path: root/53/7b28916fd07a7bd7a802417ba127e231cbed33

Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <gacrux@gmail.com>) id 1WeEPo-0005SM-Ez
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sun, 27 Apr 2014 02:02:00 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.223.172 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.223.172; envelope-from=gacrux@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ie0-f172.google.com; 
Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com ([209.85.223.172])
	by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1WeEPn-0007I6-A1
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sun, 27 Apr 2014 02:02:00 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id at1so1876231iec.31
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Sat, 26 Apr 2014 19:01:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.50.112.167 with SMTP id ir7mr14801104igb.27.1398564113988;
	Sat, 26 Apr 2014 19:01:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.2] (60-240-212-53.tpgi.com.au. [60.240.212.53])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id
	rt10sm11343204igb.15.2014.04.26.19.01.52
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
	(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
	Sat, 26 Apr 2014 19:01:53 -0700 (PDT)
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <535C5BBF.30709@monetize.io>
References: <1398382335.20219.YahooMailNeo@web160503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
	<20140425073334.GV3180@nl.grid.coop> <535C1980.7000505@monetize.io>
	<bf916afe-6617-43c9-9738-486316ce308f@email.android.com>
	<535C5BBF.30709@monetize.io>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=UTF-8
From: Gareth Williams <gacrux@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 12:01:44 +1000
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Message-ID: <3b9c0704-32da-4b83-844f-7fa2d685f538@email.android.com>
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
	sender-domain
	0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
	(gacrux[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
	author's domain
	0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
	not necessarily valid
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1WeEPn-0007I6-A1
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proof-of-Stake branch?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 02:02:00 -0000

Who said anything about a re-org? The original block remains valid, your block reward is just zero, upon maturity, in light of a valid fraud proof.

ie. the "coinbase confiscation" that I was just arguing against in another thread :P but of course here based on cryptographic proof, not human judgement.

On 27 April 2014 11:22:07 AM AEST, Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io> wrote:
>That makes double-spends trivially easy: sign two blocks, withholding
>one. Then at a later point in time reveal the second signed block
>(demonstrating your own fraud) and force a reorg.
>
>On 04/26/2014 04:44 PM, Gareth Williams wrote:
>> What about using fraud proofs? Your coinbase only matures if nobody
>publishes proof that you signed a competing block. 
>> 
>> Then something is at least at stake. When it's your chance to sign a
>block, attempting to sign and publish more than one at the same height
>reliably punishes you (you effectively waste your chance and receive no
>reward.)
>> 
>> I can't remember who I saw discussing this idea. Might have been
>Vitalik Buterin?
>> 
>> On 27 April 2014 6:39:28 AM AEST, Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io>
>wrote:
>>> There's no need to be confrontational. I don't think anyone here
>>> objects
>>> to the basic concept of proof-of-stake. Some people, myself
>included,
>>> have proposed protocols which involve some sort of proof of stake
>>> mechanism, and the idea itself originated as a mechanism for
>>> eliminating
>>> checkpoints, something which is very much on topic and of concern to
>>> many here.
>>>
>>> The problems come when one tries to *replace* proof-of-work mining
>with
>>> proof-of-stake "mining." You encounter problems related to the fact
>>> that
>>> with proof-of-stake nothing is actually at stake. You are free to
>sign
>>> as many different forks as you wish, and worse have incentive to do
>so,
>>> because whatever fork does win, you want it to be yours. In the
>worst
>>> case this results in double-spends at will, and in the best case
>with
>>> any of the various proposed protections deployed, it merely reduces
>to
>>> proof-of-work as miners grind blocks until they find one that names
>>> them
>>> or one of their sock puppets as the signer of the next block.
>>>
>>> I sincerely doubt you will find a solution to this, as it appears to
>be
>>> a fundamental issue with proof-of-stake, in that it must leverage an
>>> existing mechanism for enforced scarcity (e.g. proof-of-work) in
>order
>>> to work in a consensus algorithm. Is there some solution that you
>have
>>> in mind for this?
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> On 04/25/2014 12:33 AM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
>>>> Do it. Someone will scream harm. The loudest voices screaming how
>it
>>> would
>>>> be harmful are doing the most harm.
>>>>
>>>> The only way to know is build it, and test it. If the network
>breaks,
>>> then
>>>> it is better we find out sooner rather than later.
>>>>
>>>> My only suggestion is call it 'bitstake' or something to clearly
>>> differentiate
>>>> it from Bitcoin. This also might be an interesting application of
>the
>>> side
>>>> chains concept Peter Todd has discussed.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 04:32:15PM -0700, Stephen Reed wrote:
>>>>> Hello all.
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand that Proof-of-Stake as a replacement for
>Proof-of-Work
>>> is a prohibited yet disputed change to Bitcoin Core. I would like to
>>> create a Bitcoin branch that provides a sandboxed testbed for
>>> researching the best PoS implementations. In the years to come,
>perhaps
>>> circumstances might arise, such as shifting of user opinion as to
>>> whether PoS should be moved from the prohibited list to the
>hard-fork
>>> list.
>>>>> -----
>>>>>
>>>>> A poll I conducted today on bitcointalk,
>>> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=581635.0 with an
>>> attention-grabbing title suggests some minority support for Bitcoin
>>> Proof-of-Stake. I invite any of you to critically comment on that
>>> thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Annual 10% bitcoin dividends can be ours if  Proof-of-Stake full
>>> nodes outnumber existing Proof-of-Work full nodes by three-to-one.
>What
>>> is your choice?"
>>>>>
>>>>> "I do not care or do not know enough." - 5 (16.1%) 
>>>>> "I would download and run the existing Proof-of-Work program to
>>> fight the change." - 14 (45.2%) 
>>>>> "I would download and run the new Proof-of-Stake program to favor
>>> the change. " - 12 (38.7%) 
>>>>> Total Voters: 31 
>>>>> -----
>>>>>
>>>>> Before I branch the source code and learn the proper way of doing
>>> things in this community, I ask you simply if creating the branch is
>>> harmful? My goal is to develop, test and document PoS, while
>exploring
>>> its vulnerabilities and fixing them in a transparent fashion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for taking a bit of your time to read this message.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Start Your Social Network Today - Download eXo Platform
>>> Build your Enterprise Intranet with eXo Platform Software
>>> Java Based Open Source Intranet - Social, Extensible, Cloud Ready
>>> Get Started Now And Turn Your Intranet Into A Collaboration Platform
>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/ExoPlatform
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>> 
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Start Your Social Network Today - Download eXo Platform
>Build your Enterprise Intranet with eXo Platform Software
>Java Based Open Source Intranet - Social, Extensible, Cloud Ready
>Get Started Now And Turn Your Intranet Into A Collaboration Platform
>http://p.sf.net/sfu/ExoPlatform
>_______________________________________________
>Bitcoin-development mailing list
>Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.