e70b12b988ca
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 7:13 AM James MacWhyte via bitcoin-dev <
>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> @Lloyd wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Of course in reality no one wants to keep their coin holding keys
>>>>> online so in Alogorand you can authorize a set of "participation keys"[1]
>>>>> that will be used to create blocks on your coin holding key's behalf.
>>>>> Hopefully you've spotted the problem.
>>>>> You can send your participation keys to any malicious party with a
>>>>> nice website (see random example [2]) offering you a good return.
>>>>> Damn it's still Proof-of-SquareSpace!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I believe we are talking about a comparison to PoW, correct? If you
>>>> want to mine PoW, you need to buy expensive hardware and configure it to
>>>> work, and wait a long time to get any return by solo mining. Or you can
>>>> join a mining pool, which might use your hashing power for nefarious
>>>> purposes. Or you might skip the hardware all together and fall for some
>>>> "cloud mining" scheme with a pretty website and a high rate of advertised
>>>> return. So as you can see, Proof-of-SquareSpace exists in PoW as well!
>>>>
>>>> The PoS equivalent of buying mining hardware is setting up your own
>>>> validator and not outsourcing that to anyone else. So both PoW and PoS have
>>>> the professional/expert way of participating, and the fraud-prone, amateur
>>>> way of participating. The only difference is, with PoS the
>>>> professional/expert way is accessible to anyone with a raspberry Pi and a
>>>> web connection, which is a much lower barrier to entry than PoW.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>

--0000000000007af65c05c577e93c
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">&gt;=C2=A0

This is not true in a Proof of Work system and this difference absolutely s=
hould not be trivialized.<div><br></div><div>That is in fact true of Proof =
of Work as well. If a colluding coalition of miners with more than 50% of t=
he hashrate want to censor transactions, they absolutely can do that by orp=
haning blocks that contain transactions they=C2=A0want to censor. This is n=
ot different in proof of stake.=C2=A0</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 11:14 AM=
 Keagan McClelland &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com">keaga=
n.mcclelland@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_q=
uote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,2=
04);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>&gt; Premise: There is a health=
y exchange market for PoS Coin X with tens of thousands of participants bid=
ding to buy and sell the coin for other currencies on the market.=C2=A0<br>=
</div><div><br></div>The difference here though is that Proof of Stake allo=
ws the quorum of coin holders to block the exchange of said coins if they a=
re going to a particular destination. Nothing requires these staking nodes =
to include particular transactions into a block. With that in mind, it isn&=
#39;t just that you require the permission of the person who sold you the c=
oins, which I can agree is a less dangerous form of permission, but you mus=
t also require the permission of at least 51% of the coin holders to even r=
eceive those coins in the first place. This is not true in a Proof of Work =
system and this difference absolutely should not be trivialized.<div><br></=
div><div>Keagan</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" =
class=3D"gmail_attr">On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 2:30 AM Billy Tetrud via bitco=
in-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=
=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><=
blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-l=
eft:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">&gt;=C2=
=A0

Barrier to entry in PoS is being given permission by the previous owner of =
a token<div><br></div><div>The idea that proof of stake is not permissionle=
ss is completely invalid. It pains me to see such an argument here. Perhaps=
 we can come to an agreement by being more specific. I&#39;d like to propos=
e the following:</div><div><br></div><div>Premise: There is a healthy excha=
nge market for PoS Coin X with tens of thousands of participants bidding to=
 buy and sell the coin for other currencies on the market.=C2=A0</div><div>=
<br></div><div>If the premise above is true, then there is no significant p=
ermission needed to enter the market for minting blocks for PoS Coin X. If =
you make a bid on someone&#39;s coins and they don&#39;t like you and refus=
e, you can move on to any one of the other tens of thousands of people in t=
hat marketplace. Would you agree, Cloud Strife, that this situation couldn&=
#39;t be considered &quot;permissioned&quot;?=C2=A0</div><div><br>If not, c=
onsider that participation in *any* decentralized system requires the permi=
ssion of at least one user in that system. If there are thousands of bitcoi=
n public nodes, you require the permission of at least one of them to parti=
cipate in bitcoin. No one considers bitcoin &quot;permissioned&quot; becaus=
e of this. Do you agree?=C2=A0</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><d=
iv dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 1:15 PM Cloud S=
trife via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundati=
on.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wro=
te:<br></div><blockquote 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"><div dir=3D"ltr">Barrier to entry in PoW is matter for hardware and en=
ergy is permissionless and exist all over the universe, permissionless=C2=
=A0cost which exists for everyone no matter who because it&#39;s unforgeabl=
e.<div><br></div><div>Barrier to entry in PoS is being given permission by =
the previous owner of a token for you to have it via transfer or sale, both=
 choices they never have to make since there are no continuous=C2=A0costs w=
ith producing blocks forcing it. A permission is an infinitely high barrier=
 to entry if the previous owner, like the premining party, refuses to give =
up the token they control.</div><div><br></div><div>You&#39;re skipping the=
 part where you depend on a permission of a central party in control of the=
 authority token before you can produce blocks on your rasberry=C2=A0Pi.</d=
iv><div><br></div><div>Proof of stake is not in any possible way relevant t=
o permissionless protocols, and thus not possibly relevant to decentralized=
 protocols where control must be distributed to independent (i.e. permissio=
nless) parties.</div><div><br></div><div>There&#39;s nothing=C2=A0of releva=
nce to discuss and this has been figured out long long ago.</div><div><br><=
/div><div><a href=3D"https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/P=
roof-of-Stake-Fallacy" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/libbitcoin/libb=
itcoin-system/wiki/Proof-of-Stake-Fallacy</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>=
<a href=3D"https://medium.com/@factchecker9000/nothing-is-worse-than-proof-=
of-stake-e70b12b988ca" target=3D"_blank">https://medium.com/@factchecker900=
0/nothing-is-worse-than-proof-of-stake-e70b12b988ca</a><br></div><div><br><=
/div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><di=
v dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 7:13 AM James Ma=
cWhyte via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat=
ion.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wr=
ote:<br></div><blockquote 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"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br clear=3D"all"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"=
ltr"><div>@Lloyd wrote:</div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div><div cl=
ass=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0=
px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div =
dir=3D"ltr">Of course in reality no one wants to keep their coin holding ke=
ys online so in Alogorand you can authorize a set of &quot;participation ke=
ys&quot;[1] that will be used to create blocks on your coin holding key&#39=
;s behalf.<br>Hopefully you&#39;ve spotted the problem.<br>You can send you=
r participation keys to any malicious party with a nice website (see random=
 example [2]) offering you a good return.<br>Damn it&#39;s still Proof-of-S=
quareSpace!<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I believe we are talk=
ing about a comparison to PoW, correct? If you want to mine PoW, you need t=
o buy expensive hardware and configure it to work, and wait a long time to =
get any return by solo mining. Or you can join a mining pool, which might u=
se your hashing power for nefarious purposes. Or you might skip the hardwar=
e all together and fall for some &quot;cloud mining&quot; scheme with a pre=
tty website and a high rate of advertised return. So as you can see, Proof-=
of-SquareSpace exists in PoW as well!</div><div><br></div><div>The PoS equi=
valent of buying mining hardware is setting up your own validator and not o=
utsourcing that to anyone else. So both PoW and PoS have the professional/e=
xpert way of participating, and the fraud-prone, amateur way of participati=
ng. The only difference is, with PoS the professional/expert way is accessi=
ble to anyone with a raspberry Pi and a web connection, which is a much low=
er barrier to entry than PoW.</div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<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></div>
_______________________________________________<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>
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>
</blockquote></div>

--0000000000007af65c05c577e93c--